of georgia and representative chris van hollen of maryland, the lead democrat on the committee. and we'll take your questions about the political role of religious groups in the u.s. our guest is robert jones, the c.e.o. and founder of the public religion research institute. "washington journal" is next. >> well, the president was in the northern virginia suburbs of washington, d.c. yesterday to announce a new mortgage relief plan, which could affect 3.5 million homeowners. we want to hear from you this morning on the "washington journal," your reaction to a new mortgage relief plan and more broadly what role the federal government, in your view, should play in mortgage relief and in housing industry.

use twitter, and no hyphen if you want to make a comment, continue the conversation on our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. here's the front page of the "washington times" newspaper, obama floats second plan for underwater homes, only three months after proposing a mortgage relief plan. president obama went back to the drawing board with another proposal paid for by a new tax on big banks that would allow millions of underwater borrowers to refinance home loans. and on the jump page, goes on

to say -- here is the president as the day. >> it is not designed for those who had acted irresponsibly but it can help those who acted responsibly. not those who bought multiple homes just as badly and let the house and make a quick but but it can help to those who have

acted responsibly. this plan will help the millions of responsible homeowners who make their payments on time but find themselves trapped under falling home values or wrapped up in red tape. if you are ineligible for refinancing just because you are under water on your mortgage, through no fault of your own, this plan changes that. you will be able to refinance at a lower rate. you will be able to save hundreds of dollars a month that you could put back in your pocket. or you could choose those savings to rebuild equities in your homes which will help most underwater homeowners, back up for air more quickly. host: "the washington times" --

now, and to hear your voice is on the president's new mortgage relief plan we will begin with john from maryland, republican

here in the suburbs. caller: i feel that the program is needed. the way the president is approaching it, we know it is not going to pass, which leaves me feeling insulted because i have been trying to refinance it. almost 800, the top of the scale, and i pay my mortgage and i know many people just walk away from there to have been living in the house for years and that have not paid their mortgage in years and i paid mind. the sort of thing that went on when i got my mortgage. did not act responsibly at its -- if i was able to refinance and take advantage of the lower interest rates, it would help me and my family. i think that my party needs to take note of this, that this is an election year and we will be watching, both of us who have acted responsibly and are outside the upside down. watching whether it is an

adversarial-type reaction rather than finding a solution for. host: gasoline is a democrat in indiana, near chicago -- kathleen. caller: i just want to say kudos to president obama. again, he is the ending up for us regular folks. we have done nothing wrong. i have been a responsible homeowner. but with the fees and everything, we have been too afraid to refinance -- but here we go again. the republicans, as usual, god forbid we can't put any tax on the big banks, can't ask them to do it. whos remember, folks, caused this mess in the first

place. big banks. what did mitt romney say to do? let the people foreclosed, let them be foreclosed on, get them out of the house and let the investors take care of it. really for the middle class? president obama has done nothing but try to help all of us, all of us. host: a couple of facebook comments. this is from edmonds. -- edmund. and victoria comments -- on our independent line is built from wichita falls, texas. good morning. caller: i on one of those who has managed to make the payments. our business has declined the last few years thanks to the folks on wall street, the major

banks. but at the same time, i know a lot of people out there who are in the situation where their incomes have declined, the credit scores have declined some, but yet they are still capable of making their payments. if they could refinance at the lower rates, it would be huge. it would be enough to help pay their children's education cost at a junior college. i cannot see any reason why -- and i come from a military family -- but i cannot see a reason why, if we can spend $10 billion a month in iraq, why can't we help those people, the major banks that got bailed out $5 billion to $10 billion to help solve the problem, i just don't get it. host: back to "the washington times," this is how the president's plan would be structured. it would allow borrower is current on their payments to

refinance. the protect -- projected average savings, $3,600 a year and implement a homeowner bill of rights, including a simple, standard mortgage disclosure form and full disclosure of all fees and penalties. host: speaker boehner reacted to what the president had to say yesterday. >> how many times have we done this. we have done it at least four

times where there is some new government program to help homeowners struggle with their mortgages. none of these programs have worked. i don't know why anyone would think this next idea is going to work. all they have done is the lay the clearing of the markets. the sooner the market clears and we understand where the price is really our, it will be the most important thing we can do in order to improve home values around the country. host: lancaster, virginia. roger on the republican line. what do you think about the president's new proposal and the government's role? host: i would like to see the government changed the structure the way the loans are made. peso much interest up front and then principal later. this needs to be altered a look of it. i think this would make things more affordable.

refinancing homes that are under water -- yes, this is part of the problem. the banks will not allow it, but that is the government mandate. also, speaker boehner is correct that the market does need to settle, but how you phrase it. this has come time and time again, if true. however, he needs to look at these proposals before the refuses them. don't refuse them until you see one that works. how do you know the difference? host: columbus, ohio, john is an independent. caller: i think it is a good thing. i am an average, hard-working americans. i make 38,000 a year. i have been a my house almost 11 years. i pay 8%. yes, it would help me out tremendously. it would put more money into the economy for you guys.

thank you. host: maryland. angela, a democrat. you are on "washington journal." caller: i am going to the process through my mortgage servicer. i bought my house in 2006 with 6.75% interest and now it is going to be 4.75% and i will save about $325 a month, and it is a huge help. up until now i have not been able to refinance because even though i have perfect credit, never missed a payment on my mortgage, when the mortgage collapsed -- mortgage collapse and housing values went under water, i did not have equity at this point, so this way i can take advantage of the lower interest rates. i am so happy i am able to do this. i think the reason the program has not been more successful is there is not enough advertising of it. people who do not pay attention

to politics probably do not know the program exists and mortgage companies cannot really advertise it. host: you went through the government mortgage relief program. caller: i and go into:harp. there is 2.0 got in march. my loan to value has a deep 105%, so i have to get an appraisal and if it is not within that i will have to put off until march to do the harp 2.0 where they raise the loan to value ratios. host: a different process? -- difficult process? caller: it is easy. i went through my mortgage servicer. i did everything electronically through the internet now i am waiting to have the underwriting process finished and they will let me know when the appraisal will be due. host: there are -- attached to

what? caller: there are, but it can be financed in. host: a little more from the president. [video clip] >> the programs we have put forward have not worked in the scale we hope. not as many people have taken advantage of it as we wanted. mortgage rates are as low as they have been in half a century. and when that happens usually homeowners block to refinance their mortgages. so, a lot of people take advantage of it and save a lot of money. this time to many families have not been able to take advantage of the low rates because of falling prices locked them out of the market. they were under water, made it more difficult for them to finance. then you have the fees involved with refinancing. a lot of people said even though i would like to be obviously cutting down my monthly payments, the banks just not being really encouraged. host: other news from politico this morning, sources trump set

to endorse newt. this is also from politico --

back to the mortgage relief plan. ohio. bob is a republican. caller: went through this a couple of years ago. and non-profit organization did the paper work and stuff. they said, we will get to you. we have to get to the ones who are losing their homes. what it was was a waste of time. i mean it, if you don't have something out there that works, like what the other programs have been. that is all i am saying. host: it was a waste of time for you to go through that process with a non-profit? caller: yes. they did the paperwork on it.

they helped on the paper work. we both lost our jobs, and if they don't have a plan out there that works, they are not helping the people. look at all that went down on the process and what has been lost. i feel it is just more bold -- excuse my language. this could appreciate you not using that -- host: appreciate you not using that term this early in the morning. caller: i will let go a little of the same sentiment as bob. the president, watching him just a minute ago, talking about more people did not take advantage of it because they did not know about it. a lot of people trying to take advantage of the, such as myself. the program does not work. in typical example of the government trying something it

has no business being in. i am amazed a caller a few minutes ago warning to espouse whatever her left wing view is about romney and the republicans and the party of no. this is a clear example of the president now pointing fingers -- i mean, trying to blame banks and housing crisis when it was his own party through chris dodd and barney frank who got us in this mess. the banks cannot get us here, the democratic party did, through, especially again dodd and frank. it is like i stole the cooking but i want to blame the cookie manufacturer that the cooking was available to me. i am just amazed. and my own personal experience, lost my job, attempted to go through a government program to save a house and i lost the house in spite of the program. it is just more example of the government needs to stay out of what the markets can correct themselves on and handled and

do. host: from "politico" this morning. rick santorum to rouse the president by six points and obama also be to newt gingrich and ron paul by 12 points and 10 points, respectively. this is an "the hill" newspaper this morning.

back to your calls on the president's new mortgage relief proposal. flint, michigan. curtis, a democrat.

caller: i am in the same situation. my house, it goes now buy about $75,000 and underwater about $90,000 and i can get no help. i went through the program, it does not do no good. your pension is too much because i got shot up in the military and i get a decent pension. i think it is wrong. i just want to refinance where i am able to take care of my family. with the why go? where do i start? thank you. host: thank you, curtis. a lot of politics and policy happening now in washington. it 10:00 a.m. this morning, ben bernanke will be in front of the house budget committee where doug elmendorf was just a day ago. chairman bernanke will be giving testimony and taking q&a with

members of the committee and it will be live at 10:00 a.m. this morning on c-span 3. and on c-span2 at 8:00 a.m. this morning, the national prayer breakfast. the present will be speaking, and that will be on c-span2. bakersfield, california, is our next call. jim, my screen says jimbo. caller: that is correct, peter. thank you so much. i am a protest vote for buddy roemer. so i will say i do not have a horse in this race. but i am signing papers today to make an offer on a house. i just want to encourage everyone to work with your credit union. but i feel like i am getting cheated in both ways. i just paid off this one house i am living in right now. it should be worth $120,000. that is what it cost to build it. i could maybe get $60,000 for

it. right now what is really weird is that freddie mac and fannie mae are underwriting almost all the loans and they are right now stifling the flow of foreclosures. i am getting hurt both ways because my house and -- i got cheated on the value of it right now and right now they are not allowing housing values to go rural so i can get a better value. but withholding the flow of foreclosures -- and these houses are being empty for years and you destroy a house by leaving it and see. it is one of the worst things you could absolutely do to it. but in know what, it is strange for me to actually say this, but i decided that at this point, freddie mac and fannie mae should actually sell it all off to the open market. the government should stay out of it, with the exception of first-time homeowners who always

need help because the private market will not be willing to -- will not ever get a home. but one thing i really wanted to say -- peter, let me make one final -- they are forgetting no serious criminal investigations have been done due to a lack of due diligence and underwriting standards and the bush people set the table for it. ok, yes, barney frank and his significant other and freddie mac had a huge role in the setting the table up, the standards. host: we will have to leave it there. appreciate you calling in. california comments on our facebook page --

that is some of the facebook comments. if you would like to make a comment or continue the conversation after this first segment is over, facebook.com/cspan is the address. from "politico," members most likely to call it quits.

-- bill of more members young of florida.

representative heath shuler, democrat of north carolina. they are predicting he will not run again. setting the same thing about the 80-year old democrat pete stark. back to your calls about the proposed mortgage relief plan. bob from baton rouge, republican line. caller: i am wondering about, like when they had that two- month extension, there was a law and their about me -- the fee for mortgages. in other words, any time they made a payment they would charge them a fee. that is how they were going to pay for the tax payroll.

i am just wondering if that is still in effect or whether it went out two months. i thought that was the reason they have the two-month extension. host: thank you for your call. some tweet on the topic. here is gary -- monty says --

landover, maryland. richard on the independent line. you are on "washington journal." caller: people have to understand, this whole holding situation was it after they've repealed the glass-steagall act and it is another way to buy votes for the president. the best thing the president can do for the american people who are on the water is to allow the people to write the underwater value of the bang on their taxes. you can write off bank losses. you should be able to write off being ripped off by the repeal of the glass-steagall act on your taxes. people got robbed. there should be it allows -- there should be and allowing of writing off. host: from "the new york times" this morning. filmmaker arrested on capitol hill.

and then a follow-up from "politico" this morning. here is an coulter's column this morning for published in "human events."

so, if you want to read more from ann colter's column you can go to humanevents.com. maryland. john on the republican line. what do you think of the most recent proposal? caller: here we go again what the democrats social engineering sticking their noses in it. the last thing they want you to remember is the community reinvestment act. if all of these democrats calling in and running interference for him and thinking he is the next best

thing since sliced bread, it is just going to be more spending, more taxing, until finally the middle-class is nonexistent. that is where he is headed for votes. no amount of democrats calling up on the democrat or republican line -- not swinging all of the independents their way.

in "the wall street journal" on this issue, they write -- new hampshire -- ron, democrat. i just want to say this -- caller: i desantis say despite what the last republican said, i was helped by the obama program. i just want to say if you are having problems with your mortgage, stick with it. it takes months, it really does. a mortgage holders, they are not in a big hurry to help.

i would have lost my home without the modifications, definitely. there is no worse feeling for a family than not knowing for months whether not they will try to move the family out of their homes. i have two permanently disabled family members that live here. we finally got the house where we have stair lifts and to where the house is accommodative to my disabled family members. and moving out of here would have just been deadly for all of us. it would have split our family up. and for any republican who calls up and says this is some sort of publicity stunt or that obama is just trying to get votes, i don't think so. the obama mortgage modification help to me, and i think it could help a lot of other people. it is not easy, believe me. i had to go through three of them before i finally got this one.

the first one i went through, i lost two contracts back in 2008 and my income was lowered, so we went through a mortgage modification. they sent it out to was. i lost another two contracts so my income went down again and had to do another modification. it is not easy. just stick with it. it is really all i have to say. it is not a publicity stunt. there are people here who really need help and nothing worse than a family fixing to get kicked out of their home. we have lived here over 10 years. host: we got a point. thank you for calling in. darrell tweets in -- a couple of more hearings c-span as covering today, beginning with a doug elmendorf, who will be in the senate budget committee today. we will be covering that because the house and senate are both scheduled to be in session.

not sure when it is going to air but you can watch a online at c- span.org. a couple of more hearings we are covering. fast and furious, eric holder, the attorney general, will be at a house oversight and government reform committee, and we will be covering that as well, along with the hearing on mf global bankruptcy, and that is the house financial-services subcommittee on oversight. they will be working on the mf global situation. and both of those hearings you can watch live on the c- span.org. fec reporting period ended january 31, so a lot articles about money and politics. the front-page of "the financial times" --

that is the front page of "the financial times." inside "usa today" --

that is "usa today's" take on it. here is a chart that shows individual donors to campaigns. you can see president obama has well over 25,000 individual donations so far. and here are the republicans, down here, under 5000 each. the blue line it is mitt romney, a trending up but still well below the president's at this time. massachusetts, sandra, you are on "washington journal." caller: i was just wondering why they can't -- i am at 6%, and people that are like us, we are locked in at 6%. and we need it dropped down to the current mortgage that they are giving everybody across the country, except for us who have

been in four years, so that we can repair our homes. that would give material and work to other people. we need help. host: what is your current situation? caller: right now we are at 6%. host: are you under water, behind your mortgage? caller: not behind at all. never have been and never will be. we are at 6%. we tried once to refinance and they said no at that time did they wanted $500 down, which we really did not have. it is wrong. we do not have the money. we are just trying to keep above water. host: kelly is a republican in kentucky. you are on. caller: i hope i can get my point across before this fellow cuts me off a bank.

americans need to wake up. this is a plan to divide and conquer the american people. if you know, the republicans and democrats, they can solve these problems in no time if they really wanted to. it is just a plan to keep us divided. gay people again straight people, republicans against democrats, for people against the rich people. it is about nothing but divide and conquer. i said -- suggest the american people wake up. host: we will leave it there, kelly. this is "the new york times'" fourth editorial this morning.

dallas, david. democrat. caller: i want to say, we were talking about the obama plan to help people refinance. but then you hear the republican plan for mitt romney and you hear it from john boehner, basically their plan is to throw another 3 million americans out of their homes so those on wall street can come in and buy the properties for pennies on the dollar and make more fortunes than they already have made. it and i think it is time for people to wake up to the fact that these republicans are just backing wall street and not care less about millions of american citizens. host: from "the new york times" this morning -- washington state

senate passes gay marriage bill, 28-21. the front page of "usa today" this morning. a couple of emails on the topic of the president's new mortgage relief plan -- this is dave in st. pete, florida. the last call on this topic comes from michigan. bubble on our independent line. you are on the air.

caller: good morning. how are you? i wanted to say that obama is doing a really good job for the american people, and also on the the new mortgage relief plan he is proposing, i think it's a great idea. we took advantage of it last time, we did a streamline. my question is, i hope you are able to do with it again because once you do a streamline you can only do it one time. if he allows us to do it again, when interest rates drop, it would be awesome. another thing also that we found out is when we did it, the tax assessment on the property, i think was a higher value, and what happened was three months down the road there was not enough in an escrow so far payments went back up just for the taxes. i think the fee does one thing he has to do both. he has to lower the taxes. that way we can put the money back into the economy.

host: we will leave it there. here is the front page of "the boston globe" this morning. the funeral procession for former mayor kevin white. he had been battling alzheimer's disease. is senator john kerry was there, the ball patrick was in attendance. -- senator john kerry was there and duval patrick. coming up in about 45 minutes, democratic representative from maryland, former dccc chairman chris van hollen will be here, taking your calls. but first, we will hear from congressman would all, -- woodall, a freshman on the budget committee. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> c-span's "road to the white house" coverage takes you to the candidate events. >> my leadership cut taxes 19 times and cast over 800 vetoes. we balance the budget every single year and we kept our schools first in the nation. my leadership will and the obama era and begin a new era of american prosperity. >> the mess up in washington -- they created a mess. they have given us a lousy foreign policy, allows the budget, and they are giving us a lousy recession but the wonderful things are happening in the grass roots. people are stunned to realize is the problem is too much government. we need more personal liberty. >> if you are prepared to do what it takes to make sure that we change direction, not just the presidency, but the congress, the bureaucracy, the

judges, the policies, so that the entire system gets on the right track, so that america can give our children and grandchildren a more prosperous, safer, and better future -- >> and follow the candidates as they meet with voters. >> wonderful, nice to meet you again. thank you. thank you so much. make sure jose knows how to find you. >> go ahead. >> and use our web site to view recent video from the campaign trail and to read the latest postings from the candidates, political reporters, and other viewers from social media sites at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> this weekend on book tv, literary life in beaumont, texas, saturday, starting at noon eastern, inside the book bazaar, the owner of the challenges of running an independent bookstore. and author j. lee thompson on

teddy roosevelt's yearlong post- presidential expedition to africa and europe. and we follow presidential hopefuls thomas dewey and harry truman through election day in "1948." and -- >> it follows these two muslim women of about the same age who became complete opposite and it tries to sort of tell the story of the war on terror through their stories. >> and author looks at two women on opposite ends of muslim women rights, is long, and the war on terror. sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. book tv every weekend on c- span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to introduce you now to representative robert would have, a republican from georgia, he is a fresh and -- rob woodall, a republican from georgia.

he was former chief of staff of the congressman, and has taken his seat. here is "the washington post" -- obama proposes mortgage relief. what did you think of the president's proposal yesterday, his no mortgage relief? guest: i did not think much of the first three and i do not think much of the fourth of all submitted it is clear to me in georgia that the government calls that the problem. it is not the solution. and if we would get the government out of the lending business, the banks in my community would get right back in. if we have always done these kinds of things as a community. refinanced your neighbors. and i do not believe that creating yet a fourth round of government interference in that market is going to do anything to get this industry back on track. host: how affected is your district by the foreclosure and mortgage problems? guest: we did not have despite that the las vegases of the world we had but it was the

driver, the county my district, the driver of the economy. when the boom busted, it was a tremendous drain on our community and folks were upside down, struggling. our foreclosure rates are high. but what we are seeing is inventory that is locked in there in the marketplace because folks do not know when the bottom as when to come. the government is propping up the bottom and everyone in the marketplace says if you just let the bottom income, we will be able to get this private capital backing and. i think these government solutions of the wrong direction, prolonging the pain. it is the pain severe in my community? yes. but if we can just find an end to that pain, the better day begins tomorrow. host: as a member of the budget committee, what did you learn from cbo head doug elmendorf yesterday when he testified? host: he said in number of

things that were interesting, peter. if you go back just a year ago when he made the same testimony, he said he expected the government would spend a little over $1.10 trillion in discretionary spending in 2013. said it would be $200 billion less -- with just one year of republicans in the house, we were able to see a swing in spending, getting close to 20%. that is tremendously important to me. it is why folks elected me. what else he said, though, peter, is if we do nothing, if we leave the law in place as it is, we will see taxes rise to the highest level in the last 50 years. and what americans are going to get for paying the highest tax burden in the last 50 years is not paying down one penny in debt and not even eliminating the annual deficit. it is not revenue that is challenged, it is spending that is the challenge.

he made the point clearly yesterday. host: some of the other points he made -- real economic growth is projected to be 2.2% this year, down to 1% in 2013 and unemployment rate coming down to 8.8% this year, up to 91% in 2013 and down to 8.7% in 2014. it the deficit for fiscal year 2012, a little over a trillion dollars in total debt, expected to reach $16 trillion in 2012. when you see the numbers, what your thoughts? guest: i would say to your viewers, for folks tired of the partisan nonsense, and they want a good evenhanded view of what is happening here they should go back and look at any of doug elmendorf's proposals. he is as good as they get in giving the fair minded explanation because everything is a trade off.

what he said yesterday, talking about things are better today but they will get worse tomorrow, is every penny in stimulus that we borrow, every penny in bailout money that we borrowed, those things were all good for the economy in the moment that they happens but they are a drag on the economy in the years thereafter. and we are getting into those drag years. we have got all the benefits. not as much benefit as the president promised. but we got all the benefit there is going to be from the bailout and stimulus and it is all dragged from here on out. host: one of the other issues is the tax cuts from george bush that the administration. your fellow member, a democrat from texas, asked doug elmendorf about the bush tax cut. [video clip] >> extending those expiring tax cuts for a few years provides a boost to the economy during those few years but will by the end of the decade and beyond to be a drag on gdp because the

affects of the accumulating debt in crowding out private investment out with the beneficial effects of lower tax rates. that is what we showed in this testimony you are referring to from 2010 in the senate, and consistent with the analysis we presented in the outlook. >> it sounds really great and political speeches, but the actual effect of extending the bush tax cuts over the next decade is to reduce economic growth by between 1% and 2% over the decade? >> there are a range of estimates, but depending on basically what you do in your economic assumptions. >> all of it is negative in extending those tax cuts. host: congressman, we would like to get your reaction to what doug elmendorf had to say about the tax cuts. guest: if you want to the whole testimony he gave yesterday, what you see is he never gives any policy advice. what he said is exactly right,

if the law remains of the same and what we do is we take revenue out of the system and run up more debt, that is going to be a drag. he is absolutely right. conversely, if the law remains the same and we continue to do the spending, that is also going to be a drag. what lloyd did not say is if we continue those bush tax cut and those obama tax cut, if we continue all the tax cuts, even the ones that expired in 2011, america's tax burden over the next 10 years will still be higher than the 50-year average. if we extend everything, americans will still be paying more. revenue is not the challenge here. what has changed over the 50- year window is this federal government is spending more. as doug elmendorf made clear yesterday, that is the trade-off you have to make. yes, we either have to raise taxes or we have to reduce spending, and candidly, to get $16 children of deficit in control, we have to do both. host: what is the baseline

reform act? guest: it is an exciting proposal, one actually that louis gomer from texas has been pushing, and we have a budget chairman and leadership that wants to bring it to the floor. what it says is this -- we can't assume the federal government will just continue spending more and more and more. when the cbo does its reports, it looks at current law and says if these laws remain in place, what will the economic outlook look like. with one exception, and that of this question of spending. what -- about $1 trillion dollars approve rates. in that category the look and say we see congress and for a long time and congress usually spends more so we will assume they will spend more each year at the rate of inflation. that builds and a bias towards more spending. it leads to a conversation that i know your callers talk about all the time, is when are the cuts not really a cut, how can washington spent $10 this year and $12 next year and say they

are reducing spending. it is because of these artificial insulators, and we are removing them. from here on out, if this bill pass as some of this baseline reform act of fit will always be true going forward that if we spend $10 this year and we spend $11 next year, that is a $1 increase. common sense for folks back home, but it creates this washington doublespeak. we will eliminate the double speak. host: jimmy carter 0-based budget proposal? guest: a relation and that we think folks have to justify any increase biggie -- they get. the federal budget is so big, that to really take a back to 0, to start from scratch, would be people work nightmare. it is a step in that direction to say if you justify that last year, we know you will have similar needs of this year but if whenever those needs are, we are not going to assume that are going to grow. candidly, it is what these congresses have seen. we spent $1.90 trillion in

discretionary spending in 2010. we brought this down, this freshman class did, and brought it down again to -- in 2012. america has the man that we change of the trajectory of washington's spending and this bill is one more step. host: we put a lot of topics on the table. our guest is representative rob woodall, a freshman, republican from georgia. michigan, go ahead, michael. republican dick caller: good morning, gentleman. i just wanted to make a comment about the early 2000's. remember, you cannot turn a radio or tv without hearing a budget and add to try to get people to go down and refinance -- re-mortgage the house and everybody was mortgaging the house and now when it goes bad they want the taxpayers to pay for it. i would like when somebody gets elected to president, go to

washington and just slap the federal government down pretty get them off our backs and out of our lives. thank you. guest: i guest: i could not agree with you more. if you are a legislator, what do you do? your propensity is to legislate. the longer you let washington stay here, the more activity happens. the stock market is always up when congress is out of session because the markets know nothing that is going to happen. we have to get out of the business of solving everyone's problems, and get local communities back into that business. you should evaluate based on how many regulations they retail for you. host: janice is a democrat. maryland. good morning.

caller: good morning. can i start from the previous president blowing this economy up as he went out the door? when he came in, he cut the budget for their regulatory agencies across the board. that meant that whatever republicans said about the garden and not working was probably going to come true. if you do not put money and people there, how will they do with their supposed to do? i am a retired real-estate agent. i would not be able to sell properties the way they were sold in the last 10 years. i could not qualify people to begin with, and even if i did, i could not get them past underwriting, and even if they got past underwriting, private

insurance companies should not have been taking this blown up. the system was corrupt. guest: you are right. the question is, how do you prevent that from happening? i would say it is having good people in the marketplace. as you said, you would never have engaged in those activities. we will always have bad actors. the question is it did d activities of the government in the late -- did the activities , ithe government in 1990's did that over hit the market? i would argue that it did. if you get the government out of those decisions, it is private decision makers. we will have winners, and we will have losers, but it will not fall on the back of taxpayers. host: the next call for

congressman what all comes from warren, mich. on our democratic line. caller: first of all, you have passed a drug bill under the republican leadership which was a bonus for big pharmaceuticals. then you had this tax cut for rich people that bullish test. then you had two wars, and now we are supposed to believe you will set the ship right. but me say this about the 2010 elections. i believe that this voter fraud that you are working on does not even compare with the massive electronic voting fraud that went on in 2012 -- 2010. i notice republicans do very well in voting machines said have no records. that is just effect. early voting in 2010 was democratic, but we're supposed to believe that republicans

swamped the polls and some of -- somehow overpowered the democratic vote? i do not believe it. i believe you are a massive fraud. guest: i am a fan of those old- fashioned, poke your ballot, but we have switched to its electronic in georgia, too. there's plenty of blame to go around. it is shameful that under a republican president and republican congress we created the biggest entitlement since 1985 with medicare part b. i want to challenge you to think about this -- it is not we in washington, it is us in america -- we are all on the hook. this freshman class, this is not a bunch of political insiders. this is folks from back home who

wanted to make a difference. we are in this together, and the less we talk about whose fault it is, and the more we talk about our ideas for getting out of it, the better we will be as a nation. guest: said lee, the answer is i do not think so. we did a great budget last year, and we will build on that and do more this year. i do not get the sense from the senate that they are interested in doing that. the budget is a moral document. it tells the country where your values are. it has been over 1000 days since the senate has shared with america what its vision is for the future of america. it is a tremendous responsibility. i hope because of the budget

control act the senate will give a serious effort, but i do not believe they will, but i believe the white house will give a serious effort and we will see that in two weeks. host: the house budget committee will present the budget when? guest: in march, it will be on the floor for final passage. host: with the democrats have input? guest: the budget committee is a unique committee in that folks really work together. i have the baseline reform act coming to the floor today. there is a line item veto but chris van hollen has introduced. there is a great deal of discussion, but the democrats

have different spending priorities, and this will be one of the most dynamic budget sessions we have seen in our lifetime. host: i do not know if you saw this article this morning -- congressman john boehner and eric cantor call 8 troops. -- call a truce. guest: when i speak to the speaker and the majority leader icy two folks concerned about america and are working as well together as any to leaders possibly could. i do not agree with the calls they make, but i believe they're doing the best they can in a challenging set of circumstances. host: tom is a republican in florida. caller: 5 two questions. we see the divergence between federal salaries and private

salaries published, but we never see anything published about the difference between a federal worker until retirement program, and how much money -- federal worker's retirement program, and how much it would take in a federal ira. is there any way that could be done? my second question is there is a movement in congress to get some some bowls past. -- bowles-simpson test. i know it is popular. it is being written up. even if it is written up, could someone like harry reid just stopped it as an individual, or can it be put on the floor against, perhaps, the misgivings of someone like harry reid or

nancy pelosi? guest: i would encourage you to go to www.cbo.gov. you have heard us talking about douglas elmendorf, who testified in front of the budget committee yesterday. on the front page of the cbo web page you will see a report on except what you are asking, federal salaries, their benefits package, and compares that to the private sector. what you will find is that if you are on the low-end of the education spectrum, you will do a lot better working for the federal government. if you are on the high-to nato, you will do less well working for the -- the high-end, you will do less well working for the federal government. on bowles-simpson, there is a lot of agreement. there is not a lot of agreement that we should test the whole

thing. everybody likes some part of it. when we created the super committee, the joint selection committee, it was the first time that if the committee have produced a report like bowles- simpson, it would have been guaranteed to get a vote on both the house floor and the senate floor. can one man holding up in the senate? the answer is yes. we went around that process with the budget control act, and the joint committee produced at some of the nothing at all, a tremendous disappointment for me and they said they for the country. the only way -- for me, and a sad day for the country. the only way to get something to the floor is unanimous consent. one person can stop that process. look in the republican budget, and you will see a lot of

components from bowles-simpson. host: when a friend, in mobile, alabama, good morning. caller: i want to comment about the mortgage crash terrapin -- mortgage crash. i was a mortgage broker in atlanta from 2004, to 2007, and i saw the the lack of oversight by the sec, allowing mortgage companies to create their own way of making mortgages without any kind of repercussions about whether they are legal or not, allowed them to basically do anything they wanted to do. thus, we had the mortgage bubble burst because freddie mac sold worthless paper. another thing i want to ask you reaching all the congressman that ran in the last election --

ask you -- all the congressman that ran in the last election ran with the pretense of creating jobs, and all the bills have failed. i think the republican regime is more after destroying president obama than doing what is right for the country. guest: you hit on a number of things. about the mortgage crisis -- it is ok if a private company makes bad decisions. it is ok as consumers make bad decisions. it is unfortunate for those families when they do, but freedom means freedom to make bad decisions. what made the mortgage crisis a crisis is the federal government guaranteed those bad decisions. it is not a problem that people go out and get mortgages or fail to repay them, but it is a problem that they fail to repay,

and you, the taxpayer are on the hook. when we get the taxpayer off the hook, we do not see these over heated bubbles that we saw in the last decade. we have a fundamental disagreement with the other side of the aisle on how jobs are created. i do not think the federal government creates jobs. i think it destroys jobs. you will see an unemployment rate debt is lower today than it was when i was elected. i do not take credit. small businessmen and women lowered the unemployment rate. if we can eliminate the uncertainty, whether it is the president's health care bill, cap and trade, the private sector will do what it has always done for america, get it back on track. i do not want to destroy the president. i think the president is an honorable man, but i disagree

with the president's honorable man, but i disagree with the president's policies, and i am worried that his policies are taking the country in the wrong direction so fast that we will not be able to recover. it is not a personal issue with the president. it is an american issue about which path is best. host: tracy from sugar land, texas e-mails -- because a lot of good ideas come out of texas. i happen to agree with you. i voted no on the payroll tax cut extension. for the first time, we have said

social security is not something that you pay into and get a benefit out of. that is the way we understood it. we are changing the dynamic to say you do not have to pay today, and will give just as much tomorrow. we know there is no free lunch. i co-sponsored a bill the says if you choose not to pay in this year, you will have to wait two months to receive your social security on the back end. if you do not want to pay mixture, you will have to wait two more months. something like that, with the american people decide their own fate, i can support. we cannot continue to tell america there are free lunches of there. america cannot the promises it cannot keep any longer. host: representative with all

that his law degree from the university of georgia. -- what all got his law degree from the university of georgia. they're all, you are on -- darrel, you are on. the payroll tax cut will help us if we just go ahead and go through with it. the republicans always try to say that if we go through and try to fix things that it will hurt us. it is going to hurt them because it is hurting the money that they get. it did not take that much for them to put that in the process, but when it comes time to fix it, the first thing they start saying is it is going to hurt

us. will not hurt us. it will hurt their money. guest: i have to disagree. this brings the bond between the american worker and what they pay into social security, and what they get out of social security. it is the first step toward making social security welfare program instead of the pension program. i think that is bad for the elderly, and your generation, in my generation. if we need to get more money in pockets, we can do that and the income tax ledger. the fact that this is going to hasten the bankruptcy of social security is troubling to me. if we are going to get this country back on track, are we going to have to make changes to social security? are we going to have to renegotiate the social security

contract with younger generations? yes, we are. is it an option? yes. do i think it is a step in the wrong direction? yes. host: congressman, communist dog asks are you a tea party republican, and will you campaign as one? guest: the tea party believes in limited government, free trade, and fiscal discipline. my question is why is everyone not a tea party member? those three things unite us as a country, not divide us. the media does a great job of trying to portray the tea party as something negative. if that is the case in your part of the world, i would say come visit our part of the world, because what we see is

patriotic, economic, freedom- loving americans. they do not come to me and say congressman, i want you to do this for us. they say get out of our way. if we get the federal government out of our way, we will rebuild america. what is wrong with america is washington, d.c. i endorse the philosophy. host: debbie and our republican from tennessee. caller: i heard you say earlier about the good people there in the country and even those in washington -- i have a difficult problem understanding how it is the good people will get us heart of the problem we are in. i believe -- get us out of the payroll -- problem we are in.

i believe the payroll tax is headed in the wrong direction, but i do not believe there is anyone that can step up with integrity, a good, internal moral law, and has the right direction they have been able to present to anyone. look at a huge percentage -- we talk about unanimous consent, and how many good people are making bad decisions, and we go through all of that. if you are one of those good isple, then let's hear what that makes you and causes you to know that you can present to watch said there are more like you -- to us that there are more like you. tell me the reason i should believe you are a good person. guest: what lift me up every day

with this freshman class, and it is not just republicans, democrats and republicans alike, folks do not care if they get reelected again. what they care about is moving the country in the right direction. imagine this -- folks actually believe they do not need to do what is politically popular. they need to do what is good for america. when you do what is good for america, it turns out to be good politics. when i talk to folks that are worried about whether they are succeeding for the folks back home instead of for the next election, i feel we are on the right track. we have to be careful on blaming everything on washington, d.c. washington, d.c., is a collection of representatives that come from back home.

if you do not like the results you're getting out of washington, d.c., take a good, hard look at the people you are sending their. host: this e-mail from chris in illinois. guest: that is a fair question. i believe a thing has to be on the table while we make these tough spending decisions, and the defense department is on the table. leon panetta knows the defense department will have to take a -- play a role. we will see savings from changes that we make domestically. the defense department has asked for a of the base realignment closure process to shrink their footprint in the country. there are no free lunches, as i said earlier.

anyone that tells you we will be able to spend on all of our priorities is selling you a bill of goods. i have a copy of the constitution in my pocket. it gives us limited responsibilities in washington. one of the responsibilities is providing for the national defence. it does not require us to provide everyone with a house, sort of mortgage issues, bailout wall street, all of these things the federal government is working on today. defense is one of the things the constitution requires us to do. as we make these decisions, will defense be on the table? yes, it will. host: miami. you're on with congressman rob woodall. caller: you say government should get out of the way, why did government get involved in the first place?

the banks were not blown into equally-qualified minorities -- to equally-qualified minorities. what happened? the government got involved for a good reason, and this was perverted into a quota system. as an example, i want to do something that bush published in august, 2004, and part of this is part of the ownership society and it says expanding homeownership -- "president bush issued the homeownership challenge to close the gap between the homeownership rates of whites and minorities, and also establish the goal of increasing minority homeowners

by 5.4 million homeowners. the rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all-time high of 69.2%. minority homeownership set a new record in the second quarter. what do you think of bullish's sh's go?bull guest: i disagreed. i thought it was bad policy. big banks discriminate based on racial considerations? that is against the law, it has always been, and it continues to be. it's bad behavior is going down, if illegal activity is going on, we have to find it and prosecuted. to arbitrarily decide that things are not equal, and we have to equalize and, they are on equal for a lot of different reasons. homeowner ships -- home

ownership rates have been different based on the culture you live in. the problem was getting involved in the home ownership business. this problem came from democrat and republican administrations. i would encourage you to look at a report put out by the federal bank. what it said was when you are considering income, you should consider unemployment checks and welfare checks. we want to get more people into homes. i would say we are not doing the american family a favor when we give them home loans based on the amount of their welfare check and their unemployment check. if that is an unsustainable model.

we should not make you buy a home if you are on welfare and unemployment. folks put all their hopes and dreams into a home, and they lost their home because they could not sustain it. in the name of doing good in washington, d.c., we do a whole lot of dead. if we would just leave these decisions to american -- whole lot of bad. the market.er-heate renting is ok. driving home ownership levels of to the highest in history led to the bubble. host: donald trump to endorse newt gingrich. have you endorsed? guest: i have not. i'm a fair tax supporter. i think that would get the government all of our lives, put

our economy on steroids, and get all the lobbyists out of this town, and i am looking for a presidential candidate that will support that proposal. we had that in herman cain, we had that in mike huckabee, but we do not have the in the four candidates on the platform. host: john is a republican in san francisco. caller: when president clinton left office there was a surplus, and president bush came in and he decided to cut taxes and give money back to us, citizens. what it did was the opposite, because now we are deeply in bdebt because of the unpaid

prescription program, two wars, the housing bubble that bush told us to go out and spend like crazy because of. it is ridiculous. i am a republican, the whatbush did was put this country in a hole that now you expect us to get out of, and the thing is we bailed out the banks, but they're not helping us out. guest: i would like to disagree with you, but i cannot. i would have voted no on the bailout had i been here. we have to stand up and do the things that are right.

it is not a republican or democratic issue. it is what do you believe about america? are you write about us being in better times when clinton left office than when bush left --ice next absolutely prepar office? absolutely. we are several trillion dollars in deficit. it is not a republican, democrat issue. it is a what do we want for america issue. i do not want bailouts. i want freedom. that is what my constituents ask me. they never say go to washington and solve my problems. they say go to washington and protect my freedoms, and i will be able to solve those problems back home. host: finally, this tweet --

guest: there is an absolutely true statement. bowles-simpson does have tax increases in net, and the republicans have always said revenue can be part of the solution. i brought them to focus all the time back home who want to participate in the solution but they do not want to throw good money after bad. if we can present a credible plan that takes us back to economic stability, folks will be willing to chip in. host: we have been talking with representative rob woodall, a republican from georgia, a member of the budget committee as well. we appreciate your time guest: thank you. host:, coming up next, -- host: coming up next, we will look we

-- we will talk to chris van hollen, then look at religion in politics after this update from c-span radio. >> of the republican presidential candidates are focusing on nevada today ahead of the state's caucuses saturday. mitt romney, rick santorum, and ron paul are meeting with voters, and an endorsement is expected from real-estate investment -- investor donald trump for newt gingrich. the house oversight committee chairman, represented darrell issa, alleges that the justice department is engaged in a cover up. we will hear testimony from attorney general eric holder. c-span is covering that event. just east of the capitol building since the supreme court, now in its mid-winter break.

this year justice ruth -- ruth bader ginsberg is on a different visit to north african countries were popular uprising toppled longtime leaders. chirac of the visit to egypt is the with the public -- she wrapped up a visit to egypt with a public seminar. she said she was inspired by lester's protest. those are some of the headlines. >> c-span's "road to the white house" coverage takes you to political events. >> we balance the budget every single year, and kept our schools first in the nation. my leadership will and the obama era and beginning new era of american prosperity. >> there is a mess in washington. the of giving us a lousy foreign policy, a lousy budget, and a

lousy recession, but with the wonderful thing is happening is in the grass roots. people are beginning to realize the problem is there's too much government. we need more personal liberty. >> if you're prepared to do what it takes to make sure we change direction -- does just the presidency, but the congress, the bureaucracy, the judges, the policies, so that the entire system gets on the right track, so that america can give our children and grandchildren a more prosperous, a safer, and a better future. this is how big the gap is. >> all the candidates as they meet with voters. >> yes. thank you so much. make sure jose knows how to find you. >> kept a picture? >> yes, go ahead. >> use our web site to view recent video from the campaign trail and read the latest at c-

span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now on your screen is the top democrat on the budget committee, representative chris van hollen of maryland. congressman van hollen, we appreciate you taking the calls from our viewers. guest: good to be with you. host: what is the message you got from douglas elmendorf of the cbo when he testified? guest: he made two critical points -- the economy remains very fragile. we need to be careful not to do anything that would harm that very fragile economy. that means no rapid, and deep cuts in important investments. the second point he is made is we need to come together now to develop a sustained, predictable path toward deficit reduction over a longer term. his charts made clear you need

to do that in a balanced way. that means we have to do it by reasonable and smart cuts over time, but also additional revenue, and that is a bipartisan, balanced approach taken by other conditions in terms of their framework. host: we will show a little bit of his opening statement yesterday and did your impressions. [video clip] >> the economic effects of extending all of the expiring tax provisions would be a little larger than the economic effects of extending all of the expiring tax provisions except for the top tax rates. so, in the short term, the lower the taxes are in general, and higher spending his in general, that tends to boost the economy, as i said. in the analysis we have done, before, we've said that the

effect of lowering the top tax rate is smaller on the economy in the short term than changes in the system further down the income distribution because higher-income people can spend a smaller share of the money they have. when the economy needs in the short term is more spending, so the fact is expiring tax breaks at the top, the effect will be short-term. guest: i agree with what dr. douglas elmendorf said, extending the middle income tax cuts gives you much more bang for your buck in terms of economic activity because middle income people need to spend more of their income on everyday activity, paying the rent, paying for groceries. it is a proportion -- as a proportion of their income, they spend a lot more. folks at the very top cannot

spend as much. the point he was making was that extending middle, -- middle class tax cuts will have a better effect. in having a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, which he talked about in other parts of this testimony, asking the folks to return to the same tax rates they were paying in the clinton administration would help save $1 trillion that could be put toward deficit reduction. i think it is important to remember that when those slightly higher rates were in place, we had a booming economy. 20 million jobs were created. the notion that a small increase in the top marginal rate is going to hurt the economy is just dead wrong. it will help the economy in the long run because it will reduce the deficit and in the long run prevent the crowding out from

private capital that high deficits generate. host: we have this from t.j.. guest: well, our focus now is on reducing the deficit and the debt. if you look of the action the congress took this past summer, we reduce what is known as discretionary spending, things most people think the best the on going expenditures of government, federal agencies, by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. we are also looking for additional savings. to suggest you can achieve the kind of deficit reduction we need to through cuts alone would mean you are shredding important parts of the social safety net. it would mean deep cuts to

medicare. if people want to propose that as a way to reduce the deficit, that is fine intellectually, but in terms of a policy for the country, people want this balanced approach. they want us to be in this together. host: chris van hollen is our guest. he is been on this program many times. he is the ranking member of the budget committee. the first call comes from melvyn, a democrat in fort lauderdale. caller: i am really concerned about the way you were doing the program now. it was better when you head the democrat and republican together, so they will be able to comment on each other's statements. now, everyone makes a statement, and then another one

comes on, there is no actual conversation to show who might be telling the truth. with the last congressman, and his statement, we're on our way to eight $10 trillion surplus when president obama took office. how could we be on our way to a $10 trillion surplus when president obama took office. guest: i was not here, but if somebody said that when president obama was sworn we were on the route to projected surpluses, that is factually wrong, and dr. douglas and about -- dr. douglas elmendorf has testified to that. what is true, is when president clinton left office, we had a

5.6 trillion dollar projected surplus, in the indy eight years following, that was squandered -- and in the eight years following, that was squandered. when president obama took office, not only were their projected deficits, but we were losing 8000 -- 800,000 jobs a month. we were on a downward trajectory all over 7% negative gdp. the economy was in free fall. and for -- fortunately, as a result of actions taken by the president and congress recovery act, we stop the freefall, stabilize the economy, and we have been able to slowly climb out. now, we are not at a fast enough job creation rate. nobody would argue that. that means it is very important

that we continue to do things to nurture the economy like extending the payroll tax cut for 1 yards 60 million working americans -- 160 million americans. the cult that is, of course, -- guest: that is, of course, and goodness, but we need to remember we are in a fragile state, which is why it does so in important that we take steps to make sure the recovery does not fizzle out, and extending the payroll tax cut is part of

that strategy. host: the national unemployment average is 8.5%. maryland is at 6.9%. why is that the next guest: -- why is that? guest: maryland has weathered the storm for a number of reasons. the economy is very diversified. it does not rely on any one sector more than others. i also believe it is in part due to the stewardship of the folks at the state level, but there are a combination of factors. we have been hit like everybody else, but from our state perspective, not as hard hit as other areas. host: are you in support of governor martin o'malley's proposal to put a sales tax on gasoline? guest: is interesting you say that. i saw the announcement

yesterday, and i am taking a look at debt, but i do believe we need to fund our infrastructure in maryland and around the country to meet our needs. what i know of it right now, i do support. right now, the state is operating under a gas tax that is based on a 1992-level. it has not increased since then, even though inflation has increased dramatically. the amount of new roadways, new transit ways that you can purchase with that is going to be a 1992 purchasing power. one of the reasons maryland has been successful and one of the reasons we have a relatively low unemployment rate is we have done a good job of keeping infrastructure up-to-date, but it has recently gone into more and more this repair.

host: the next call comes from cows and, maryland, barbara. caller: i really enjoyed c-span. i think it is the only real information you can get other than super pacs and things. i share the earlier caller's view about the problems with electronic voting. i have had problems with four different big banks in baltimore regarding the stakes with computers and double charging only direct social security deposit accounts. i do not know if they're doing anything about that right now. i do not know why voting has to be such a big secret when they have all of the polls, the conventions. there must be a way to put a check on this electronic voting. host: congressman?

guest: i am a supporter of legislation in the congress that would require a paper ballot to confer, to verify the electronic vote. so, you would be able to keep whatever deficiencies people think we have gained from electronic voting, but have the assurance that end of the day that you have a paper ballot against which you can compare the electronic vote. that is one way to be absolutely certain that the electronic vote is accurate, so it provides a real, hard copy records. i think we should move in that direction to make sure there is a paper ballot copy where there is electronic voting. host: beryl is a republican in illinois. caller: i would like to specific

answer to my question. i would like to have the representative answer the question that was asked in the debate. i am what most democrats considered to be a rich person, and i would like to know how much the representative would allow me to keep in terms of my taxes? in other words, how much can you tax meet in terms of the percentage of my income? guest: what i have said is we should return to the top tax rate that was in place during the clinton administration, which was 39%. under current law, the tax rate is scheduled to return to that beginning january, next year. if we allow the top tax rate to go back to that point, and again, people in that income

bracket benefit from the low rates below that. this is just the top piece, but if we had the top piece go from 35%, where it is today, to 39%, we would help reduce the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two years according to the congressional budget office. over a time when we need to get deficits and debt under control, i believe that needs to be part of the solution, along with measures we of taken already like cut senator taken place and other measures we will have to take. -- like cuts that have taken place, and other measures we will have to take. i've supported the overall framework by groups like bowles- simpson, who assume that we would get back $1 trillion worth of revenue that i mentioned for the purposes of deficit reduction.

host: for month, an independent. caller: thank you for your hard work. as all americans'families do , we reduce debt. the other thing we certainly do is look at trying to raise money, selling things, or going to the td bank -- the piggy bank. the last time gold was audited was in the 1970's. however, according to the gold price today, 1700 an ounce, we of more than the $16 trillion to pay down the debt. would you please ask for an audit at fort knox so we could have an honest evaluation of

what the american people all? guest: i am familiar with lots of gold reserves set for knox, and obviously they are valuable. i of heard a proposal we sell some of that gold -- i have heard a proposal that we sell some of the cold. i would have to go further into that idea. another area we looked at from time-to-time is the sale of other surplus federal government assets. for example, if there is a federal government building that is no longer needed by an agency, that is one way to sell it and recover money for the taxpayer. those sales, of course, only generate a one-time savings, and the deficit issue is a steady, predictable issue where we need ongoing savings, but, certainly,

we should look wherever possible to find one-time savings, and i am happy to look into the issue. i have to confess i do not know a lot about that proposal. host: congressman van hollen, will a budget be passed this year? guest: the press and will submit his budget february 13. congressman paul ryan has expressed his intent to move forward with a house republican budget. i know senator kent conrad wants to move forward with the senate budget. my prediction is if these two budgets he merged they will represent very, very different visions of how we should move forward in the country. while i would like to see us rectify those differences, i do not know if weather between now,

and november, the end of the year, that will be possible. some of the big defining the issues are the ones we're talking about this morning. i think the president wants to take a balanced approach. he will make lots of proposals to help tighten our belts. he has pointed out the discretionary budget will go down to the lowest percentage of the economy since the eisenhower administration, but he also believes we need to deal with revenue, and his budget will ask folks at the very top, people over $1 million, to go back to pay in the rates they were during the clinton administration. host: from the congressional budget office we have learned that real economic growth is projected to be 2.2% in 2012.

host: what is your relationship with paul ryan? guest: the get along very well. we are good, working colleagues, and we are friends, but we have deep differences. that is what is necessary to make american democracy work. so, you know, we share stories, and, again, are friendly, but we also have a job to do, representing our constituents and our points of view. i think our job is also to bridge those differences, and we have introduced a bill together there will be on the floor of the house next week, a legislative line item veto that we believe will help rein in

unnecessary spending. it is not a silver bullet to solve the deficit, but it is a small step. the bill is supported by republicans and democrats and opposed by republicans and democrats. host: republican, richie, you are on with congressman van hollen. caller: if we continue to make the manufacturing things today, what would be heavy in this country today? also, we give a tax cut to the people to spend money, the only thing they would be doing was buying products from china, india, and vietnam, and we would only be helping the people in the sales department.

guest: providing a payroll tax, allows people to go out and spend on goods and services the way they want. for example, they have to pay their rent. that is money kept here. they buy an american car, that is kept here. as a result of the president's action, we were able to help rescue the auto industry. that leads me to answer in the first part of your question related to manufacturing. it is essential that we do what we can to try to make more things here, in america. we had a very large industrial, manufacturing base many years ago, and we've lost much of that, of course, overseas. i think we have an opportunity to recapture some of it, especially in certain areas of the economy. one of the glimmers of good news

in the recent information is that the manufacturing sector of the american economy has grown more rapidly, and that is one of the reasons the president has made this whole issue the focus of his state of the union speech. the whole first part of the speech was devoted to the need to help revive manufacturing in america, and to do that, you need to make sure we have rules of the road that are fair to american manufacturers. for example, when the chinese manipulate their currency, it makes their goods artificially cheaper here. it is not cheaper because they have lower labor costs, but cheaper because they manipulate their currency. we need to make sure we address that. some of our international tax rules reward u.s. companies that move american jobs overseas. we want to reward companies they're exporting u.s. products overseas. the president made proposals in

that regard that i've supported and advocated. there are a lot of things we can do to create a more even playing field for american manufacturing. host: columbia, pa., terry, a democrat. caller: thank you for c-span. hi, congressman. i want to know why the republicans want to get rid of medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment? we, the people, paid into it, and we should get it. i think it is really wrong what they are trying to do. could you explain it to me? guest: well, one of the most troubling parts of the republican budget that was put forward last year, and we expect a similar one to be put forward

this year, is what they do in the area of health security, medicare and medicaid. with respect to medicate, they dramatically slash the program, which would absolutely decimate a program that a lot of people rely on. a lot of elderly people in nursing homes rely on medicaid. with respect to medicare, they have proposed this idea that effectively would give people on medicare a voucher, and then throw them out into the private health industry, and eat of the rising costs. the reason it generates savings for the u.s. government is because the projected increases in the cost of health care are very high, and the value of the voucher and support that would be received does not begin to keep pace with the rising cost

of health care. the nonpartisan congressional budget office has estimated that it would cost an elderly person another $6,000 in the next decade. when you think about the effect of the median income of someone on medicare is $23,000, that is going to be impossible for them to bear those additional costs. so, i strongly oppose the republican proposal which would end the medicare guaranteed. i think there are things we should and can do to modernize medicare. many of those steps were taken in the affordable care act. then a lot of attention was paid to them at that time, but there are things we can better -- due to align the incentives, but we should not end the medicare guaranteed. unfortunately, that is what the republican budget proposed last time around.

i hope they will not this time around, but signs are that they will. host: congressman van hollen, will the payroll tax cut extension be passed? guest: yes, with this one caveat. i am confident it will be passed, but i was a little concerned with the first meeting with the senate, because i believe we should focus on extending the payroll tax cut, extending unemployment insurance, and completing what we call the doc fix, a provision to make sure that doctors that provides seniors with help under medicare do not see a dramatic pay cut because we want them to dissipate in the program. those three elements are what we need to focus on. at the first meeting we heard a lot of other, extraneous, on related issues be raised, like

trying to block clean-air regulations. we want to debate clean-air regulations. fine. let's do it separately. let's not use it to slow down a payroll tax cut for 160 million americans. host: the next call for chris van hollen comes from colorado. john, on our independent line. caller: yes, i just want to help the rich guy out. what happens when we get a dollar in america is called the economic-based multiplier, and every dollar i earn, and i spend generates another dollar. i go to the the grocery store, or work, that worker goes to the gasoline station. when people like me on the lower-end spend it, it generates $1.72.

that is a stimulus. the other thing i wanted to talk about, the last guest from georgia, i do not know what kool-aid he has been drinking about the mortgage crisis, but i deal with mortgage sales, foreclosures every day, and anyone that believes that deregulating this marked -- this market is crazy. fannie mae his right now making money -- is making money off of foreclosures. they are making money. when we got rid of the glass- steagall, in the middle of the night, that was the biggest downfall on american democracy ever, and we are reaping the results. we are letting the fdic finance

banks. host: john, i think we got the point. congressman van hollen? guest: i agree that certainly did the regulation of some of the financial markets that took place -- certainly the deregulation of some of the financial markets that took place helped to accelerate the great recession going forward. if that is one of the reasons congress along with president obama passed the wall street reform bill, often referred to as dodd-frank, and it worries me to hear people say let's get rid of dodd-frank because it is an attempt to learn the lessons from a financial meltdown, and make sure that never again does a financial meltdown hold the entire economy hostage. we do not want to see any government bailouts of the banking industry, and that is

why it is so important that we have a transparent process and more accountability to prevent that. with respect to foreclosures, the president just yesterday announced a plan whereby people who are current on their mortgages, who are making their mortgages regularly, on time, and have good credit ratings should be able to take advantage of refinancing at lower interest rates, and he has proposed to help cover those costs by a small fee on the biggest banks that benefited from the taxpayer bank rescue, and asking them to help. they, of course, received help as part of an effort to stabilize the whole economy, and now the president is simply asking those banks to help out folks, again, just to refinance. that would go a long way to

allowing those families to have a little bit more money in their pockets to go out and spend, just as you said, and what of the economy and those families. host: the ap -- guest: i am looking at the whole question of adding a financial transaction tax. it is complicated how you define a financial transaction, and there are issues and what would happen if we impose a transaction tax and other financial centers in the world do not. i agree that we should pursue this. what is happening right now is when the europeans considered a financial tax on some of the

european financial the institutions they say do not do that, that will put us at a competitive disadvantage with the united states banks, and when we think about doing that here, they say that would put us at a financial disadvantage to european banks. that is why it is important that leaders from the united states and europe come together and try to do it jointly. it would benefit all of us and provide additional revenue for the purposes of deficit reduction, and it sure we maintain investments in critical infrastructure and education. it is an area that needs to be pursued, but pursued in a manner as much as possible, and jointly, with other major countries the have major financial centers around the world.

guest: first of all, congress is on social security, and also medicare. members of congress pay into both programs, like everybody else, and receive that security. with respect to medicare, as i indicated earlier, we totally oppose the republican plan to end the medicare guaranteed. would impose huge new costs on the seniors whose average income, again, is $23,000. what we did do as part of the affordable care act is provide greater incentives for health- care providers to coordinate their care, because there are a lot of the incentives within the medicare systems misaligned, and we believe we can improve the quality of care and reduce

the cost if we focus more on the quality of care, rather than the volume. with respect to social security, and there have been these republican proposals in the past to privatize it, i hope people have learned from the lessons of the financial crash that that would not have been a good place to put people's retirement. host: robert is a republican on cape cod. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. good morning, congressman. i am retired. i had a reduction for social security. i believe it is called the payroll tax. my corp. matched that 100%. therefore, as a matter of fact, our corporations now funding 50% of social security?

i know the self-employed. all, but they could be small corporations. will the corporation still pay that if there is it payroll tax? guest: yes, corporations, in fact, all employers cut pay 50% of the social security payroll tax cut. now, i do not want to get into a long economic argument about whether that results in lower wages as employers pay employees based on their overall compensation, but yes, the businesses do match. under the current payroll tax cut proposal, which only goes until the end of this year, the payroll tax cut would apply to the individual employees. the employers would be continuing to provide their share into the trust fund, and i should stress the fact that under this proposal the whole trust fund will be held

harmless. not 1 cent would come out of it according to the social security actuary and trusties, because the proposal to back fills with general funds, penny- for-penny, dollar-for-dollar. host: sheila, democrat. caller: good morning, congressman. thank you for taking my call. i have been a -- i am the cashier. you need to work on this housing project. i have a lot of people come through and say they buy -- they bought a new house, and every time they buy a new house, they are buying 500 to $1,000 at my store. they're building the economy and keeping me in a job because of that. i really appreciate the fact

that person is coming in, spending money, and keeping me in a job. what i just want to say is you need to work on housing. housing is the key to the economy, and every time somebody buys a home hit creates, they say, three new jobs. if you do that, and support our president in this next election, we can win and take back our country because of the republicans get it, we are in trouble. newt gingrich can't run the are the worst thing for this country. if please, please, support the president. host: she was getting wound up. we could have let her go for a half-hour. guest: with respect to the housing market, let me begin their because we all know that the financial collapse that we saw really began because of the bubble, of course, in the sub- prime mortgage market, and that,

of course, spread to the rest of the economy. we're still trying to recover from that. i agree that in order for the economy to get fully back on its feet, we are going to need to see the housing industry get back on its feet, and one of the reasons it has not yet, of course, is there are lots of foreclosed homes on the market, and that tends to drive down prices. another reason is because of the slow economy. people have the risk losing their jobs, and it cannot pay the mortgage. that is why the president of the proposal yesterday was very important, the -- president's proposal yesterday was very important, because the extent to which people can refinance their mortgage means they're less likely to foreclose. to the extent that we can keep people in their homes and not have those homes foreclosed

upon, that does help protect the housing industry and helpless and regain ground in that area. -- help us regain ground in that area. you mentioned a republican candidates. mitt romney said the way to deal with the housing market is hands off, let the foreclosures take their run. the president's view has been that to the extent we can take reasonable actions to prevent foreclosures, we help everybody. not only do we help the family that has their home for close upon, but we help everyone else in the neighborhood because it hurts everyone in the neighborhood, the whole economy, because as the caller pointed out, homeowners are in their spending money and renovating homes and things like that. so, the president's proposal yesterday to say we're going to allow people who pay their mortgages on time and have good

credit ratings to benefit from lower interest rates and refinancing makes a lot of sense. host: we have been talking with representative chris van hollen, of maryland, and ranking member of the budget committee. ben bernanke is testifying in your committee today. what is your first question guest: -- question? guest: what he recommends to handle this fragile economy. one lesson is yes, we do need to be worried about the long-term debt. he will talk about the importance of coming together with the plan to do that. he also made the point that trying to retrench too quickly, slashing the budget too quickly, actually hurts the economic recovery. it kind of makes common sense. let's think about

infrastructure. if we decide not to spend as much money on roads and bridges, that means fewer people are going to be hired to fix them. fewer people with jobs. one of the lessons we've learned from some other european countries is don't slash your budgets too quickly. we have seen in the u.k. that when they slash their budgets, to get quick austerity approach, it has actually hurt them. they are in and negative ttp right now, while we are growing. -- negative gdp right now, while we are growing. republicans originally heralded the u.k. conservative budget approach. time has gone by, and it turns out was not such a good model. host: we will be covering that hearing live at 10:00 a.m. on c- span 3. congressman van hollen, thanks as always. guest: thank you.

host: coming up, a discussion on the role of religion in campaign 2012, after this news update from c-span radio. >> the labor department says that weekly unemployment applications fell by 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 360 and thousand. -- 367,000. when applications state around that number, it means employment is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate. economists forecast the jobs report will forecashowed that ed last month.00d worker productivity rose at 47% in the last quarter of 2011. workers were more efficient, but gains in productivity were slower than in the previous three months. slower productivity growth can be a good sign of hiring if economic growth picks up.

turning to the war in afghanistan, defense secretary leon panetta yesterday said that the united states would stop taking in the role in combat operations before at the end of 2013 and stepped into a supporting role as it winds down its longest war in afghanistan. he added that u.s. forces would remain combat-ready but will likely shift to a training and assist role as afghan forces take responsibility. the announcement, head of a meeting with nato defense ministers in brussels, it was met with surprise and a kabul -- in kabul. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> we have our responsibility, ok? those of you coming into the creation of literature, you have a responsibility, do you not? can you create anything you want in the world you create and felt comfortable with that region, or to you pre-censor yourself and

decide "i cannot defend it anybody"? >> a professor on the n-word's place in literature. he changed the reading habits of americans. the publisher of "time," "fortune," and "life" magazine. the oil boom hits, and the gusher makes texas and the leading oil state. american history tv, this weekend on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: robert jones is this ceo and founder of our group called public religion research institute. what is that?

guest: we are a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization researching the intersection of religion and values with politics. host: how are you find it? guest: mostly by foundation support. host: what is your goal with your research? guest: to be a resource to the media and the general public and give a better idea of how religion it is influencing american values and, particularly this year, the 2012 election campaign and politics in general. host: if you were to write a press release about the recent study you did, what would you write? guest: it is is very interesting this year. we are looking at a lot of tectonic changes that i can talk about that we're seeing in play this year. going into the election with a stable coalition on the ground for the last two election cycles.

of course, we attack religion playing an interesting role in the republican primaries -- we have had religion plain interesting role in republican primaries? host: what percentage of americans consider themselves to be christian? guest: 3/5 considered themselves to be christians in one way or the other. host: what percentage of americans consider themselves to be atheists, agnostics, or do not have faith? guest:naffiliated is an interesting group. only about 4% or 5% of the american public, but there is a bigger group that we asked, "are you affiliated with any religious organization," and they say no. about 19% of the american public. host: but only a small part of that group is atheist -- guest: right.

when we asked if they have a belief in god, t hey pray often, just not affiliated with a formal institution. host: what percentage are jewish, muslim, mormon -- guest: they make up about 7% of the public. host: other religions. guest: jews or about 2%. mormons are between 1% and 2% as well. host: part of your study was discomfort with mormon serving as president. 42% had and is comfortable with a mormon as president. black protestant have the highest discomfort level.

62%. interestingly, it was the younger generation that at the highest discomfort level with president.n being democrats are about 50%. tea party, 30. women more than men, 45 to 30. guest: there are two things going on with those numbers. when we ask about discomfort with a mormon president, everybody has one person in mind, mitt romney. the number among democrats that is so high is about into the toward the republican candidate -- about antipathy towards the republican candidate another thing that is what on is among white evangelical protestants.

they do not have the partisan worries. that has been haunting mitt romney all through the primaries. he did better in florida at that he has been doing. he ran about even with newt gingrich in florida among evangelical protestants. but he is lagging about nine points behind with white evangelicals when he has been running in the general population so far. host: by the way, the numbers are on the screen,/republican, democrat, an independent. you can also contact us by email and twitter. when you look at the blue lines, those are president obama's percentages. black protestant, 96%. other non-christian. unaffiliate, at 77%.

president obama. white catholic is where senator mccain got his first majority. he also got the majority with white mainline. white evangelical was his big a voting bloc as far as religion goes. when you look at this for 2008, it mitt romney is the nominee what have we seen so far in the primaries? guest: if we go back to 2004, 2006 midterms, 2010 at midterms, these collisions have been a staple. one thing about obama's coalition is that ids fairly diverse -- it is fairly to verse. then he has this bloc of ethnic christians. on the other side, mccain has

this a group that is entering the republican coalition, white evangelical protestants. then we have this swing in the middle, mainline christians pray. white mainline republicans had been a republican voting bloc of time and now -- white man by protestants had been a republican voting bloc over time and now they are moving into a swing group. host: use on president obama's religious beliefs -- views on president obama's religious beliefs. among the prison population, 12% of people consider their religious beliefs -- among the present population, 12% of people consider their religious beliefs similar to president obama's. very different, 35%.

don't know, 9%. you can see this broken out among whites. very different, 38%. somewhat different, 18%. did you find out why this is? guest: a little surprising, right? president obama comes from one of the oldest denominations in the country, united church of christ. the pilgrims. this is the tradition, the dow nomination from which he comes. one of the oldest pedigrees in the country. there was this controversy, conflict between president obama and his longtime pastor, jeremiah wright, that played out in the 2008 campaign. he had some difficulty also with a number of people wrongly thinking his religion is a muslim in the country. the number has actually gone up during his presidency. host: it has gone up?

guest: it has paid when he came into office, 12% believed that his religion is muslim, and that number has gone to 18%. host: why? guest: it is mostly republicans too rough populated that increase -- who have populated that increase in misperceptions about his religion. it is correlated with favorability overall, and that is the key thing here. if we talk about romney having a religion problem with the mormon faith, president obama also has a religious problem with connecting his own faith with voters. host: the president is currently at the national prayer breakfast, speaking at the national prayer breakfast. you can watch that on a c-span2 at the moment. we'll take your calls on

religion and campaign 2012. we begin with a republican in atlanta. caller: hello, peter, hello, robert. what i'm calling about is that i notice that in each of the religious categories, people tend to go with the way they celebrate and worship god. i noticed in this election cycle, people i talk to, ones who decided they would not vote for romney, it is not that he is a mormon, it is at the stances he took as governor of massachusetts, more about his character. i guess not really religious affiliation -- it is not really religious affiliation, because a lot of times when we deal with politicians, they claim this is their belief system. i have noticed that

evangelicals and christians stick to their religion and prefer to have someone in their that is a protestant. i have noticed that mormons are the same, even if it goes against their text. 7% of mormons will vote for him because he is mormon. guest: i appreciate that in sight. the voters our border -- the voters are voters. they i just evaluating and religious beliefs and character --, they are not just evaluating his character or religious beliefs. i still think this is playing something of a drag on mitt romney. it is not the deciding factor, but it is a factor, particularly among evangelical voters. 2/3 of the country says ids

important for the president to have strong religious beliefs, and that is not about a particular its theology, but about having a religion with which they can identify. host: when you did the survey, september 2011, the importance of the president having strong religious beliefs, you said 2/3 state it is important. , 93%.evangelicals unaffiliated is the only that is in the other category. connecticut's. bill, democrat. caller: good morning. all this talk of politics and religion, all the people that are running these religions, the priests, the evangelicals, they have a lot of influence on voters and have been injecting

themselves more and more into politics. how to date maintain their tax- exempt status behind all of this? guest: tax-exempt status is fairly clear in irs guidelines that, for example, a pastor endorsing i candidate from the pulpit clearly violates what they are supposed to do. at the same time, 2/3 of americans say i.t. is important for presidential candidates to have strong religious beliefs, 2/3 to say is also important to maintain a strict separation between church and state. it is at dance we do it where people say that religion is important but there are rules anthat people with tax-exempt status are expected to abide by.

host: a tweet. guest: great question. one reason we break out of religious groups the way we do is because ethnicity plays an important role. one great example is among catholics. lationo catholics and white catholics have a distinct voting pattern. white catholics when slightly for mccain. that is a good example of how within the catholic tradition, you have a dividing line that runs along the lines of ethnicity. host: michigan. hi, kathy. caller: i wanted to comment about the young people being

against mormons more than older people. do you think that has anything at all to do with that reality tv that young people watch, an associate shows like that with the mormon church even though it has nothing to do with mormons? guest: good question. i don't know the answer that question, but a little bit of what is behind that number, younger people tend to be more democratic, more liberal, and also tend to be more pluralistic, more accepting of different faiths. younger people are much more likely to be comparable around muslim americans. what i think this is about is a political stance, that a bank receives -- that they perceive the mormon candidates and church to have, and it also has something to do with same-sex

marriage and the role the mormon church had with proposition 8 in california. host: robert jones, what is your background? guest: ph.d. from emory university, a divinity degre -- and a divinity degree from fort worth, texas. host: where have you worked in the past? guest: i taught for three years at missouri state university, i worked at a public rea search institute. host: center for american progress, people for the american way. those are considered to be liberal institutions. guest: and the southern baptist institute. i of straddled both sides of the fence. that is what we do. we don't lean left or right, but

try to understand both sides of what is going on with american religion. host: what is the takeaway of this research? guest: one thing we can learn is that religion is important to americans. 2/3 of americans saying that it is important for the president to have religious beliefs is probably a surprising number for many people. it is also important to remember that that plays a role differently in different religious traditions. we look at that, particularly the number with catholics, the difference between white catholics and latino catholics are very stark. all catholics are not the same. main liners are not the same. host: california. go ahead, jules. caller: last time i called in, i brought up the fact that maybe you should have mormons on there to talk about mitt romney. i notice you have not had

anybody on a there, but one guy who wrote a book about mormons. what i read about mormons was written by louis l'amour. that wasn't a factual book or anything, but it was very interesting. anyway, i was thinking about mitt romney, about his tax returns and all that stuff. the mormons are pretty tight about things about that. want to exploit their wealth and stuff like that. at least that has always been my experience. a couple of them the other date canvassed the neighborhood is out here trying to get people to come to the church. i run into them all the time. i asked them, what do you think

about mitt romney running for president? the guy says, "we don't even watch tv." [laughter] i was wondering what you thought about that. guest: the important a thing you bring up is that not many americans know much about the mormon faith. we asked people about whether they had a daily or weekly interaction with mormons, and less than 1% said they had. if romney does get the election, we have had pop culture things, you have seen "south park" episodes about the mormon faith, broadway musicals, "book of mormon," but you will see the general public getting more educated about what the mormon faith is.

mormonism moving into the mainstream is one that theme of this election. host: with a mu -- with which of these categories to you buput the mormon faith in? guest: in harbor town is the other christian -- in our account it is christian category. host: baltimore -- sean, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i graduted from eastern baptist theological seminary. the moderator asked a question that i wanted to ask, but i want to put -- i guess i want to take

a different direction. what was the line of demarcation you all used to distinguish mormonism from what we say "regular christianity" as opposed to other christianity? host: pastor, why did you ask that question? what are you looking for? caller: as a seminarian, we are teached with other world religions. mormonism was said to be called, because of their stance on the divinity of jesus christ -- mormonism was said to be a cult, because of their stance on the to divinity of jesus christ. that is what my question was

born out of, that question as to what the guest used to draw the line between regular, orthodox, evangelical christians, protestants, and other christians. guest: great. it is a really great question. one answer is that we're basically a social science organization, so we don't make distinctions in our group along the logical lines. the distinctions that the guest is drawing are perfectly legitimate. mormons themselves consider themselves the christian religion. the reason they are in the other christian bloc is that they are small enough that we could not break them out separately.

of social science answer the question. host: when you are in seminary, what were you taught about the mormons? guest: great personal question. not much. i don't remember a lot. the southern baptist convention held their convention in salt lake city one year. part of their activities during the convention was to actually proselytize in salt lake city and talk about the southern baptist tradition and talk to was predominantly a mormon audience. it gets to be fairly strong between traditions that are fairly close. you look at beliefs about the bible, how often they go to church, white evangelicals and mormons are quite similar to rid

their archaeological differences that can get quite sharp -- white evangelicals and mormons are quite similar. there are theological evanses' back and read quite sharp -- differences that can get quite sharp. host: when you use the word "discomfort," what do you mean? guest: that is literally what the questions that in the survey. a rough measure. however, we did in this survey have any direct measure. -- an indirect measure. it was basically a way of measuring whether people were giving us a straight answer when we asked them directly about it. among the general public, people are willing to just tell people on the phone, i have the discomfort in a straightforward way. host: good morning, beth.

caller: i wanted to talk about the fact that president kennedy, when he was running as a catholic, people had a problem with that as well. as we know, president kennedy did not inject his catholicism into politics. i would like to take issue with your guest about president obama. you can tell a person's faith by their actions. his actions to me showed he is anti-christian, based on his partial birth abortion believes, based on his anti-israel's stance. if we take religion into account for a president, where were the people when president obama was running for president? thank you. guest: i agree with the caller

that the kennedy analogy is a good one for understanding where we are. in 1960, when kennedy was having to explain himself, really, to a lot of protestant ministers and explain, for example, if he were president he would not be taking orders from the vatican. in many ways, mitt romney is in a similar moment where a mormonism is coming into the mainstream understanding and he is trying to figure out what is the best way forward to understand -- to make people understand what it means to him, how a i it willmpact his -- how it will impact his role as president. was960, kennedy's response to say i will put a wall here. in today's politics, people want to hear their candidates say

something about how it will impact. the kennedy answer will not suffice. host: the president was at the national prayer breakfast. here is a little bit of what he had to say. "n[video clip] >> the bible teaches us to be doers of the word, not merely hearers. we are required to have a living, breathing, active faith of our lives. each of us is called to do something for the betterment of of our others. guest: this is right.

i think i called it a dance. it is on the one and a commitment to separation of church and state and as chris points out, a constitutional guarantee. there shouldn't be one disqualified from office for having a religious belief of one kind or another or having no religious belief. on the other hand, it is clear in that court of public opinion that this is an important and to be that people look for from candidates. it is part of the american experience. host: virginia. floyd on the republican line. caller: good morning, mr. jones. question is, i am not a

catholic, but i saw on the news recently where the government is forcing catholics to take out insurance against their religion on contraception. i would like you to comment on that. as far as abortion, we know it is premeditated murder. going to war and fighting for your country, there is nothing wrong with that, because it is trying to destroy your enemies. abortion is premeditated murder. 1-800-643-4645. host: what kind of information, floyd? theer: you won't get -- main information you get is on the mark of the beast.

host: all right, thank you, floyd. any comment on his political position? guest: the government passed your recent guidelines meant that all employers will have to -- government's recent guidelines meant that all employers have to offer birth control in health plans. it goes back to the attention -- the tension we have. employers in churches who predominately employ people of their own faith are exempt from this guideline. where the catholic bishops come out is that they want a broader exemption, for colleges and hospitals. the real debate is over whether that is legitimate, given that a lot of catholic hospitals employee in a lot of non---

employ a lot of non-catholic employees. really thorny issues. guest: you know, race is certainly a powerful influence. race and religion really do interact in a way that is very important. if you only think about african- americans and you don't think about african-american churches, you are missing a big part of the african-american experience, and understanding african-american culture and the things that are driving african- americans to the polls. the same thing is true with catholic st. if you look at --

with catholics. if you look at latinos without looking at the catholic church, you are missing a big part of what makes them tick. host: what sorts of discussions did you have before you started breaking down categories? guest: these are fairly standard social science categories. you look at sociology of religion, pew research center, other major polling organizations, this is a pretty traditional way. this is not easing credit to public religion. ic to not idiosyncratc public religion. host: democrats' line. go ahead. caller: i am the first time at caller. i am a little nervous. it is my observation that if you go to a conservative church, you could be a different religion

and be welcome, but if you are not a republican in those ultraconservative churches, you don't feel welcome there. they don't think you have the right to be there at a different opinion on social issues -- and have a different opinion on social issues. --m a member of the union they look at you like there is something wrong with you. i thought the church is supposed to be about christ, not politics. it is my observation that the way it is shifting to the suburbs, politics drives religion more than religion drives politics. guest: interesting point. you see this in the polls. you are talking about

megachurches, typically white evangelical protestant churches. . george w. bush had 78% of the white evangelical vote. you look back at the 1980's, white evangelical churches had as many registered democrats as registered republicans. today that is not so true. it does not surprise me a lot at the composition seems more partisan as those congregations have become more homogeneous. host: rev. jay anderson from fort worth -- guest: well, again, this is a real concern.

the question of the voters want to know where presidents are on their fate and how it affects policy, running up against separation of church and state. we will hear more about that from the candidates. the country is fairly evenly divided when you ask them about what worries you more, public officials to close to religious leaders, or public officials who don't pay attention to religion. the country is fairly divided on the question period when there is a democrat in office, democrats are less worried about that. when there is a republican in the office, republicans are less worried. host: robert jones, in your view, could any east be elected president? -- could an atheist be elected president? guest: it would be very tough.

atheists, at the bottom of any list of favorability. there is one atheist in congress, pete stark of california, but he also advise is unitarian -- also identifies it as unitarian. host: wayne in texas. caller: once again, c-span, your show has stolen the day with a great topic. as you know, we are in the bible belt. i was reading from the sixth chapter of the saint john, verse 35. "jesus said unto them, i am the bread of life. he that come to me shall never hunger." we feed the hungry five days a week. we have a huge church in dallas.

we feed the poor, we help them. when you hear comments from white candidate, mitt romney, -- from my candidate, mitt romney, i.t. is hard for us to look at the hungry, the homeless, who come to our church, and the charities that feed them and help them. it is very sad, because when those people come up to get their food from us, from lawyers, from doctors, from teachers, people who have more than they can give, it is sad that you hear our republican candidate, who is trying to run the white house, with over $200 million in wealth -- whether it is a misstatement or nine. i think he is a good person, i

think president obama is a good person, i think newt gingrich is a good person. but when you make comments like he made yesterday, it has completely turned on my household, peop -- turned off my household, people on my block, people in my church. they have completely shunned him now. host: we got the point. guest: the full context is that mitt romney said he was not concerned about the very rich, they are doing well, he's not concerned about the very poor, they have a social safety net. there has been controversy about that statement that we are hearing from this caller. is interesting -- it is very interesting to read by the way, i have been to that baptist church in dalls. -- in dallas. there is a poll out this

morning about partisan lines and religious lines. while all voters agree that jobs and economy and concerns about the deficit or at the top of the list, religious voters and non- religious voters alike, one real dividing line is how concerned people are about the growing divide between the rich and the poor. democrats say this is a critical issue for the country. only about three in 10 republicans say it is. host: is his church a megachurch? guest: it is pretty big. host: have you done polling to see if the attitudes are different? guest: we don't have data on that. host: next call. caller: do you think at a lot of people pushed religion into

politics because they think the founding fathers are more religious than they were? guest: interesting question. the founding fathers serve as a kind of vessel for people to pour in all kinds of things. you are right that we scrutinize the founding fathers. thomas jefferson, for example, at his own version of the new testament, where he took out a lot of the more activist, supranatural stuff and left in the teachings of jesus. a lot of people who don't know that might be appalled to find out that is true. go ahead. oh ok -- i think that is clearly right a little more history -- one of the things we see in american history is that because we have become more religious over time, you look at the number of rank-and-file people who are rio