thank you for being here for c- span's "washington journal." here.uchanan will be you russ feingold, we will also be talking about campaign finance. in our last segment, we will be looking at america by the numbers and college education rates. as we begin this morning, president obama announced a new corporate tax proposal this week. that is in addition to the various plans proposed by the gop candidates on the campaign trail. we are going to talk about america's corporate tax rate this morning. to much or too little? we would like to hear your thoughts on this. we will show you the marginal tax rates, the effective tax rate, and compare what's the united states corporations pay compared to corporations around

the globe. here are our phone lines. host: good friday morning to you. you know, you can also participate in our discussion this morning on facebook. we posted the question. tweet us @cspan. thes take a quick look at top line proposals among the candidates for president on corporate tax rates. president obama made his announcement this week that he was proposing lowering the u.s. corporate tax rate to 28%. mitt romney, 25%. rick santorum is proposing a 17.5% tax rate. newt gingrich, 12.5%.

ron paul, 15%. of course, lots of details attached to each of these proposals. we asked martin crutsinger to help us understand what all this means with regard to american corporations. the weight corporations pay in the united states is very different from the 35%. what does the picture look like when you start to analyze u.s. corporate tax rates from other metrics? guest: good morning. host: good morning. guest: you are correct that the 35% rate is the top rate. effective rate is much lower than that. for certain industries, it is even lower still. the treasury estimated that retail companies, princetons, pay 31%. utilities pay about 14%, about

half of that. it varies widely because of the fact that the corporate tax code has many, many types of tax breaks for different industries. that complicates how -- what kind of rates different industries are paying. host: what is usually the jettison for them? what propels congress to take a sector of the economy and give it a more beneficial position? guest: strong lobbyists, for one thing, i guess. each industry argues there certain of reasons for preferential tax treatment. if congress gives them that presidential tax treatment, it will provide benefits for the country. the oil and gas industry has had tax preferential treatment

for decades. they argued that increases development of energy sources in this country and that benefits the entire country. opponents argue that the oil and gas industry is reaping a huge profit and they do not need those special tax preferences. it is an ongoing debate. host: we listened to the candidates on the campaign trail. i'm going to put the topline comparisons on and take a look at how the u.s. stacks up against countries we regularly do business with, japan, germany, and canada. japan is at 30%. canada, 16.5%. germany, 15.8%. when you start to look at different metrics, some of the analysis looks at it as a percentage of gdp. when we do that, the united states is all the way down here,

compared to the european countries. also, another way to look at it, of course, is by the effective tax rate. that changes the picture again. what is the real measurement? probably be theld effective tax rate. that is what you are actually paying. it is like the sticker price on a car. most industries, because of the various tax breaks they can take advantage of are not paying that rate. you are correct that there has been a trend in recent years for countries to reduce their corporate tax rates while the u.s. rate has been frozen.

the last major overhaul for corporate and individual taxes came in 1986 under ronald reagan. treasury secretary geithner, when he unveiled the administration's plan this week, he talked about the fact that we have an outdated tax system and we need to modernize it. both sides are arguing that there needs to be changes. in terms of the way to measure it, the corporate taxes in 2010 made up about 12% of all federal taxes received, but that was down from 24% in 1960. there are different ways to measure things. in the upcoming debate, you can guarantee the other side will

pick up whatever statistics they think will better support the case. host: what is the correlation between tax rates and job creation? guest: that is also a subject of debate, almost endless debate, if you think about it. we are having the same argument ion the individual tax side. president obama has not put forward an overhaul plan for individual taxes. mitt romney did so this week and talked about it yesterday. in that, people are you that the tax cuts of president bush in

2001 and 2003, which have been extended, help the economy and that our economic growth, and we had stronger growth in the clinton years with a stronger tax rates. that's also an area that's subject for debate. host: thank you very much for giving us some background on all this debate on the campaign trail about corporate tax rates. martin crutsinger, who writes about economics for the associated press. nice to talk to this morning. guest: good to be here. host: i will start with facebook. people are already active on the page. here is a little bit of what viewers our facebook the wors have had to say.

host: to the phone calls. mike, a republican in sarasota, florida. you are on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? thank you for allowing us to make the call. i believe we need some accounting in the presidency. we need to look at the fact that a lot of the expenses which would be taxes can be offset with deductibles. that means investments in machinery, in the assets that were necessary to run a business. therefore, in a cynical way, i guess you could say that would be an advantage to corporations to pay a little bit more.

if corporations are not willing to at least do their equal share, we are going to be squeezed at the lower end of the totem pole. we will be squeezed so much that it will be detrimental. it i think there needs to be an advantage. if there's any advantage in the tax law, it should be towards the corporations that are strictly biting and selling in america. host: ok. thank you. we appreciate your comments. the u.s. corporations pay too much or too little taxes? here is a tweet. to make his point, here is a charge from "the wall street journal" yesterday. martin crutsinger of the

associated press made reference to this. if the published tax rate is 35%, utilities have paid 14%. next is a call from sarasota once again. this is peter, an independent there. good morning. caller: i am an independent for united states senate. i'm looking at the screen. the construction and retail industry paying 31%. those are two critical industries in the state of florida. as i have addressed voters, one of the things i'm noticing in my travels is the construction industry leveling off in the state of florida and the

retailing industry has increased here. one of the things i've mentioned on my web site is the importance of increasing the minimum wage to $9 per hour, which is basically the retailing sector. as far as the corporate tax issue, right now, obama's situation, as has been mentioned, anywhere from the 25% to 28% range, as opposed to ron paul, who was on the low end with a 15% corporate tax issue. i have not come out on my web site yet with reference to that. as i said, the one issue you will find on my website addressed to voters is increasing the minimum wage to $9 per hour. i will leave it at that. i wish you well. keep up the good work in washington, d.c. host: thank you very much, peter

in minnesota. our last caller from sarasota was talking about the overall tax plans of the candidates. there are stories in the papers this morning about an analysis of the overall tax plan, including their plans for corporate taxes. here is coverage of it this morning in "the washington post." here is lori montgomery's story on this. host: let's listen to gov.

romney as he talks about his thoughts on corporate tax rates. [video clip] >> higher taxes does not create jobs. higher taxes kills jobs. this president does not get help his policies are hurting america. my plan for taxation. first of all, four corporate entities that are taxed at the corporate level, i will reduce the tax rate from 35% to 25%. that makes us competitive with other nations around the world will be an enormous stimulus for job creation. host: by the way, governor romney has a major economic speech planned for today in advance of the detroit primary. it will be at noon eastern time. we will be covering it. here is the "detroit free press" talking about the staging.

host: that is a preview of gov ernor romney's speech. massachusetts. good morning to devon, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: good morning. if corporations can spend

without limit in our elections, then why shouldn't they pay the same tax rates that we pay? if we are not regarding corporations as people, and adjustments are made in the tax rates, then we should make adjustments in their right to contribute to our elections. host: thank you for your comment. virginia, outside the washington, dc metro area. dean is a republican there. caller: the problem we have is not the greed of corporations. it is the greed of government. if you look at the parable of joseph in the bible, no more than 20%. get rid of withholding taxes. we won world war i. we do not need to withhold any

more. on october 15, you write a check to the government. in november, you go and vote. that would be term limits. this would bring our country back to where it was supposed to be. this is the reason everybody left europe. the smart people left europe to get away from inbred, stupid democrats. host: on twitter -- next is a call from fairfax, virginia. caller: four quick points. we clearly need a tax structure that encourages corporations and they are fair. we cannot penalize corporations, because they are the engine of this economy. they clearly do have to pay

their fair share. if you have a mom and pop shop, they had an army -- they need to create loopholes. we need something -- the things you hear about are things like consumption taxes. just watch in individual who might either buy a honda accord or a mercedes-benz with a consumption tax. maybe there's structures in place. they do get their fair share, but we are not penalizing them. we need to take a hard look at that. we cannot penalize the company'ies. host: thank you, hugo, listening

adio.span rea don tweets this. , the listen to jay carney president's spokesperson. [video clip] >> it will create a lower tax rate for american businesses. that will make them more competitive. a broader base to ensure that this reform does not at a dime to the deficit, and a situation where the american manufacturing center is further incentivized to grow, and where small businesses are -- where the environment is made easier for small businesses by simplifying the tax code for them, allowing them to, for example, spend up to $1 million.

there are a variety of other measures. it would make american business is much more competitive. host: albuquerque, betty, a democrat. good morning to you. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. recently, 30 of our largest corporations paid more out to lobbyists than they paid in taxes. i do not know how anybody can say this is fair. the small working man probably pays more in taxes than a great many of these corporations do. last year, exxon mobil not only paid zero in taxes, they got a $ 400 million rebate. there's too much tax evasion going on. when you have companies paying zero taxes, i also read that google paid none.

there was a list, a long list. these may be the engines of our economy, but they need to pay their fair share, just as warren buffett has suggested. he has been mocked by many people on the right because of what he said in regards to what he pays in taxes versus his secretary, but he is right on the money, pardon the pun. we have not had a deficit problem. it has been a revenue problem all along. host: scott tweets -- host: baba in venice, florida -- bob in venice, florida e-mails us this. host: the president yesterday in

his swing through the cell to talk about oil companies and corporate tax breaks. let's listen to what he had to say. [video clip] >> right now, $4 billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year. $4 billion. they do not need a subsidy. they are making record profits. these are the same oil companies that have been making record profits of the money you spend at the pump up for several years now. how do they deserve another $4 billion from taxpayers in subsidies? it is outrageous. [applause] it is inexcusable. host: here are a couple of gasoline-related headlines. "detroit free press." in louisiana, where the president was --

here is a little bit of what bruce alpert had to say. that is the pro and con. back to your telephone calls. one more. "miami herald."

this is on the front pages this morning. host: back to your calls. the question is, are u.s. corporations taxed too much or too little? ken, good morning. we lost him. we are going on to virginia.

good morning to greg. caller: good morning. in my opinion, there are so many ways that corporations get out of paying their fair share. we need to simplify the tax code and try to find a way where the corporations are not just one to pass their increased tax burden onto we, the consumers. i keep hearing mitt romney say -- and all the republicans say how we need to make sure we give money to the wealthy because they are the "job creators." if you give money to somebody who is already wealthy, they are just want to stash it and make money in the stock market or by a new yacht. that does not work. it has been proven that technique does not work. isn't it funny how gas prices are starting to go up again to try to stop what little economic recovery we have had? before the election, i remember

when bush and kerry were running against each other and gas prices dropped significantly before the election. the oil companies certainly do not want obama to be reelected. with gas prices going up and down, it is all controlled and it is intentional. i wish people would wake up and smell the coffee in america. thank you. host: jim tweets this. in "the wall street journal" this morning, a story about who gov. romney is turning to to shape his economic policies, including his tax plan .

host: next is a call from cleveland. this is brady, a republican. you are on. caller: thanks. good morning. it is a no-brainer that republicans trumped democrats on the tax issue. i think the problem is that the 1% -- how are you going to tax them? republicans say those are the small business owners and you do not want to tax them, but yet, income inequality has increased over 10 years. i do not know. it is an interesting question.

i am very excited to watch your program this morning. host: thank you for participating. next is arkansas. michael is an independent there. michael, welcome to the conversation. what do you think? caller: i am calling because i feel like i am obligated to. somebody needs to correct these people that call in. exxon mobil did not pay zero income tax, like the woman said earlier. stuff like that needs to not go by because people actually believe that. the other guy said something like the government needs to keep the corporations from passing the tax expense on to the consumer. what are they going to do, just take over all the corporations in the country? the corporations are not going to absorb the income tax and just eat it. if they cannot make any profit, they would go out of business.

people need to get that through their heads. the corporate income tax needs to be zero. that's what i have to say. paul writes this. as we listen to calls for the next 28 minutes or so, also want to get in some other stores in the newspapers. we will mix those in in between your comments on corporate tax rates. a democratn to leo, in california. caller: good morning. a good show that you do. i would wish that you would get for of the people who worke you to stop observing your way [inaudible] you do a great job. i've been watching this.

i've been listening to other shows, other than fox. if other people would stop watching other programs and other shows, they would find out what the corporations are paying. they're not paying anywhere near what fox news' is saying. i watch all of the channels. the corporations pay half of what they used to pay 20 years ago. one thing that i wanted to ask you, susan, is -- you used to have a half an hour of open phones for people. i wish you would do that. 4 i wish you would do that like you used to do everyday. some of the things that we need to get on the show is -- is the

notification of voters, like it's happening in all the red states that make it so hard to register to vote. just a whole bunch of stuff that needs to be brought up to the people to be able to express things. as if we had the open phones, we could do that. i would not have to mess up your thing on taxes. we need to start taxing corporations. for all those people that say 50% of the people do not pay taxes -- i am one of them and i am retired. for all those people that use that line, i pay my taxes for 65 years. quit using the phony line. host: thank you very much. leo, if you do not think your

ideas for segments are often seen on the program, why don't i ask our director if he will put the c-span e-mail on the screen. if you have any ideas for segments you would like to see in the future, send an e-mail in that address. we will make sure it gets to the folks that put the programs together. we would love to hear what topics you would like us to consider. give us some ideas of things you do not think are being covered on the program and we will take a look at it. also, a note on open phones. them from time to time. we will work them and occasionally. here is james parker, who is on twitter. he is arguing for a fair tax. next is pittsburgh. good morning to jeremy, a

republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. but we have not really defined what a fair tax rate is. i think a simple tax code would be considered fair. the economy is not just a one- sided thing. corporations create things that consumers need. if there's a simpler tax code and lower tax rates for everybody, it would make the economy grow. if we look at the tax code as only affecting consumers but not corporations, the economy needs to be balanced.

looking at corporations, the whole concept of the economy. it will for all corporations in a call for every consumer. we do not have to be so confused about paying our taxes. ihost: thank you very much for calling from pittsburgh. let's go to facebook.

mike freeman on twitter. the corporations pay too much or too little in taxes? that's our question this morning. good morning. caller: good morning, susan. i think we need a strong history lesson here. i do not know if you remember or recall anything about it, but the 16th amendment was passed on the basis in the promise that wages would not be taxed. that is how they got it ratified. somewhere between ratification, the depression, and the second world war, is started taxing

wages. that's where the real outrage ought to be. host: from "the wall street journal" -- this is the front-page piece today. they re this. -- they write this.

host: "the wall street journal" this morning. from cape canaveral, florida. robert, republican there. caller: good morning. i notice you had on the screen that newt wanted 12.5%. i always wanted 13%. and a zero capital gains tax. we would be the best country for investment. billions of dollars from around the globe would start pouring into this country. that would basically held all

the people who are unemployed. i do not care if you are a republican, democrat, or bernie sanders. the government has driven the corporations out of this country. do not complain. they've gone overseas because the government has made it so impossible to conduct business here. i have to go with a lowering the corporate tax rate. host: thank you, robert from cape canaveral. he referenced newt gingrich's plan and said there were other elements. of course, there are. we've pulled out of the corporate tax line only from this chart in yesterday's "the wall street journal." that is on "the wall street journal" website or in

yesterday's newspaper, if you are still reading the hard copy version. this is in "usa today." "families in extreme poverty double." the next telephone call is from ohio. good morning to jaime, a democrat. you are on. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say i agree with the other caller that cited your work on c-span. i think you are a really

effective moderator. thank you. i agree with a few of the callers. i think the corporate tax rate does need to be lower. however, i think that -- it is a wonder to me why these oil corporations are making these record profits. i think there's something to be said in that. i do not think that's a manufactured falsehood. i think it is true. they are making them at the expense of regular workers. wages for every day workers have gone down. they continue to go down. there is something in there that is not being talked about enough. i think we need to talk about why people are making less and less money. they have less and less to spend and boost the economy. these corporations are making a lot of money. i think helping out wealthier

people is something that we tried. i do not think it worked. i do not think it will work the next time around. thank you. host: your section in ohio used to be home to a lot of manufacturing companies. what is it like today. we lost her. next is a call from nashville, tennessee. this is judy, and independent. it good morning -- judy, independent. it's good morning. caller: so many people that call in must have 401k plans. others are looking enough to still have company pensions. they do not seem to realize that if the corporations pay more, they cut their dividends. when they cut their dividends, there are millions and millions of average workers like myself.

i am now retired. i am 72 years old. i do not have a lot. i'm happy to see a few hundred dollars of dividends, my quarterly statement, if i'm lucky enough to get that, if it is a good quarter. i do not understand why the people seem unaware that the corporation dividends are -- i just saw a statistic that said three of the four people over the age of 55 depend on, besides social security, on dividends from the years. all the money that they tried to put away in these plans when they were in their working years. that is my comment. host: thank you very much. next is a call from maryland. this is to shock, a republican -- this is chuck, a republican.

good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with the lady that called just before me. if you raise the corporate tax, you'll end up paying for that out of your own pocket. the consumer, the american, will pay for that out of their own pocket without a doubt. demonizing the corporations is the wrong way to go for america. additionally, with the subsidies, i agree with president obama that we should go ahead and get rid of the subsidies. people need to realize they will also get that taken out of their pocket. the only reason i'd let the subsidies go is because i do not want the government messing with corporations at all. my final point is -- obama and the democratic party keep talking about everybody paying their fair share. all you have to do is turn off the tv and go to the web. look at the irs on line and you can tell that the rich who are filthy rich at this point in the eyes of the democrats are making more money. they are not paying the same

percentage. they are paying a higher percentage than the percentage of what they are taking in. it is not fair what they are paying. host: on fairness, barry tweets this. back to facebook. host: the last call is from lafayette, georgette. this is gigi, a democrat. caller: good morning.

thank you for c-span. this goes back to the bush administration. not saying the republicans, and that's what irks me. you talked about perks for big companies. we have companies that are paid by our government. they buy our product with our money or go overseas with it. neither one wants to be honest. i am a hydro geologist -- testing our drinking water. oil, we send mostly to china. i could go on and on. then we have this [inaudible]

thousands and thousands of dollars. the worst thing i cannot stand is when people lie so much. what we're having right now with the radiation. building more nuclear power plants. competition. for years and years, we do not want the windmills'. we do not want this done this. because we want to make all the profits. we've been sold out. our politicians have been taking care of. as host: -- host: thank you very much. hydro geologist, an interesting profession. that will be our last caller. in 45 minutes, russ feingold will be here. he has a new book out called "while america sleeps."

we will also be talking to him about campaign finance. in just a couple minutes, pat buchanan will be at the table. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> live, saturday on c-span3, 5 civil war historians make their case for 1862's person of the year. the all-day forum from the museum of the confederacy in richmond ends the day with an audience vote. saturday, starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> one of the freakiest things

about writing the book for me was thinking about the way rights were both kind of straddled as a moral imperative, an aspirational idea, and more practical and formal mandate. >> from distributing food to the poor and india to sex trafficking in japan, richard thompson ford defines human rights and how well meaning western reforms can lead to exploitation. also this weekend, saturday at 7:00 p.m., a house historian looks at the african-american to serve in congress. he is joined by the former congressman. at 11:00, a book party for "shooting from the lip." >> we got started because there

are a lot of conservatives that work across issues, but before this, there have not been a progressive think tank that works on economic policy. >> the president and ceo of the center for american progress on the mission of the washington, d.c.-based think tank. >> behind particular arguments made in washington with very little facts behind them. part of our job is to make the arguments behind our own views. sometimes, when the facts do not argue for our position, we examine those positions. we believe the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> a look of the center for american progress on c-span's

"q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: pat buchanan on your screen. mr. buchanan, welcome back to c- span. nice to see you. guest: thank you, susan. host: you spent a lot of your career talking about how to bring jobs into this country and how to protect jobs. what is the right approach now with the economy in the state i t is? we're talking about corporate taxation. guest: i would look at the united states from the time of alexander hamilton to world war i and he created the most incredible industrial empire the world had ever seen from 13 agricultural colonies. the second with the southeast asia. back in the 1950's and 1960's, colonized. some of the folks in malaysia,

singapore, and places like that said, "why don't we bring all these internationals and multi national companies in?" they brought them in and give them every benefits they could and coddled them. the a tremendous amount of business poured in there. they rose up and they were the tigers of asia. it's an idea. i would go for zero corporate income tax rate for this reason. who pays the corporate income tax? it comes out of wages or salaries of workers. they do not get the money. or it comes out of dividends from people who have invested in the product. or it comes out of profits, which expand the company. as ronald reagan used to say, corporations do not pay taxes. people do. i think these institutions -- i would have a zero corporate income-tax rate.

how would you make up the $600 billion in revenue? 30% tariff on all goods imported into the united states. toyotas imported into the united states, their price would go up. they would be told that if they moved manufacturing to the united states, they would pay zero income tax. i think the effect of this policy would be the reindustrialization of america in a very short period. host: mitt romney is said to give a big speech about his economic proposal today. segue more broadly into the gop contenders and how you think the bill is looking right now. guest: i think tuesday will be very important. if mitt romney takes both michigan and arizona, i think everyone will begin to say it's going to go on, but it is, for all intents and purposes, over that romney is going to win this. i think santorum has had a bad

week. he has been hurt in a lot of ways. the has gotten too deep into social and cultural issues. i think they can be a tremendous strength against obama, but i think he's too much and a thicket on that. apparently, now he has dropped a little bit behind romney. from the winds michigan and arizona, -- if romney wins michigan and arizona, i think it is over. everyone talks about how there's a romney and an anti-from the vote. there is. everyone who has risen to challenge him, beginning with newt, santorumpalin, -- they all rise and fall. romney has been the most consistent. i would bet conservatively and put my money on mitt romney. host: what are your politics these days since you left?

are you in independent? guest: sometimes, i do not know what i am anymore. i would call myself an independent conservative who votes republican. i live in virginia. i vote republican, except when i'm on the ticket. host: what did you make over the debate in virginia about the ultrasounds and abortion access? guest: i can understand why mcdonald's did what he did. with something that perceived as invasive as this procedure is in later stages of pregnancy -- i can understand an instant reaction of women to it. i can understand why he did what he did. i am 100% pro-life. to support that invasive procedure would probably be politically costly, undeniably. gov. mcdonald is not a foolish politician. he has higher ambitions. i think he felt what he did was

certainly right politically. again, i am pro-life. host: circling back to rick santorum, i read a column that was fairly favorable of rick santorum and his approach to social and cultural issues. you just suggested he is too thick into the weeds. guest: if you argue on the grounds that the government and the state must not impose secular values on christian or catholic institutions that contradict what they believe -- in other words, tell them they must provide birth control devices and sterilizations and you are imposing on them, if you stand with the church on that, you will not only get all the catholics united behind you, but you'll get a lot of folks who are christians, orthodox jews, and others who say the state has gone too far. on the other hand, if you get

down to where he has been discussing on the merits and demerits of contraception, i think that is a moral issue talked about in college endlessly, but you move into an area where people do not understand that. it is almost beyond the political realm. i think that is where santorum has gone. he has gotten himself tied up in some of these arguments. i do not think he has handled them with clarity and stated his position on principle. on the one i stated, i think he is solid. i think he would be in trouble once you get moving into the other area. host: to our viewers, we welcome you purchase -- we welcome your participation. you can also send us an e-mail. we will be talking to pat buchanan for 45 minutes this morning. we should not neglect newt gingrich or ron paul. give us your handicap. guest: i like ron paul.

he is a friend. i think he has handled himself very well. he has made himself part of american history in this campaign in a way that he did not in 2008. i am not as libertarian as he is pretty is really more traditionalist, frankly, than most libertarians. i think he is arguing that all these wars, starting with desert storm, iraqi operation, iraqi freedom, afghanistan, libya, and now we're going into syria -- i think they have really damaged the country badly. i think we have intervened in these places. i do not know what good has come out of them. 6000 or 7000 dead, 45,000 wounded. we have not performed those places at all. -- we have not reformed those places at all. i think he is the one man in this race that says we ought to downsize the empire and bring the budget under control.

those are arguments i made in the 1990's. i think he has been affected with them. the american people have come around to that view. he is entertaining in the debates. he's a bit of a curmudgeon, but a lot of american people have come to like him or respect him. i think newt was terrific in the debates. he had his greek island interlude and dropped half of his staff. i think he did a terrific job in south carolina. i do not know what happened to him in florida. mitt stepped in and beat him up. newt did not respond. i do not know what happened to him in those debates. i do not know if he can rise a third time. you have a negative rating of something like 62 and a positive 26. those are numbers worse than i used to get, susan. i do not know if you can recover from those and win a presidential election.

i think it is down right now to santorum and newt gingrich. as santorum goes down or newt rises, the two of them probably have more votes than romney. as long as the two of them stay winsere, if from thmitt romney arizona, i think he will be set up for super tuesday. then it's like a horse race. you are no longer close. host: we will have to remember thatguset: you cannot rise a secondto time. i am less pessimistic than a lot of folks. i would be on the side of the

republicans in that race. i think the country had enough of president obama. i think they respect him as an individual but he is not up to the job and they are looking for somebody new. i think the republicans had a golden opportunity. i still think they have a golden opportunity. if you take a look at these polls, they are not that. -- not bad. i think the republicans have a fighting chance. i think once you get these primaries behind them, and they will be done by april in terms of we will know who the candidate is, that is a long time until november. i think the republicans can get it together.

i think mayor ronnie has handled on paul beautifully. -- i think mitt romney has handled ron paul beautifully. he is going to have to be a diplomat to pull this thing together. he needs some energy and fire on the ti cket. sarah paling gave it to the last campaign. i think the republicans should not write off the selection. we are only at halftime. host: last question from me for this segment -- is a possible to know the effect of the americans elect if they are successful in getting a candidate? guest: it depends on who the

candidate is. he would not even carried new york city. what he would do is take off socially liberal votes because he is very much a social liberal. i think he would do very well in the community. they voted 4-1 democratic in the last election. if you put ron paul at the top of that third-party ticket and he is running first for the nomination, i think it would almost kill the republicans because he would get an awful lot of conservative and liberal votes. host: let's get to callers. curtis is a republican. you are on the there. caller: it is a real pleasure to

speak with you. i think ron paul reflects your views in that book more than any other candidate. one of our greatest risks is our debt. he is the only republican candidate. part of our problem is the foreign intervention. we should not be trying to build other nations when we cannot rebuild our own. i thank you for everything. i am sorry about the media brown-out with the ronpaul

campaign. i think there should be an investigation frankly. he will not pull votes just from the republicans. he will pull a lot of democrats that way. thank you. guest: i do agree with you. ron paul is the one candidate up there that has been most consistent in terms of voting his convictions and his beliefs. he is exactly right. susan, you know, i used to be very much -- i guess you would call us during the cold war interventionist it. we believe in the american military. 400,000 russian troops on the other side of the river, and the chinese communists in japan and korea. the breakup of the soviet union.

i think a lot of these countries we defended are going to have to undertake their own defense. that is one of those big component of the budget. why should host: next is chicago for pat buchanan. caller: good morning, susan. i want to say that i enjoy c- span tremendously. good morning, mr. buchanan. guest: good morning. caller: thank you. i've watched you quite a long time on msnbc. i've recently learned that you were no longer associated with it. i would like your explanation on two comments that you made. one, i saw the interchange, the

heated interchange you had with the rev. al sharpton when you referenced president obama as a boy. two, your commentary to rachel maddow in stating that this country should only be run by a white man. i will hang up and listen to your comment. thank you. guest: i do not think i said this country should only be run by white men. i do not believe i said that. on your first comment -- this was on the al sharpton statement where i referred to him in an argument with al sharpton as your boy. we were talking about the contest on the hill between mitch mcconnell and the president of the united states on some issue. i said al, your boy is going to lose on this one. i call my sister and say your boy, mitt, is in some trouble.

it's a common statement. we mentioned that the next morning on the network. host: msnbc and their decision that you would not be returning to the network. a lot of that has to do with this book that came in aout in october, "suicide of a superpower." guest: the day the book was launched, i showed up and i was not on the air. i went on back to my hotel. i was informed that i should stay off the air for a brief period, because i think the msnbc folks felt it was very controversial. they had read it. they were concerned about it. we had a terrific kickoff. we were number four on "the new york times" best sellers week. we were on fox business, c-span a number ofd

syndicated shows. then i was off the air. i was not brought back. i was not brought back, and i have a few medical issues that put me out of action in november and december. january, i thought i would be bad for the primaries. i was not. i was informed that they wanted to sever relationships. it was not my idea. there was a number of groups when the book came out. some of which i really have not heard of before. they ran campaigns to have you pulled off the air. there was a drum beat, letters, calls, and all law rest of the.

my guess is the controversy of the book and the phone calls and the campaign which i thought was a blacklisting campaign to get you off the air. i do not know what the final reasoning was but i am sure those were contributing factors. i really enjoyed it and liked doing it. it was not my idea to go. host: a question for you. did you say anything in this book that you have not been saying for years? guest: no, in terms of opinions, but there is an awful lot of new information. what this is is my analysis and digging deep into the history of why it is happening. i tried to figure it all out.

some of the issues were political. we made some horrible blunders and continue to make them. i came to the conclusion that when the culture dies, civilization and the people begin to die. all of the western people are beginning to die out. host: who is the native foreigner in this country? guest: african american and white americans that were here in the 1950's. some of their birth rates are really sufficient to maintain the people. it is the native born that are not reproducing themselves. in europe, there is not a single nation over there except for iceland that has a fertility rate of about 2.1. russia has lost 10 million

people since their independence in 1990. it is going to lose 25 million more. japan is going to lose 25 million people between now and 2050. every generation in italy is one-third smaller than the previous generation. this means a coming and it to western civilization. it is the indian summer of western civilization. this is an analysis of the reasons why. one of the issues is diversity of strength. diversity is the unity that follows from diversity. in the teens and that 20's, we had the unity of 1960. all of the melting pot ideas were hurled out.

what holds us together? that is the thing. i do not know what is going to hold us together until 2050. how did france hold itself together through an monarchy and the revolution and the empire and through the restoration? all these different political changes. the french people, their history, traditions, and culture. all these things. if france is half muslim and have secular, what would hold france together? how did serbia lose cosa vote? they moved over from albania, primarily muslim, a different religion, torn away. look at the soviet union. they fell into 15 different countries. what country came together?

germany. those are our kinfolk over there. these things are important. you are not allowed to talk about them. if you are not allowed to talk about the things that will kill you, that is a problem. host: this was from a bbc radio interview with a young european who says the young generation thinks themselves as european. she referenced the u.s. as a collection of states and they see that as a positive to become a united europe. >> that is very true for a part of europe. scott lynn wants to break away. -- scott lind wants to break away. -- scotland wants to break away. look at those parties that are rising.

every one of them in switzerland. every country in europe now has a party that is basically ethno-nationalist and wants to preserve the native culture. the chinese do understand this book. they are terrified of this. they want their own country. east turkistan. the same with tibet. they won their own separate district is not their own country. people all over the world, this is what they want. this is what we're talking about. that was the dominant force between 1990 to about 2010.

i think transnational institutions are now under fire everywhere. host: big complex topics. we have callers waiting for you. do you agree with this tweet ? guest: look, in the individual, we know that. it is an undeniable. this is the fundamental disagreement between the neo conservatives and the conservatives. we have the declaration of independence and the constitution. we have the gettysburg address. these are the ideas that bind us together. what the traditional conservatives said america was a unique separate people before the constitutional convention. that we were born in the fires

of the revolution. that is what turned puritans and quakers into one nation and one people. this issue has enormous importance. the neo conservatives want to bring the whole world under the constitution of the united states and are fighting these wars. other conservatives have said you cannot do that. the constitution of the united states is not for export. host: chicago, ralph is an independent. caller: love, peace, and cheer to my favorite people, c-span and the audience. isn't it more dangerous for

children that we have created, that we have put 50 million americans through jail and 1% of the people through jail come out as serial monsters? we already give kids prescription drugs and expose them to 50,000 chemicals that cause birth defects, 10% of them. host: a lot of different issues. guest: he is talking about the prison population. i think there is something like 2.3 million americans now in jail or in prison. this is one reason the crime rate has gone down since 1990. i think it is about four or five times the amount we had in prison since 1980. i did a column this morning on the great society. the heritage foundation was

spending 900 and million dollars a year on various programs. look at what is happened. the illegitimacy rate of the country is now something like 43%. the spanish community is 53%. uc society disintegrating even after this enormous investment. what has happened to this country is dramatic compared to what it was when we were a much poorer countries in terms of social and cultural it and every other way. look at the trends and not see a steady decline in dissolution of your -- i do not know how you do it. it is true. host: cleveland, democrat, welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning.

ok. [no audio] -- who are quite nationalist racist. why would mr. santorum meet with them? what would be america's take away with the presidential candidates meeting with -- i really do not know how to clarify them. the gop primary -- they have had a couple of primaries where votes are missing.

how do we know who really won? there are primaries with the votes that are still out and not counted yet. guest: peter is somebody i know. he is a good friend of mine. he wrote a wonderful book back in the 1990's. which i have cited in my own works. i have communicated with the other person you mentioned from time to time. this is one of the problems i discussed in "suicide of a superpower." 50 years after the civil rights revolution in this country, in used960's, "racist" was only very rarely.

nowadays, you can go listen on cable tv and you can hear it routinely during discussions with panels. i think it is a sign of the breakdown of society and the fact that americans really do not like each other very much anymore and they are pulling apart. william bishop says people are apart. up par i think the breakdown on race and culture and all of these things is a general disintegration going on that did not exist in the 1950's. host: this comment from a tweet -- guest: well, i think the idea that people can be individuals,

utter, total individuals in this society without associations and french ships and connections and all the rest of it -- i think he is describing a society that really does not exist. there is no doubt that we all have individual rights, but if we are not a community, a country, or a nation, then who or what are we? i do not understand that question. we did see ourselves when i was growing up, all of us, we would say "american" as our first identity. i think this is what is happening more and more as the national identity is declining. host: john is a republican. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. what a pleasure speaking with

you, mr. buchanan. it really is an honor. you are a national asset. guest: a national treasure, huh? i am just kidding. caller: i believe that to be honest. after you go, -- i am a traditional conservative myself and would not associate myself with the new conservatives. they are destroying the country to be honest with you. they continue to be in the driver's seat it appears. i attented parochial school taught by nuns and a priest. we had 50 children and my class. the nun was not a college graduate yet we had to take these standardized tests. my neighborhood where is irish

catholic with a mixture of some i italian, polish, and german in philadelphia. just to give you an idea of the kind of performance you can get with minimal facilities and less than master's degrees and all of these education degrees. out of the 50 boys, and we were separated, we had 18 boys that had 99 percentile in math. we had others who were 98, 97, 96. out of a class of 50, he would have half of one, right? host: i think the point is education does not necessarily result from investment. guest: i grew up the same way he

did it up in northwest washington. washington was mostly a protestant town. you take the train up the philly and we played philadelphia back in 1954. what you had was the nuns were terrific but what you had then what you do not have now is all of us came out of intact families. the father worked and the mother was in the house all day long. the catholic community has been affected by these social changes, this disintegration that is taken place in society. i was talking to a non one day and she said you have 50 kids in your class but you cannot do that anymore because they need special attention and they are coming from broken families. but he was right.

those schools worked. those nuns were paid nothing. they volunteered and the kids were disciplined. a lot of that is gone now. the parochial schools -- they used to have 5 million kids. this is all in my book in the chapter on basically the decline of the catholic church since the 1950's which was the golden era. it has happened to the mainstream protestant churches as well. even the evangelicals are seeing some attrition in terms of belief among younger ones. host: pat is an independent. caller: you were in debt in 2000. how did you end up across al gore on the butterfly ballot? guest: i will tell you what we did in the reform party.

we ran for that nomination. i got into it around october of 1999 and we got it on all 50 state ballots. we got 60,000 signatures in north carolina. we got 90,000 in texas. we were on all the ballots. what happened in palm beach county -- i was a candidate of the reform party and won the nomination. they put us on the ballot. i was on the right and gore was on the left. a lot of people thought they pushed the hole for al gore and actually pushed it for pat buchanan. host: someone is tweeting that

you did not answer that question. guest: i was very concerned. i do not know the details. this year's? i would think that if there are problems -- they did not report eight counties in iowa. am i concerned about it? no. in maine, they did not get all of ron paul's in one county. the people who ought to be concerned are the people out there campaigning and the ones who have everything on align. i do not know if it will affect whether ron paul winds. i think there will be an iowa caucus. it could affect how it is wrong and reported. again, they should have done a better job in 1996. host: this is our last call for you from baltimore.

caller: how are you doing, mr. buchanan? i just want to ask you a two- part question. how do you feel about governor romney having five sons and never decided to either fight for this country? how do you feel about him not asking his sons to go into the service to fight for this country? the second question is can you tell me how much a gallon of gas is in saudi arabia? thank you very much. guest: i can tell you what it is at the exxon station in mclean. it was $4.39. it was $4.40 for high test.

they want to keep the populace at the. -- happy. we ended the draft around 1971, 1972, 1973. they did not choose to go into the u.s. military. you find most of the -- you find it often. where are these kids coming from? i saw a figure that may not be correct. on average, a kid in north dakota is 10 times more likely to be in the service then one from san francisco. there are certain parts of the country that have been deeply patriotic. these are questions that you should put to your former governor romney and to his own kids who are out campaigning for him. host: earlier we showed you pat buchanan's web site.

guest: it goes back a long way. longer than you want to know. there are a number of papers carrying the column. mainly, it is on any number of web sites. there is an awful lot of web sites. you will get and lot of negative things about me. host: how often are you writing? guest: two days a week. there is a column of there today based pretty much on these two very interesting heritage foundation reports. host: thank you for being here this morning. we invite people to find pat buchanan on his web site. thank you so much for being here. we will be right back. our next guest is former senator . he will be joining us in just a

minute. we will be talking about his new book. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> live, saturday on c-span3, five civil war historians make their case for 1862's per cent of the year. the forum and the it library of virginia in richmond ends with a vote. c-span3 viewers can join in on the discussion on saturday starting at 9:00 a.m. on c- span3. at the 1968 olympic games, john carlos and tommie smith raised their fists in the black power salute. >> they intimated so many people, white people in particular, by using that phrase, "black power." it made many people think black

power meant destruction. destroying america. there was nothing about destroying america. it was about rebuilding america and having an america with a new paradigm. it was about that pledge of the land of the free and the home of the brave. we all wanted to be great american's. as young athletes, we wanted to take our time to evaluate and take the initiative. >> discovered more during black history month on c-span2 and online at the c-span radio library. search and share from over 25 years of programming. "washington journal" continues.

host: joining us next is former senator russ feingold of wisconsin. he has a new book out, "while america sleeps." what are you trying to do with this book, senator? what are you telling americans about the state of our international relations? guest: thank you for having me on the show. during the 10 years after 9/11 when i was serving in the united states senate on the foreign relations committee, the intelligence committee, i saw some changes in the way we were responding to 9/11. it was a terrible tragedy but we were going to work together to address this issue. then things started to go downhill with the divisiveness over the mistaken war in iraq.

then we entered a period where we seem to have gone back to sleep in being concerned about the rest of the world bank part of it is understandable because of the economy but part of it is political manipulation. i think that is dangerous. it reminded me of winston churchill. he gave some 45 speeches in the house of commons where he basically said i know we are not used to worrying about the rest , but therld the germans are re-arming. i had never read his book. that title reminded me of what we are slipping into now. a country that somehow believes we can go back to our island mentality, that we are over here

on the other side of the world and the rest of the world will take care of itself. we cannot do that if we want to be successful. that is the spirit of the book and why i wrote it. host: i will segue quickly into presidential politics. notm wondering whether or you think there is sufficient discussion during this year about international relations. guest: it is a completely insufficient discussion of international matters in the campaign partly because of this manipulation. the candidates on the republican side do not really want to talk about foreign policy partly because of the legacy of the bush administration and partly because barack obama has done a pretty good job. osama bin laden is gone. the present has a much better

reputation around the world than george bush -- the president has a much better reputation around the world than george bush. they want to try to say that he is always apologizing for america. they made fun of his foreign trips to places like india and indonesia. they had these absurd comments like with herman cain. they asked him about whose pakistan. instead of having a thought about that part of the world, he said i am not going to pretend to know about the country. it is not a joke. it is the country right to the north of pakistan and afghanistan. we have to send hillary clinton and make deals with basically a stain-like a dictator in the country. -- a stalin-like dictator in the

country. republican candidates idea is to make fun of it, that it is cool not to know anything. it is dangerous for america. we need to have a conversation during the campaign and after as americans, not as political parties, that we need to be together on these issues even if we want to keep fighting about domestic issues. host: you referenced you were concerned about america's policy objectives. we were there for a decade. now republicans are criticizing president obama's decision to bring the troops home and we are seeing stories of major bombings across the country, thinking that perhaps al qaeda is destabilizing for there. i am wondering about the gains that we made during the 10 years that you are concerned about that we might lose with

that schedule. guest: the idea of going into iraq was a terrible idea. president bush ran around the country saying that al qaeda was operating in 60 countries around the world. that list included afghanistan, ireland, and iraq was not even on the list. why do you think they decided to go there? because of the foolishness of putting ourselves in a situation where we were playing the game of osama bin laden. if you look at his speech that he put on the internet, he mocked us. he said we send a couple of people to these places and the american military comes running. what we really want to do to the united states is bankrupt it. that is the trap that we fell into. i think we got out of iraq five years too late.

the idea that we were going to resolve all of the issues that have been there -- you cannot do that. you need to work with the governments that are friendly around the world to identify al qaeda operatives and try to keep them on the run or get them as president obama has done. if people want to argue that we should still be in iraq, that means we have to invade every country and abroad at some point and treat our troops there like it is a game of risk. host: i have the challenge of getting two complex issues on the table. the opening sentence of your book is actually a round of the passage of legislation that bears your name. the campaign finance reform legislation. i am wondering since it now has

three reviews by the supreme court, the latest of which was citizens united in 2010. what you think about the state of legislation today? guest: there is a misconception out there that the legislation has been overruled. the supreme court of limited a couple of the more minor provisions that i did not think were central. what i considered central continues to be the law. politicians cannot raise it. that is good. john mccain and i always said this was only one thing and we needed to build on it. in citizens united, the entire foundation that we built upon was destroyed. that was the longstanding rule that corporations could not use their treasurys. they could not use their money for political purposes. and the law that labor unions

could i do the same thing. the entire campaign finance system has been eviscerated and all the one of the building blocks still exists. that is incredibly regrettable and is why i created a group last year and has been very successful raising this issue of progressives united which is the group in america working with other groups to raise awareness of how devastating one of the worst decisions in the history of the supreme court actually is to our system of government. host: a question for you. you are critical of president obama for deciding that he will accept super pakcs. some are calling this a game changer. will you explain why you think this is a bad idea? guest: i think is a bad idea to

allow his people to be involved in super pacs. i am proud to be a co-chair of his reelection campaign. on a wide range of issues especially international issues, i think he is doing a really good job. he is doing well right now. the only thing that is a drag on his campaign at the moment is any kind of affiliation with this corrupt system. i think it is a way for democrats to lose at the local level. if any democrat believes we are going to win a battle with corporate money, they are crazy. we are going to lose. we can ever compete if the question is who has the most money in a system of corporate contributions. guess what you are going to get for policy? you are going to get corporate policy and corporate democrats. we have seen this before.

what did soft money buy? it bought nafta and other trade agreements that shifted the industrial base overseas because democrats and republicans were both corporate- tied. it destroyed a lot of the differences and opportunities for individuality in radio. as i sit here in manhattan, we think about the corporate purchase of both democrat and republican votes to destroy our economic system through wall street. to repeal the glass-steagall act which was the protection after the depression of our banking system by separating investment houses from banks. while this was all part of this ugly system, it is back with a vengeance. if anyone believes there is an independent as the law requires from the candidate, that is a

joke. even the supreme court justices are saying this is a farce. i think this will be overturned especially if president obama gets to pick the nominees for the supreme court. host: this is from madison, wisconsin. caller: first-time caller, long time listener. this is a great service to the country. senator, thank you for being a voice during the a conception of the patriot act to say maybe we should slow this. in regard to the candidates and their willingness to speak about foreign policy, i was wondering about what you thought about ron paul. guest: it is great to hear from

madison, wisconsin. obviously, ron paul and i agree on some issues. he was willing to challenge some of our on wise interventions. he believes that we ought to have a congressional review of interventions overseas including to get more serious about the power to declare war on behalf of the congress. he opposed the patriot. there were a number of congressman that were smart enough to say this thing goes too far. i do not agree with some of his other views that deals with aspects of immigration. i am not going to be voting for ron paul but we do have some common ground. i compare him to the pure talking points of the republican candidates on issues like iran or campaign finance. these guys really have no differences between them. romney, you are not quite sure

what side he is on one day from the next. host: our next call for the former senator is from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. i think you have a tremendous background in terms of honoring the constitution. i am going to give you a challenge because one book describes civilization. civilization is the proper unit for analysis. we are the stewards. we have a stewardship responsibility to our former government. that is why we have to save our process first before we go into other units, into other nations. they can look to us and we can demonstrate by example. you referenced in your

discussions with the white house. it is in manual for what is going on politically. i will pick up your book and i will read it next week. i have a lot of respect for you. i think we have to demonstrate the larger issue. thank you. guest: wonderful comments. i should be reading that book myself as i continue to study this subject. you make a good point about the constitution and our stewardship of. half of my book is about errors we made about how we look at the rest of the world and our military interventions. the second part is a concern about the way in which the fears of 9/11 were exploited for political purposes. one is in the area of the patriot act and legislation that was used as a vehicle to put into place an old wish list of

the fbi having to look into people's library records and doing searches of people's homes when they were not there. it was a power grab. that was one example. the other was the interpretation of article two of the constitution under george bush and his legal adviser. they basically took a new view. they said we have been attacked by a different organization so the law does not apply any more. if you want to do some wiretapping, we do not have to go to a foreign intelligence court. this is a direct attack on our constitution, the very foundation put together saying that there needs to be checks and balances. it is one of the most important developments coming out of 9/11. it needs to be fixed.

the whole story of america going to sleep has to do with the fact that our freedoms since 9/11 have not been fixed. host: this is a republican. caller: how are you doing this morning? guest: is it snowing? caller: it is actually wrapping up. guest: good to get the report. caller: i just wanted to thank you for your service. i am a republican myself, but i voted for you over ron johnson. i am not too impressed from what i have seen from ron. if you were to run for president, what would your

budget proposal be? would you cut some spending and save us young people like myself in the next 20 or 30 years? what would you cut? not the obvious answers like defense. thank you. guest: this is what wisconsin has been about in the past. here is a republican that calls me up and does not agree with me on everything and voted for me independently. this is what we have to get back to instead of this blood and guts stuff. i thank you for your attitude. i have been thinking on a daily basis of what kind of budget i would put together a. when i came to the senate, i came with a specific plan that had to do with ideas, larger ideas about closing tax

loopholes. we put that into place. working with both parties, we got rid of the deficit before george bush got into office. part of the answer is going to have to be not having the bush tax cuts extended forever. i think people should have a serious exemption of up to $10 million per couple. it is not necessary to give up that revenue. i think there are many places where we can identify programs that do not work. i had a great deal of success in the senate. identifying things that no longer had their usefulness. ronald reagan was right when he said the closest thing to immortality is a federal program because it develops its own constituency. some of her federal programs,

they had their relevance at one time but they became wasteful and bloated. we need to have that kind of analysis. you say defense spending. making sure defense spending is relevant to the threats that are around us. way too much of the defense budget goes to those military contracts and things that do not work well. let's say you and i can agree that we are not going to cut it, but let's make it more targeted to what we need to do. those would be some of the things i would look to in formulating a budget. host: well, his question was predicated on future political ambitions. there is a bit of a discussion going on as you are talking about what your intentions might be in the future. governor, a presidential bid? water you thinking about for your political future? guest: i am not thinking about

running for office at all. my family is very happy about it after 28 years in a row being in public service. i am a private citizen. some of these guys that campaigned against me all right, to have an opportunity to look at the world in this way. it is a great thing to serve the public. i have an opportunity now to sit back and think about what i wrote about in my book. i never had the chance to do that because i had to adjust the day to day issues that i had to address. we had to deal with a flood and the budget in wisconsin. i have seen this, i was on the intelligence committee and the foreign relations committee.

i am very worried that we are losing our focus. i can do that as an elected official, but at the moment, i am having better success getting that message out as someone who is writing, thinking, and talking about it. host: the people should know that the style of the book is a tick tock of events. curious about how you kept all the details of that in the book. guest: i should have kept a journal, but i did not. i did not have that kind of discipline. a lot of it came from memory during the book. i have this tendency to come back from a meeting or tripped and make my staff listened to stories. i hired a research assistant. i asked him to go and interview people who work with me to see

if they remember the incidents the same way i did. we wanted to be sure that -- we went back and jeremy talked to the ambassadors of the time to see if they had the same recollection that we did. areelieve my recollections wit accurate as possible. some of the more entertaining stories, i knew they were right because i left pretty hard with a happened. it is a serious book but there is some entertaining stuff that i think people would enjoy. we try to use it to make serious points. host: any push back from your colleagues about revealing details? guest: the guy that was going to one of theae, funniest stories in the book was

about him. so far, so good. host: next for the former senator, the white is an independent -- dwight is an independent. are you there? caller: everyone is talking about the middle east. corporations do not want to take any responsibility anymore so they moved jobs overseas while they get tax breaks. and all these wars is bankrupting america. they just do not make any sense. i would like to say on a couple of calls a while back, the segment a while back, the caller from florida -- he was a republican. they want to raise the minimum wage there.

my redneck friends here would say that everything would go about. that is all i got to add. host: thank you very much. minimum wage in the overall effect on the economy. guest: here is a caller who is saying wait a minute. you cannot just focus on the middle east. what about china and its influence in africa? what about the iranian influence in latin america? that is something that we need to become more aware of. al qaeda is still very active in northern africa. the former counter terrorist chief as i pointed out in the book says there is still a serious challenge there. there is a chapter about al qaeda in northern africa in places like algeria and mali.

in nigeria, there is a group which is carrying out huge numbers of attacks on western targets and internal religious targets. it appears to me they either have an al qaeda connection or use the same tactics. we have to be able to look at these different places at once. i am a strong believer that a strong minimum wage is necessary. it is important to protect the livings of people. if you do not have an adequate minimum wage, if people cannot make ends meet, the minimum wage i think is a good program. when i was in the senate, i consistently supported reasonable increases. host: this week from a viewer who