pay. [applause] >> and this room are the people who knocked on the doors and made the calls and went to the polls and made a difference. we did not win by a lot of we did win and that means a lot. [applause] host: mitt romney regained its footing last night, scoring victories in arizona and michigan deriek crou. in arizona, romney won with 48% to 26% of rick santorum barry will get your thoughts on last night's primary and how the gop primary race is shaping up. if you support mitt romney, the

number is on your screen. if you support rep santorum, the number is on your screen. if newt gingrich is your guide, the number is on your screen. ron paul supporters can call in as well you can send us your comments by email or send us a tweet. or you can go to our facebook page. all your comments and thoughts in a minute but i want to show you the papers from the primaries last night.

a week from now is when the super tuesday states will be voted. a lot of eyes are looking forward this morning to those contests. let me show you "usa today." he won the lion's share of support from voters in michigan. he said the federal budget deficit is the most important issue.

one in seven said they voted for some because they disliked the alternatives. i want to show you what rick santorum had to say in his speech last night also in michigan. >> a month ago, they did not know who we are but they do now. [applause] "washington journ what[video cl]

what an absolutely great night and i am thankful to so many people tonight. i have to say to the people of michigan, we came, it into the backyard of one of my opponents in a race that everyone said you have no chance here. the people of michigan to look into the hearts of the candidates and all i have to say is, i love you back. [applause] host: mitt romney supporter in trenton, new jersey -- caller: i am very excited that he won and i want to say something that i recently heard my governor, chris christie say that a win is a win and i am originally from michigan, living in new jersey and i am so excited for governor romney. i know that a win is a win and we will move forward and we will win the rest of them.

host: what is your advice to your candidate on shoring up parts of the republican base that are not enthusiastic about mitt romney? they were as to is the true set -- can't -- conservative and they said santorum. tea party people and evangelicals pick santorum. what is your advice to your candidate? caller: he needs to continue to be true to who he is. he does not need to change or try to meet certain segments of our party. he has to keep being himself and keep reminded us to look at his record, to look at all facets of his record and we will know that he is our candidate. he does not have to try to change himself. that is the worst thing he could do. host: would you call him a true conservative?

caller: i do believe he is a true conservative. if you look at his record, he is a true conservative. is he as conservative as a mother is? maybe not somebody has to be caller: host: who he: would you say social issues are a priority for you? caller: yes, social issues are important to me. i am very conservative on many social issues but maybe not as conservative as rick santorum. i cannot change who i am and neither can mitt romney change who he is to be as conservative as rick santorum. host: let's go to bowie, maryland, power ron paul supporter -- and do you think about last night? caller: hi ron paul supporter and i agree with them. him.

i disagree on him wanting to scrap the department of education. i think it will be very difficult for ron paul to win but in principle i think i support him. i think the other candidates are very flawed. i don't think newt gingrich has the moral character to lead this country. i doubt santorum will be able to win a general election for it i don't -- i do not believe that mitt romney [inaudible] i know ron paul does a great job in exposing the other candidates flaws but does not do a good job of showing mitt romney. out of all the republicans, ron paul is still the best candidate. host: let's hear from a santorum supporter in tennessee -- -- rather in louisiana. caller: i think santorum is

doing a wonderful job. i am going to vote for him in the 2012 election. he is doing a wonderful job and i think he is doing a better job than ron paul did. host: ok. caller: santorum as doing a wonderful job but social security and medicare and medicaid act. . host: can i get your thoughts on how well mitt romney did with the voters that said the federal budget deficit was one of the most important issues to them and the economy? 55% of those who voted in michigan last night said the economy was the most important issue and the mitt romney get 47% of those votes and rick santorum, your candidate, only garnered about 30%. are you concerned about that? caller: yes, i am. host: what is your advice to

him? caller: he needs to focus on medicare and medicaid act preclu. he does not care about the social security act. host: we will go to tennessee next, a mitt romney supporter. caller: i am a democrat but i called on this line because i can handle mitt romney better than any of the other candidates even though he is a mormon. rex santorum has been totally ridiculous in the last few weeks. you play the kennedy speech a few minutes ago about separation of church and state and mr. santorum has no understanding of it. he has talked about president obama lightly on this issue and the founding fathers had enough sense to know that would separation of church and state, if you want to have freedom of religion, the government has to stay out of the church and the church has to stay out of the

government. its center are became president, we would have no freedom of religion in this country because the church would be in the government. i intend to vote for obama this fall but push comes to shove and we have to have a president from the republican party, i can't take romney even though he is a mormon, thank you. host: are you still there? we lost him. tennessee is one of the super tuesday states. republicans in 10 states go to the polls on super tuesday. here is the breakdown --

we will go next to south carolina, you are a mitt romney supporter? caller: yes, i am also a conservative christian and i would like to say that i hope everyone will vote for mitt romney. the reason is he has the ability to appeal to the republican party, many of the independents, and perhaps some of the impa

conservative democrats. host: you say you are a christian? caller: yes. host: why is he not appealing to the evangelicals and those concerned about abortion and other social issues? caller: i don't have an answer for that but i think he is a wonderful man. no one is perfect and given the opportunity to rule this country, i cannot imagine a better leader than mitt romney. host: would be wise for him to talk about his religion more? caller: i wish all the candidates would focus on the real issues which is the economy and jobs and get away from many of the cultural issues that are bogging down this election. host: even though you are a christian republican? caller: you have to keep your eye on the goal. if we don't replace obama, culture issues will be a very small part of the problem. host: leonardtown, maryland, ron

paul supporter you are next. caller: i want to bring up the same comment about rex santorum that he made toward the jfk speech about separation of church and state. he said it made him vomit. everything that comes out of mitt romney's mouth is about his separation and the majority of americans with his money. it is heated the separation between the candidates and religion or money and there's only one that can square it away. only one is talking about the economy, ron paul. no matter how many struggles santorum manages to rack up, he still needs to get delegates. i don't know where they get this misinformation that is disseminated on every news network and the country -- in the country that romney has such

and such delegates and santorum as such and such delegates. there is no such thing. the delegates have not been picked yet host: let me share with you what cnn has on their website for total delegates -- why do you refused to that? --refute that? caller: i can go to a different web site and find a different number. it is not conclusive yet. they have not actually picked the delegates. host: you probably heard the

analysis that seems like ron paul i. mitt romney have formed some sort of allegiance and ron paul is not attacking mitt romney. would you like to see your candidate gore after the front runner more? caller: i wish he would just stick with the issues. he has to come after him because in the past, they have all made some horrible mistakes. direct santorum on stage said he denies -- he will go against his morals of the past due. he will go against this standard. host: we have yet to get a phone call from a new gingrich supporter. -- newt gingrich supporter. a little bit more about the breakdown last night and missed again -- this is from "the baltimore sun" --

the paper notes this morning about the democratic crossovers -- -- the paper notes this morning about the democratic crossovers --

about newt gingrich -- here is a tweet -- chuck, newt gingrich supporter, where does he go from here? caller: i hope he hangs in there till the bitter end. i am hoping that americans will

stop and think for a minute. we're still in the midst of this horrible recession. if we elect mitt romney, we will be putting the hawks in charge of the hen house. we will probably get back to the status quo of a decade ago. newt gingrich has been speaker of the house. i'm hoping that americans will think about that and he has been third in line to the presidency and understands the scope of our federal government. i think he will be able to use the powers that are there more beneficial than any of the other candidates will. i am hoping that people reconsidered newt gingrich and portion to the top of the pack. host: what are your concerns with your candidate?

caller:well-- he is a big thinker. i hate to say this about my fellow americans but i think we're into the short optics of things. we don't really give deep thought to a lot of things. our society moves so fast. they all have these sound bites and everybody is listening to that. if you really think about things, newt gingrich has a better message. host: he has been doing 30- minute infomercials in many states. do you think they are effective? caller: i have not seen that. i don't get into the big three tv stations. i watch you guys all the time. you and fox and the history

channel so i have not heard any infomercials'. . i would love to see one. if we listen to what he has to say, the man has a historical perspective be on the other candidates. he has been the third man out as speaker of the house. he has worked with the president and think about it, america -- he woke up a speaker of the house every morning, third in line to the presidency and he had to be in the loop in case anything should happen. he knows what's going on. host: mentioned the economy so let's get in some other headlines --

lot and the paper this morning about what the stock market is doing. the senate is set to vote on contraception issues and this is from "the wall street journal" -- here is a story that broke yesterday --

this is a picture after the attack on the pentagon when flight 77 crashed into the pentagon. human remains were sent to a landfill and congress will look into that. senator john kerry, the chairman of the foreign relations committee in the senate race this morning about the conservative case beef -- for foreign aid quoting ronald reagan saying he knew diplomacy and development policies neutralize threats before they become crises. secretary of state hillary clinton will be on capitol hill today testifying about the budget issues for the state department. look for our coverage on cspan 3 at about 1:30 p.m. today. she will be before the house

foreign affairs committee. ion iran, here is the " the new york times front page" -- then from "the wall street journal" -- also on the situation in syria -- a probably are yesterday that hillary clinton suggested during a senate hearing that president

assad could be considered a war criminal for his crackdown in syria. a reminder to you that sunday is election day in russia. vladimir putin is seeking to resume his position there where he served as president from 2000-2008. caller: i like mitt romney winning any will probably lose a few states but i want to say that i label myself having been made reagan democrat and a hillary democrat but after the 2008 primary, i voted for john mccain and i am leaning on mitt romney right now. i believe that probably 50% of the hillary voters as well as the independents will go

toward mitt romney. he needs to stick with the issues on being a fiscal conservative and leave it that he will not be a socially conservative as the others. if he will stick with looking at job creation and a temporary work -- and the temporary work that companies hired temporary work and if you go back and look at statistics, i like someone to look up that to say how many jobs were low-paying temporary work as well that only 25% of the jobs created, women were hired. most people are having a hard time. most people don't care about the stock market being at 13,000. most people like me have exhausted their money and are trying to make ends meet. in this election, people need to see that mitt romney can turn things around.

obama has not been doing it. he makes speeches and talks and we are tired of the talks. conservative democrats are tired of it and people are losing things. people have to scale back and you are seeing a big difference. mitt romney is rich but who cares of the get the job done? -- if he can get the job done? mitt romney should stick with going after a bomb on what type of jobs were created. how many women are getting a job? he should go from there because you will see that most of the jobs created were low-paying jobs. host: we will keep getting your comments and thoughts on last night's primaries. a couple of other programming notes -- ben bernanke will be on capitol hill this morning to talk about the state of the economy. this is live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 3 as well as cspan radio. also today, leon panetta, the

secretary of defense and joint chiefs of staff chairman martin dempsey will be on capitol hill testifying about pentagon cuts and we will have coverage of that. go to our website, c-span.org, for more details. let's go next to nebraska, you are a rick santorum supporter, go ahead. caller: yes, i have some issues about mitt romney. he made a statement about the poor people. he said he could care less about the poor people. he brags about the cars that his family dramas. we don't need someone like that in office. we need somebody that will do something for us. i have been a democrat all my life. i think santorum has some good issues. host: do you think he needs to

talk more about the economy and less about social issues? caller: yes, mitt romney bills himself up. we need to talk more about the economy issues. and stuff. like i said, i have listened to all the candidates say they will do this and that. it has to be the american people altogether that has to really decide -- if they leave it up to everybody -- i think there is room for change. nobody can get in there and do a job one day, one year, two years. it will take awhile to turn this country around because we had bush in there and he said he would do certain things but nobody can do it overnight. mitt romney sounds like he is the type of person that will do

this and that at least he says that. santorum has a very good points. i have listened to him. the part that hurt me was more or less that mitt romney put down -- host: we got that point. the head of the dnc, debbie wasserman schultz said this -- rick, you are supporting and gingrich in michigan, good morning. caller: newt gingrich tends to

be the one who is more firm and has a plan. he is contrasting. the one thing i am in awe about is 3/4 of americans do not know their constitution or what the progress of the agenda is. they have taken up the whole democratic party and up the whoe democratic party and some other republican party. we have now, if romney were to get in the general election, and therefore do have two progressives. they both have romney care and obamacare. host: listen to what the former governor of massachusetts had to say last night in his victory speech is. it will give you a date -- an idea of his strategy. >> four years ago, we warned

that the presidency was no place for on-the-job training. today, we have the economy to prove it. [applause] this president likes to remind us that he inherited an economy that was in crisis. he does not like to remind us that he also inherited a democrat congress. he had majorities in both the house and the senate. he was free to pursue any policy please. the fix the economy? no. did he tackled the housing crisis? no did he get america back to work? no . he put us on a path towards decline. it is time to get off the pad and get on the path of american prosperity. >> mitt romney from last night speaking of strategy. here is the "l.a. times" this morning. ron paul said that in most of the state's, he is -- he has

outperformed the 2008 level of support. there is something about the message of liberty that is very attractive to young people. all eyes will be on your state next, catherine, what do you think of last night? what does mitt romney need to do to come back in the polls in ohio? caller: i agree with a woman from texas which he said that romney needs to basically -- i know he has to get by the right wing radical republicans and. i wish he could play it the way he really operated in massachusetts, which was as a moderate. that is a plus because he worked across party lines. he negotiated,. . he is truly a compassionate conservative. he actually integrated did --

integrated his confession their religious views into policy without combining church and state. he is providing access to health care, but the conservative part is requiring them to purchase it from insurance companies. i just think or romney -- i wish he could play it down the battle because i wish -- i want to see him and obama go at it. i will be honest, as an independent, i voted for obama. he really was a moderate in his voting record -- against mccain. palin was far too goofy for me. and i want to see romney and obama go at it on domestic issues where both of them will lose me. here is where my vote will come out.

if either one of them do a tremendous amount of just being about ri -- iran instead of focusing on the facts, they have their right to enrich uranium -- the other issue that will decide my vote will be accountability in regard to the foreclosure end of the bailout of the banking industry. will they hold those accountable who are guilty of bringing us to an economic brink? those are the two issues that will define my vote between obama and romney. host: all right. ohio is one of the super tuesday states coming up on march 6. here come some headlines about last night's primaries in other -- and other super tuesday states. the commercial appeal in

tennessee, romney and rising. -- romney rising. pennsylvania, a rick to and from a rick santorum -- a rick santorum supporter. caller: the man walked his talk and he does not sway all over the board. i was listening to this woman who is with the american for justice. and caller: -- caller: she was on your program one morning. she said that she hoped -- she helped to put obamacare together and she said she doesn't know where mitt romney is coming from because she said that he put a health care plan to gather in massachusetts that those people have to live by. she said that puts the plan that

they used as a guideline to put obamacare together. he will get on that television, look square in the camera, and say that he is going to want to obamacare. you cannot believe him. host: it is the center for american progress. she is the president of that organization, a liberal think tank here in town. some e-mails for you. the conservatives must be heard in this primary. if it takes rick santorum, newt gingrich, and ron paul to keep mitt romney on this then so be it. the primary process is good. the american people are angry, and a one good, solid amare -- conservative policies to fix this country, and they will prevail in november.

host: fred in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what did you make of last night tictac victories? caller: i am glad he was able to hold onto michigan. he has good competition from santorum, but people say that mr. romney is not truthful. that is a vague untruth in itself. mr. romney has run companies for 25 years. he also got in the middle of the olympics when it was in dire straits and turned it around and made it quite successful. this is a businessman and i have said for years that the problem in america is that we do not have a businessman as president. the president's job in the united states of america is a business. this is big business. mitt romney is the man and it is

time that the republican party and the independence -- independents except the fact we have to beat obama. mitt romney is the guy that can do that. i am telling you that mr. gingrich and senator santorum need to quit bickering among the party and look -- this thing is virtually over. romney is one to be the nominee. we need to a bit behind him. we need to do what we need to do. ohio needs to address the issue right now. host: all right. fred in west union, ohio. voting on the super tuesday. here is the head by -- headline.

>> this notion that we should have let the auto industry parish, that we should pursue anti-worker policies in the hopes that unions like yours will buckle and unraveled -- that is part of the same you are on your own philosophy that says, we should leave everybody did -- we should leave everybody to fend for themselves. they think we should keep cutting taxes for those at the very top. for people like me. even though we do not need it. just as they can keep paying lower tax rates than their secretaries. let me tell you something -- not too far to find a -- not to put too fine a point on it, they are wrong. [laughter] [applause] we cannot afford to go back to

that philosophy. not now. we have a lot of work to do. host: here is from the hill newspaper this morning, in other political newspaper. olympia snowe has chosen not to run for reelection. many were surprised about the announcement. the democrats expect excitement about the new possibilities for 2012. republicans were disappointed. members of her party were blindsided more than to the weeks before the filing deadline. that is the news coming out of maine. the senator said this in a statement -- "i am a fighter at heart and i am well prepared for the electro battle." that is that the issue. what i have had to consider is

how productive an additional term would be. there is more political news for you this morning about the state of the -- who controls the senate out in this 2012 election. let us go next to the grand prairie, texas. it george, you are in newt gingrich supporter. what does he need to do? caller: he needs to keep plugging away. he is doing great. we will vote until the courts settle the redistricting issue. for the moment, these candidates have presented much information to me and i support speaker gingrich. he is very articulate, knowledgeable about the problems we face. the problems that caused them selves which he declared what he was gone to do to fix it. he has cared supporters away to other candidates -- scared supporters away to other

candidates. he said he was going to clean up the congress. going to clean up washington. all those people -- 50% of his supporters left him because of that. they were scared for their jobs. he is the best qualified. i urge everyone to support him. he is the only one that can fight and win and bet president obama. host: this is some breaking news off of the wire this morning. egypt is one of al qaeda's top supporters. mohammed ibrahim makkawi was taken to questioning. he was not the senior al qaeda leader and he had nothing to do with the terror groups since 1989. that is some breaking news on

the wire. turning us on the phone is david, white house reporter for "usa today." we discuss the white house dinner to honor iraq veterans. give us a background on how this came about. caller: president obama was looking for some way to honor tehama u.s. service in iraq but did not want a big to do. we picked up some of this at the pentagon and heard that the idea was for a special dinner. a state dinner even at the white house to honor all of the branches of the servers who participated in iraq. there'll be more than 200 guests representing all branches of the service. it is a dinner to honor the u.s. sacrifices in iraq. host: we are planning to be there with our cameras.

remarks only. why? caller: that is the way the white house does these things. the coverage gets smaller and smaller with each white house. they do this for traditional state dinners now. we only get in for the remarks. we are excluded from a dinner. this is going because this is a national event and it involves u.s. troops. there is no foreign-policy involved. i am not sure why the dinner is not open. host: what is the agenda for tonight? caller: basically, there is no entertainment like there are in a lot of state dinners. this is just diner -- dining. and they have to disclose the full agenda yet, but it is a dinner and speeches. host: who is attending and how are the guests selected? caller: as was done through the pentagon. more than 200 guests.

the white house description in is as follows -- men and women in uniform from all ranks, services, states, and backgrounds. representing the many facets of americans who have served in iraq and the pentagon basically is determining the guest list. air force, army, navy, coast guard -- host: do we know, david jackson, if that's who lost their lives will be represented in any way? caller: i am sure that will be one of the main focus is. i am not sure if there will be representatives, but the president plans to touch on it. >> -- host: you mentioned a possible break. there have been critics of this dinner. what are people saying on both sides of the coin? caller: i do not think a lot of

people know about it. we rode our story in january. it has not been picked up a whole lot. i was surprised to hear that some people were surprised this was taking place. it has not gotten much publicity. a lot of people have said that the president should find some public forum in which to honor our sacrifices in iraq, whether it is a parade or a special event. some gesture that should be made in order to honor what we did in iraq. the white house would say this is exactly what the dinner is for. privately, what people say is that the war was very divisive. it not quite as the vietnam war, but there were quite a few political divisions over the decision to go into iraq. there is a feeling that he might be careful about how this particular conflict is honored. caller: david jackson with "usa today," thank you for your time. for more details, go to c- span.org.

coming up in 45 minutes, we turn our attention to the federal reserve chairman's testimony on capitol hill today. we talk with carolyn maloney -- sits on the financial services committee that will hear from up a reserve. up next, we are talking with utah republican jason chaffetz. we will be right back. >> bobby jindal is scheduled to reveal his proposal for the next fiscal year today. a budget $900 million in the red. in shreveport, it is mostly cloudy and 37 degrees at the airport.

the news anding to weather station. >> this weekend, "book tv" and "american history td" export sure we see -- shreveport louisiana. the author of the union army's inlar in -- army's failure louisiana. and look at the 200,000 books of the john smith snowbelt collected house that the lsu archive. on cspan3, from barksdale air force base, a look on their role in 9/11. a history of the b-52 bomber. who is a founding father's autograph collection at the louisiana state museum. madison during the civil war.

shreveport, louisiana, this weekend on c-span2 and c-span3. >> santorum delivered a defense of religion in public life on sunday. appealing to the social conservatives who revived his presidential campaign. on the talk shows this weekend and in speeches, mr. santorum responded to comments made by " -- president kennedy. >> i believe in an america where the separation of church and state is absolute. no catholic fellow could tell the president should he be catholic, how to act. no protestant would tell his parishioners for whom to vote. we're no church and church school is granted any public fund or political severance. where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president's who might appoint him. or the people about elect him. >> you can watch more of

president kennedy's speech. go to c-span.org and you can find in our archives. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with jason chaffetz. we're talking about all of the activity you have been doing on the campaign trail following romney from state to state. i want to get your take on last night's primary and show you some polls coming out of the primary so far. here is the "washington post" -- romney is less popular than rick santorum. favorable ratings with the very conservatives, mitt romney has 30%. if you look at less 9's exit polls, those that were asked about who is the tree you --

true conservative in the race in arizona, he was able to garner more in arizona, but then in wishing to in -- in michigan, 50% said rick santorum. rick santorum also came out on top on social issues. what historic ties to your candidate -- what is your advice to your candidate? caller:-- guest: there is some worry about whether he can garner support. he is winning. if you combine mitt romney -- if you can combine boats for the bridge and santorum, mitt romney still wins. i have always believed that mitt romney was a very conservative person. i think there is a perception problem when you are the governor of massachusetts. there is a preconceived notion that you cannot be a conservative from massachusetts. that's of like an oxymoron. host: what does he need to do?

guest: he needs to keep doing what he is doing. there is a contrast between the others and mitt romney. he is not a product of washington, d.c. he is not working in d.c. he is a businessman from outside with a conservative principles. he is highly successful and blessed in business and other things. that seems to be the winning formula. i think one of the key things for republicans retake the best person to defeat barack obama in november -- you put a d.c. insider up against the president, i cannot imagine that middle 10% of voters in america are going to say, that is what i want. i want to lobbyists. i do not think that is what the country is looking for. the electability issue is certainly a key for romney. i still believe he is very conservative in his approach. host: t party people are

saying, a -- they voted for rick santorum. you are considered to be part of the two-party movement. -- tea party movement. why are they not relating? caller: rick santorum has a good message. he is a beautiful family. i disagree with some of his positions. and you look at the contrast between michigan and arizona, you have a big labor component where you have unions and democrats showing up in that michigan race. they are skewing the results. rick santorum was trying to tap into that. he was running calls trying to get democrats to come play in the republican primary. that should be the first clue that maybe those democrats do not have the best interests in the republican party. i think it is despicable that he encouraged people to vote for

him to try to screw up this primary. nevertheless, mitt romney was victorious and he will do well on super tuesday. ultimately, he will be the nominee. host: another exit poll -- early exit polls show that that negative campaigning had weighed on the state's republicans. less than half the voters said they backed their candidates strongly. about one in seven said they made their choice because they dislike the other options. are you concerned about the tone, as other republicans have said, in this gop primary and the impact it might have on this -- on the republican party's chances? guest: i think this is different than if this were say in august or something. at some point, we have to rally. there is one thing that drives republicans together, we are very united on its -- we will defeat barack obama come

november. this is a tough race. if you take it is tough now, imagine what it will be a like -- but what it will be like in november. this prepares us for november. it does not divide us. if you want the toughest candidate to prevail. host: looking for two super tuesday, people have gone from michigan to ohio saying this is the real test for mitt romney and his other candidates. what is your advice for the mitt romney campaign in ohio? guest: they have always been prepared to run a national campaign. he of 10 states in play. mitt romney will compete in all 10. most of the and their candidates are trying to pick off a state or two. if you look at the popular vote, however you slice it, mitt romney is ahead. you have to compete and make your case but i think the romney campaign has the resources. i hope the people of the states

that are about to go look at it and say, why is it that people keep going to mitt romney? he has done exceptionally well across this country. there is a reason why. i think if voters focus on that and start to look at that, they are going to realize that he is the best person. host: officials are still worried about him. guest: he has cut more endorsements than anybody else out there. literally thousands of people have endorsed mitt romney at the national and local level. host: does it matter if the voters -- the percentages are not large enough? guest: i t was not too long ago that they were complaining that mitt romney could not get above 25%. now he is regularly getting north of 40%. he is near 50% in arizona. that seems to be a story they want to throw out there for a week for two. when you have journalism going on 24/7 and you have a yearlong campaign, you get tired of

hearing about this percentage and that percentage. mitt romney keeps winning and we have to put forward a winner in november. host: what is your in a -- where does your passion come from? you were with jon huntsman. he decided to support mitt romney. you are asking your colleagues to endorse him. where does it come from? guest: this is about jobs and putting us on the right fiscal footing. he understands that balance sheet and the economy. capital formation. this is about jobs at the economy. we tried barack obama's way and it is not working. i umpired up. i was elected the same year as barack obama. i sat there for two years with the democrats at the house and the senate. they got everything they wanted and it did not work. i want to restore this country. i want to get back to those core principles of fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability, and a strong

national defense. mitt romney epitomizes that. i am grateful to jon huntsman. i want to put forth the best person to beat barack obama. mitt romney has all of that experience, a private sector, outdoing the olympics, being a governor, there is nobody who is better prepared and then mitt romney. host: this is a headline about you a while back. guest: we are getting way ahead of ourselves. i like the optimism he is going to be the president. i want to get the best person i can into the white house. i am grateful to have this position. i am grateful to have the people of utah allowed to serve in congress. i want to get the right person. host: you said that a you read -- you said you would not turn it down. guest: nothing has been offered.

i wanted to be elected. i think the country would be better off. host: let us get to the phone calls. walter in butler, indiana. you are on the air with jason chaffetz. caller: to live for taking my call. i define myself as a -- thank you for taking my call. i define myself as a conservative republican. when we talk about who is electable or who you think is truly conservative, there is a big gap. romney is not a bad man. he has the most money so more money seems to win in the war. you can come up with terrible advertisements for -- guest: why would you say he has more money? he had -- he has gone from coast to coast and raise this money. the maximum you can get is $2,500 per person. he has built a network. why would he naturally have more money?

it is a consequence of having more support. caller: i grant you that. i think the superpac has a lot to do with it. great. i look at it as far as conservatism, somebody that can come up with romneycare goes against the core principles of conservatism and i can the ghetto or the fact that he did that. i am going to -- i cannot get over the fact that he did that. host: i want to have the congressman respond to it. caller: there is a major -- guest: there is a major difference between doing something at the state level and making it a mandate. newt gingrich supported a national mandate for 20 years. mitt romney has said crystal clear that he wants to repeal obamacare. he will give a state a waiver. he does not want it one size fits all the top down approach from washington, d.c. to be thrust upon the states.

i encourage you to look at that. there are aspects of it that i absolutely do not like, either, but again, mitt romney was the governor of a state where there was 85% of the legislature being democratic. he vetoed more than 800 bills. when you look at the consequences of this -- do not give it credit to mitt romney. they put forward a 70 page bill in the state of massachusetts compared to obamacare, which was 2500 pages. it is a disaster. this country does not know what to do with health care. that a little bit deeper and you will find new gingrich's the one who supports a national mandate. host: detroit, michigan. good morning. caller: i am glad the primary is over. [laughter] i am looking forward to november because barack obama has never

looked better. let me tell you. i am tired of hearing how he saved the olympics. he went to congress and he got money. if you watch the 2008 campaign when john mccain was the person running for you guys, his mother said, that was a more man-made mass and to the mormon to clean it up. -- mormon-made mess and it took a mormon to clean it up. he did not want to save detroit, but he wanted to save the bailout for wall street. there is some much hypocrisy in your party right now. you are watching -- ideas like schizophrenia. caller: thank you and good morning. i disagree. as somebody who was living -- as somebody who was living in utah, i t was a disaster. we had just come off the heels of 9/11. people did not want to travel.

they were concerned. this could have been a conduit to something disaster is that way. there was a scandal where there were thoughts of bribery and those types of things. mitt romney turned a that olympic games all-around. he created a great organization, brought in people to create this organization. i would not put religious tenor into the comments that you did. he has said clearly that if you look at the bailout and what not, he would have done more of a structured bankruptcy as opposed to the way the president did it. we are going to have the debate come november. i t was compelling in michigan. i sympathize with you. you have a race without ads on -- it wil be back. host: if mitt romney is able to

tie up the nomination, what is your role in the general election guest: whenever i can do to be helpful. i went to talk about the message that deals with jobs and the economy and how to get people back to work. a lot of people want to achieve the same goal. we have different philosophies of how to get there. the fundamental discussion that is going to be is are we going to be an opportunity society about life, liberty, and the opportunity to succeed? or are we going to be an entitlement society? that is the fundamental choice moving forward. this will be a great debate to watch. host: we are moving on to michael in illinois. good morning. caller: naperville. first of all, regarding the program, i wish you would no longer have these politicians from either party on because this fellow is on the budget

committee and he has not said a word about the budget. i have two questions. since you are supposed to be a fiscal conservative, i would assume, i want to know why is it we have farm subsidies and we have been, particularly the people in the east, have been subsidizing the water for the west for years. the second question i have is, there was an article in the 0 koshaba gagos trivia and '' "chicago tribune" about who makes up that 1%. 20% were doctors. i want to know how you are going to get some kind of a deliverable health care system to us when you have the majority of doctors, 60% of all doctors in the 1%. how will you get them to cut their prices so the rest of us

do not die without any kind of medical care? caller: thank you and good morning. i hope it is ok that item on the show. i want to go through this. i serve with paul ryan. i am fairly new to this. i was elected in 2008. it is an honor to serve on the budget committee. my problem with the obama budget is that is never balanced. i have heard others say the president is offering a balanced approach. his budget never balances. when he took office, the debt was roughly nine trillion dollars. keep in mind, if you spend a million dollars a day, it would take you 3000 years to get the one trillion dollars. we have a nine trillion dollar debt and it will take us over 26 trillion dollars in debt. that is not workable. this is a balance sheet that never balances. that is the problem. when the president presented his budget last year, that was 97 to

nothing the senate defeated the budget. we're going to put forward what we believe is a responsible budget. host: when will they put it guest: forward this will happen before easter. -- host: when will they put it forward? guest: it will happen before easter. secretary panetta is talking about defense because he is a major -- it is a major expense. go to [unintelligible] -- go to c-span.org. you cannot ask the pentagon to take the brunt of any of this.

we are not one good tax increase away from prosperity. i think where there is common ground with democrats is the idea that we need to broaden the base and lower the rate. this means getting rid of loopholes. i support that. there are going to be winners and losers but if you create this more even playing field, you can get from here to there. that is the proper way to go. what bothers me about the white house and what i think is lacking in leadership from our president is, you have to do in total reform. if you do not, you can never solve this problem. i put forward a social security plan that actually balances over the next 75 years without tax increases. we did seven things. we need some leadership. this will have to start in the white house. this is what mitt romney is talking about. for the president to be in the beginning of year for and having never offered a plan to solve some of the biggest problems --

medicaid, medicare, social security. president obama to $500 billion out of medicare. there has to be a way to solve these problems. this has got more than 5000 days without offering were debating a budget. you have the white house who has never tackled the tatted reform. that is not leadership. we need a change. host: we have a republican in idaho. caller: hello. off can you hear me? host: yes. caller: president obama was the least qualified and he lacked executive experience. if anybody that is applying for any kind of job knows that experience is what you are hired

for. the country needs to remember that if you are going to be held to an experience of your resùme in the interview, that is what you are going to be hired for. the american voter failed to recognize all of those qualities that the president did not have. it is important that at this time -- center santorum is also a center with no executive experience. host: are you a mitt romney supporter? caller: i may newt gingrich supporter because he has caught the experience of -- got the experience. he puts out a plan and he addresses the issue is whether it is economic -- the oil

probalem with the driling getting the pipeline approved and getting those of journal -- functional -- host: we die your idea. why is he wrong on newt gingrich? guest: i look at earmarks to his support of a national mandate on health care. last year, we put forward a budget that pays off the debt. who is the first person to come out against it? newt gingrich. he called it right wing social engineering. he is out there on the other side of this. terrible frustration with the speaker. i think given some of his ethical problems, the fact that he had to resign and pay a fine going off the doors as the speaker, the fact that he is a lobbyist with fannie and freddie

-- that is who we should be putting up to be the president of the u.s. to win in november? i think experience matters. i have nothing personal against president obama. he is a very nice person. he has been nice to me. he has a beautiful family. i disagree with his policies and his positions. i think there is a world of difference. one of the reasons i support mitt romney is, his family life, he has been married for 42 years. it is been scandal-free. that is the kind of person -- that is what the democrats did. put up with someone who has a beautiful family. we need to put forward some with equal and tigert of -- integrity. host: cecilia this morning. good morning. caller: obama is going to wipe the floor with you. he is going to win. these republicans are hypocrites. they go against everything they

say. santorum is talking about going against our college. excuse me. what parent does not want their child to go to college? host: ok. let me ask you this, if rick santorum is the nominee, does he lose to barack obama? guest: i do not think rick santorum is as strong as mitt romney. let us remember -- rick santorum went up for a vote in pennsylvania and he lost by 18%. this is somebody who thought arlen specter should be the next president of the u.s. mitt romney is in the best position to do that. when he was up at massachusetts, he won. he has a great appeal to independents and that will be critical as we go into november. i am, and very supportive of

mitt romney. i see things through my mitt romney gagos. he -- goggles. he is conservative in nature and approach. he has business experience. like jack welch has said, nobody has been better prepared to be president then mitt romney. i happen to agree with that. host: we go to a republican in abilene, texas. caller: help. the conservatism -- hello. the conservatives are born to help jobs come back to america, if they do that, we need to revisit the trade agreements. nobody ever talks about that. the trade agreement that we have -- there are 17 active. we have a trade deficit with every one of them. all this does is make the republicans up here to be for

big international business. everyone of these agreements need to be revisited so that we do not continue to gut the industry out of this country. we are being homogenized and down to the worker bees. host: do you support free trade agreements? guest: i do. we need to look at these one at a time. we need to recognize that manufacturing is good. sometimes, you get these radical environmentalist to tie up our ability to develop resources. we have a lot of coal and natural gas in utah. we cannot develop and extract those to the degree we can. we are 70% owned by the federal and state government. when you look at permitting, this is going out to almost zero. that is scary for somebody like

me who understands that a years from now, we will not be able to extract those things. -- eight years from now, we will not be able to extract these things. when have we exported across the globe? this is pretty scary if you look at it through those lenses. you worry that the federal government has become this regulation nation and has impede our ability to grow the economy and jobs and we have to remember, manufacturing is good. we ought to be incentivizing that. we should be doing that. host: on twitter, we go back to the issue of executive experience saying -- guest: there is a lot of truth to that. we made some fundamental mistakes. democrats and republicans. we overextend ourselves. we incentivize things that should not have been incentivize. there were major misses made, but how do you get out of it? how do you fix things.

i am opposed to the consumer protection border and a battle development. instead of fixing the sec and other things, we created a whole nother bureaucracy. more government employees. let us fix what is wrong. i agree there are things that are broken. creating a whole other bureaucracy added more confusion and debate and i worry it did not solve the problem. host: we're going to be talking about the top executives of this country and how much they get paid in our last hour of the "washington journal." independent caller. caller: it seems like this election is going to be a repeat of 2010. republicans promised to do jobs. we have not heard anything about it since then. that is what they worry elected to do. the other problem i have been this campaign is republicans keep blaming the president or the gas prices. he has no control over it.

market sets the upright and sec -- market sets the price in speculation. that is not fair. host: you might be interested in this headline in "the washington times." they said the republican package was nothing more than a collection of old bills. guest: that is the point. the house -- we have passed 29 bills that we believe will help jobs and the economy and the senate has done absolutely nothing. harry reid and the democrats controlled the senate. i have got to tell you, this is frustrating. my bill passed in the house. the senate did not take it up. we can place a 29 bill -- we can place 29 bills whether it be the

keystone pipeline or not and to have the senate not even debate that, i think is scandalous. i think is wrong. i think the american people deserve better. if they disagree, debate it. at least have the debate and then vote on it. if they voted, -- we put forward a budget last year in the senate did not even debate that. terribly frustrating. with gas prices, yes, the president needs to take responsibility for this because the devaluation of the dollar and the fact we are not extracting the resources that are in our own backyard and we have an offshore drilling program that is impeded by the president in its ability to grow and expand and create jobs and -- the president has to take some responsibility for this. for him to take a hands-off approach, why are you there? what are you doing? that is where republicans get frustrated. there are lots of things we can

do. as somebody from a western state, i can tell you that the federal government is the major impediment to our growing jobs, the economy, and having the energy security we need in our own backyard. inst: frazier is watching us new jersey. caller: good morning. i have two questions. this is what i am trying to figure out today. we democrats -- ideas like we have no shame. -- it is likely have no shame. sometimes, i cannot even look on the television to hear what they are fighting over. we are trying to make it worse.

host: you are worried about the tone? caller: i am not worried about the tone. the language. sometimes, i have to turn the tv off. guest: that is probably a good thing from time to time. maybe not right now. i can understand doing that. you worry -- i worry about the other people being involved in politics. i remember as a young kid, my parents were dragging me to the voting booth. i hope we all do that. when i speak to crowds, there are not enough young people involved in those crowds. we need to teach people that your voter participation is important. so few people raise their hands, but those that do make a difference. no matter where you are in the political spectrum, i hope we would all encourage our young degeneration to be involved. -- our younger generation to be

involved. you're right about the tone. the emotions that get involved in these races. this is the greatest country on the face of the planet. we have the best system. we need everybody board is abating. host: guest: -- host: we move on to connecticut. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment about the gulf. i think the obstruct and -- we had a little incident a few years ago. we're looking at that and that is so -- i wanted to ask if obama is reelected in november, will you and the republicans accept that voters rejected their principles and they want congress to work together to compromise to get things done and not fall -- follow the policies going on right now? thank you. guest: to live here the elections mean a lot. we bought one direction or another -- thank you.

elections mean a lot. i introduced the bill yesterday with jason altmire. i introduced an immigration bill, a very bipartisan. we passed that out. now, it is sitting in the senate. with no movement in the senate. i can look and say, i have worked in a bipartisan way on a number of issues. i have to represent my constituents. the number of 2 -- i have great respect for who is elected. this check and balance -- this contention is supposed to be there. it is supposed -- we are supposed to have the debates. that is what makes our system so great. host: an e-mail from vermont. mitt romney is not connecting because he is so out of touch with regular people. he keeps making comments that make it seem so obvious. in michigan, he said his wife drives a couple of cadillacs. he has no idea when he makes

those statements out of touch he sounds. guest: i do not see this. i would argue that he has connected better than anybody else. that is why he is winning by a wide margin. you combine all of the santorum and pingree to both and you still do not come close to mitt romney. -- and gingrich votes and you still do not come close to mitt romney. i can understand where people get cancer, but let us understand. this is a man who is being followed 24/7. he is being followed by photographers and reporters. we overreact to a phrase or a couple of words extracted out of a sentence. he has been successful. if someone calls him rich, that is what he has accomplished. he created this. he was a businessman and was very successful and very blessed. if people could see his family and his five kids, his wife of 42 years, they would think that

he is a good man. this is a good person. host: on a personal level, here is a tweet from someone who says -- there was another headline saying that warm and voters are wary of support. there acquired about their support. even though the church encourages members to vote and be politically active, if the danger they see in associating romney to closely with his faith. guest: the church does a great job of making sure that people participate -- and a mormon. -- r.i.m. a moran. that is not why i support mitt romney. harry reid is also a mormon. the church really encourages

voter per dissipation. no matter which party ideas. it to be involved. harry reid is one of the most are for people in washington d.c. and he is mormon. i do not think that is the case. host: what about the reticent associating romney to his faith? guest: state is legitimate, but is limited. you cannot be take faith is legitimate, but is limited. you take into consideration, but at some point, you have to move on and look at the policies and the person and the way they conduct themselves. i would not want anybody to vote for mitt romney because he was mormon nor against him because he is mormon. he believes in jesus christ. he is active in the church. i think you can look at the way he treats religion and say, this is somebody who believes what he believes.

he is a good member of his church, but above and beyond that, we should look at the policies and principles he is advocating. host: a couple more phone calls for jason chaffetz. dayton, ohio. go ahead. caller: i would like to suggest that we do not live in an autocracy. i read the constitution and it does not say the president is supposed to submit a budget. he is supposed to permit you an idea. the congress is supposed to get him a budget back. where are you guys telling america -- why are you guys telling america the president has not supported a budget? that is your job. people should let their congressmen more strongly than they should their president. thank you. guest: thank you and good morning. the president is supposed to submit a budget. he submitted a weekly. -- he submitted it a week

late. in the house, we are also supposed to put forward a budget. we have been doing hearings and we will be so big it -- so many did before easter. april 15 is when the house is supposed to submit that. i hope he will look at this objectively. the united states senate has never debated and passed a budget in more than 1000 days. i hope he will say, that is not right. -- i hope you will say, this is not right. we cannot solve this challenge of the senate does not do its job. host: can you give us highlights of the republicans' budget? guest: we want to make sure we are driving the economy forward. we have to do with this sequestration. we have this massive -- host: how do you deal with that? guest: the bill that passed make sure that there was major cuts

to defense. a lot of us are deeply concerned about them. i think there is some waste in the defense department. i am not saying they cannot go without some cuts. at the same time, the deep cuts they are talking about are not sustainable. if we want to be the economic superpower, and make sure that our military is strong enough so that no one ever takes us on, there are concerns. you look at the hundreds of thousands of service people who are part dissipating, this is not a place where we can cut their benefits and health care and all of these other things. host: the budget will not cut the pentagon's budget as much as is being predicted? guest: we have to do with sequestration, which is formula- driven and figure out a way to make some other cuts along the way. host: what will surprise people about the budget? guest: the fact that we did it and we're going to pass it. a lot of people have skepticism about that. i think they will be proud of

it. we did last year. nobody else did. is the responsible thing to do. host: congressman, thank you very much. in our last hour, we will turn our attention to ceo pay in this country. we will talk about that and what rules govern ceo pay, if any. coming up, we will talk to congresswoman carolyn maloney, a democrat from new york, representing the 14th district. ben bernanke on capitol hill testifying before the financial services panel about the economy. but first, a news update. >> attorney general eric holder says the justice department is in the beginning stages of reviewing complaints about the new york police department's surveillance of the entire american muslim neighborhoods. documents from the associated press shows the nypd build databases pinpointing where muslims live, where they buy

groceries, what internet cafes they use, and where they watch sports. it comes as a surprise to some democrats who said they were under the impression the justice department had been reviewing the matter since late last year. an update on the americans held in egypt. an egyptian court officials says all three judges pulled out of the trial of the 43 pro-the mark for see workers, including 16 americans. the defendants are charged with using illegal foreign funds in coverage of unrest. it has strained relations between the u.s. in egypt and may threaten u.s. aid to that country. more on demonstrators here in the u.s. from "rolling stone." michael hastings reports the department of homeland security has been watching the occupy wall street protesters. the report sums up the history of occupy wall street and assesses its impact on everything, from the financial- services to government facilities.

those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> even a person who is a senator, even a person now who is president of the united states, faces a predicament when they talk about race. they face all sorts of predicaments. they faced the fact that there are an appreciable number of americans who are racially prejudiced. they face the fact that a much larger portion of the american popular it wants to deny the reality of race and even now. the harvard law professor and former law clerk to thurgood marshall on racism, politics, and the obama administration. he is the author of five books. he will take your calls, email and tweets for three hours on c- span2. >> with a firm confidence in justice, freedom, and peace on

earth, that will raise the hearts and the hopes of mankind, for that distant day when no one rattles a saber and no one drags a chain. >> will look back at 40 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org /thecontenders to see video of those contenders who have a lasting impact. >> the cause of republicanism to restore the clear understanding of the tyranny of man over man in the world at large. it is our cause to dispel the phony -- that avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world full of conflict will mysteriously resolve itself into harmony. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. "washington journal" continues.

host: congresswoman carolyn maloney, a democrat from new york, served on the financial services committee and the joint economic committee. ben bernanke is coming before the financial services committee today. one issue likely to come up is why the federal reserve waded into the housing issue, putting out a white paper that was not requested. here is the story. here is a quote from republican scott garrett. are you concerned about it playing politics? host: -- guest: the federal reserve was saying what every economist in the country was saying, every

economist is saying that housing is a huge part of our economy, and if we don't address it, it will continue to be a huge drag on our economy. john mccain's economist for his race to the presidency testified that holding was a full 25% of our economy. so, we need to address this large segment of properties that are under water, that are foreclosed on, that the people cannot meet their mortgages. and the fed basically said do something about this, which is what everyone is saying. and the president has come out with a proposal to help homeowners refinance, to write down a principle. many banks are cooperating and working to help with the backlog. if there is a foreclosure, how you move it out of the systems with fleak so it is not a drag on the economy.

i believe what they said was common sense and basically what everyone else was saying. but when the fed says it, everyone listens. we need to listen. we need to act on it, and we are acting on it. host: "the wall street journal" says home prices reached new depths. what is in the white paper that you agree with? what can be done realistically? guest: basically called on refinancing, to put a program in place to help people refinance, to help not only those under the gse's but other areas. to put the programs in place and in some cases write down the principal when they are under water. we need to move these foreclosed properties out of the system. we need to sell them, demolish them, or get them out of the system. they are a drag on the economy. they are basically saying what

every other economist in the country is saying. i did not know anyone saying anything differently. host: the key to the housing recovery is mortgage write- downs? guest: refinancing. allowing people to refinance their loans to an affordable rate. if there is a foreclosure, making sure you move it out, you sell it, you do something with it. you don't let it sit there. in some cases it becomes -- and lowers prices of homes, it has the effect on the prices of every other home in the neighborhood. but moving quickly to move the assets and an area that helps the economy and not a drag on the economy. host: this is "the huntington post." sean donovan says he hopes fannie mae and freddie mac will write down mortgages. what are the obstacles to make that happen? guest: the head of freddie

mac' said publicly that he does not have the authority to write down the mortgage price. it is now under an attack by one of the attorney general's, the attorney general from california, and it is now going to the court to be decided. host: the attorney general from california asked for demarco to be replaced nd hud secretary said he hopes to get his own nominee. guest: he has a term appointment. the president cannot remove him by law. when his term expires, i am sure there will be a replacement. host: demarco's office says he refuses to write down the loans. avoiding principal productions --

he says my job is to help of the american taxpayers and the write-downs will cost the taxpayer. guest: the california attorney general has a lawsuit against them calling for him to write down. he says his first response ability is to the american taxpayer. it is not a debate that will go to the court system and i will not guess what the court will do. host: the state attorney generals -- what it is suing fannie and freddie. is suing the taxpayers? the of the head of freddie mac, mr. demarco -- guest: the head of freddie mac, mr. demarco. host: what questions do you plan to ask mr. bernanke? guest: the focus is on the economy and i believe he will be cautiously optimistic. we have reasons to be more confident.

we have had 23 months of private sector job growth. over 4.7 million new jobs in the private sector have been created. that is more than was created in the prior administration's full eight years. we had five months of the unemployment rate dropping. i am concerned, as he has expressed and others, with long- term unemployment rate which seems so strong in dominant. is it structural? is there something we can do about it? you can go to the bank that he will be asked about monetary policy, easy monetary policy, given the fact that the recovery is still fragile. now we have the new item of gas prices rising so dramatically. i am sure there will be many questions on energy and energy policy. it is always an interesting time and i look forward to seeing him later today. host: our cameras will be there

10:00 a.m., c-span 3 and c-span radio as well, live coverage of ben bernanke's testimony. jim, democratic yemen. you are first for the congresswoman. caller: how are you? i am dealing with this hamp program from bank of america and they always lose the paperwork. it finally went through. i am disabled. the added income tax on my income where there is no income tax at all. $7,300 a year they added to my income. they said by law they have to, but how can they pull money out of thin air and put it on to somebody's income? guest: it does not sound proper to me. i would call your congressperson for help. if they did not help you, you call me and i will work on your papers and check it. i would have to see the

information in front of me and specifically what bank of america is calling for. but it does not make sense that they can add to your income, income you do not have. it is not logical. it needs to be looked into. your congressperson should help you. if not, call me. host: cape cod, massachusetts. rick, independent. caller: my biggest problem is where does personal responsibility, in? these people what these houses, they knew what the cost was, they knew what the interest rate was, and it purchased them anyway. why are people caught up on their mortgages having to help subsidize those people who bought houses who should not have? guest: first of all, when you refinance, you are not subsidizing them. they will be paying for it over a longer term. in these subprime loans that were so terrible, that really were a major cause of this financial crisis that we are all

still recovering from and moving out of, these were faulty products. they call them no doc loans. there was no skin in the game. no responsibility by the issuers or financial institutions or banks who were issuing them. that has changed under dawn franks -- dodd-frank. we are going back to the old system as you are responsible for the loans that you write. in the situation now, in many states they cannot even determine who owns the loan because they took them and securitized them and slice and dice them and sold them on the second ever market, that they did not even know who owns alone anymore. there were many abuses in the system that brought the entire economy of the united states down. many of the individuals who bought these homes were tricked into subprime loans that had balloon payments, that came due

very quickly. we are saying, refinance those loans over 30 years, 15 years. give people the opportunity to pay that off, lower the interest rates so that they can pay it off, and move forward. there are many efforts around the country -- i know in my own state there are efforts between our local, state, and federal government to come together in meetings across our state with homeowners who are in trouble. and the banks are working with the government, with individuals, and for not for profits to structure a loan that is affordable for these people so they can get their lives in order and they can pay it off. many did not understand the products they were buying. we need financial literacy. and we need responsibility. there is something very wrong where the whole system would build on making a fee and no

responsibility built in and no accountability, and in many cases nobody can figure out who owns the loan. we are working through this backlog. and it is a tremendous effort. and i understand your concern, but this is a very unusual and abusive practice that started. we put laws in place to make sure it does not happen in the future. we need to implement them and make sure they are not rolled back. it's go beyond refinancing and write-downs -- host: beyond refinancing and write-downs, the fed governor said they would use tools in the face of what she calls a significant drag in the sector. what does the federal reserve have at its disposal for housing question of guest: its main tool is access to credit so that people can buy homes, so that people can finance -- refinance.

one problem we have in this country is access to capital. many of the banks are not lending. they have gone back to strict standards. i have people coming into my office who have very opprobrious high income and excellent credit scores and they still cannot find financing -- they have very appropriate high income. host: how does it work? guest: you go to a financial institutions and take out a loan. host: i mean that the reserve. a guest: easing the interest will -- interest rates so they are very low, so therefore there is easy access to credit. host: here is a tweet -- would you agree? guest: every economist i know, every republican and democratic economist is saying it is a huge problem that we need to address. i cite zande because he is a

private-sector economist and he was mccain's economist and he says 25% of the economy. whenever the percentages, it is a huge part of our economy and a huge employment sector. and are some areas of the country that have bounced back that are expanding. even though florida has problems in those communities, in those communities there is a demand. the fed, through monetary policy, has made access to credit easier, and therefore is helping the consumer be able to refinance their loans to a lower rate, saving them quite a considerable amount a year, and allowing other young families to buy homes at a low interest rate. that is an important tool during an economic time that we are facing with so many challenges. host: before we get back to the viewers, the ap following up on

an earlier story, about an arrest made in cairo. it says the u.s. does not believe that the man arrested in cairo was a senior al-qaeda leader. an update on a story your -- we told about earlier. from charleston, massachusetts -- guest: many of the banks -- some of the banks are doing that voluntarily to ease the back lieu -- back load that they have. the monetary policy we have is to lower the interest rates so more can refinance. many people are refinancing as just a way to save money, even those who are in loans that are not subprime loans. i know many of my constituents have refinanced just because

they can save money by refinancing. it is a tool to use in this economically challenging time. host: a republican from idaho. caller: good morning. from the time this all started, everyone has pointed the blame at the banks and wall street and have yet to identify the real- estate industry as the culprit for inflating the prices. and then, of course, all of those mortgages were bundled and sold overseas. so, historically, real estate should not increase by more than 1.5% to 2%, but when you have artificial inflation -- and historically we have had inflation and compression of the real-estate markets.

if you go back to the mid to late 1970's, california have a problem with the crisis -- in that part of the country -- prices doubling in that part of the country. having inflated and raise the prices so astronomically high. guest: it is a combination of financial policies. one of the reasons why the price of homes rose so quickly is that that the product, the subprime loans, they call them no document loans, were in use. no one was held responsible because of deregulation of the financial industry. and many of the people who were involved in it were brokers who were not part of banks, several brokers who had no regulations

whatsoever. under dodd-frank, everyone is on an equal playing field and everyone is regulated who is in the housing industry. the joke in my district was, if you cannot afford rent, go out and buy a house, because that is how easy it was to achieve credit. it was absolutely wrong. it was one of those ways they were keeping the economy going, and the bush years, by the risky products that really had no value. they can't even figure out who owns them now because they sliced and diced and bundle it then and sold them overseas and sold them around the world, sold them around this country. we have now changed to that. we brought accountability back in the system, not only in the housing market, making the broker or bank responsible, puddings in in the game, at least 5% on every -- putting

skin in the game, at least 5% on every loan. and that those in the security industry must have scanned in the game and be responsible and hold the assets -- must have skin in the game. so they cannot just collect their fees and leave town. they have to be responsible for the loan and if it is a good loan, they will lose money on it. i believe that is a step in the right direction. there are many in congress who are trying to roll back dodd- frank. i believe the american public has to hold firm and support the financial reforms that congress put forward. it is important not only to the housing industry. but as we have painfully learned, it is important to our overall economy. host: richard is next. from new york, democratic line.

caller: i want to talk about something else. i know the economy and the mortgage issue is important. but i see it as a symptom of the greater sickness, and that is the fact that the government cannot work together. many people want to say that the democrats had control of the government in obama's first two years and should have tackled the jobless issue. but it is easy to say that if you are not a person who is facing debt. i think it is a more important moral issue for the government and this country to deal with first. the five -- besides the fact that the health care issue has a great affect on the economy. in this time we are living in with all the troubles, the

president should be able to accomplish more than one thing in one term. we need him to be able to do that. host: congresswoman? guest: you did point out that the health care bill is a very important bill. we have 40 million americans who do not have health care. under this bill, starting in four g e 2014, they will be covered. it is a huge accomplishment for our great country. it being a new yorker, the number one employer in new york state is the health-care industry. it is a very important service to people and an important employer. host: we will let you get a drink of water and move on to birmingham, alabama. independent emery. caller: good morning, c-span. i have wondered about this for a long time. when a bank takes over a loan --

say you have been in a house 10 years, five years, and you -- the takeover because you cannot make the mortgage payment. do they give you any money back or do they just take over the house? guest: each situation is different. the administration is doing everything to help people refinance and to help localities refurbish properties. i do want to share with you that my house meet in new york is from birmingham, alabama -- housemate in new york is from alabama. in the first weekend in march we are coming to alabama and we will reenact the famous selma, alabama march and we will review that important part of our history. i wanted to share that with you because you are from the great

state of alabama. host: larry, and republican from austin, texas. caller: good morning, c-span. during the boom in california in 2000-2003 -- if everybody stayed out of it once the bubble burst and maybe get the banks involved in getting the houses back in the market, it would have recovered by now. if we would have taken the normal foreclosure procedure where people with their payments down, have the banks come in and for close on the people and put the house is back on the market. if you have all of these people who are under water back -- on their loans, who normally could not buy a toaster with passed down. the nation should not be held responsible. the responsible buyers like me and many other people, we almost

feel like victims because we did the right thing and we are keeping up on our mortgages and our other bills and all of our neighbors around here -- i live in austin right now -- these houses are either being walked away from were sitting for years, or put back on the market two or three years later and selling for a third of the profits. -- a third of the price. if they would have let it crash it would have recovered. everybody just wants to the government to help us out. we can help ourselves. guest: that is true. we are a resilient country and we do help ourselves. but economists, some have testified that the economic shocks in this particular downturn were three times greater than the great depression. my parents lived through the great depression, and their

stories of suffering were unbelievably horrible. and it took our country many, many years to dig our way out of the great depression. chairman bernanke, he wrote his thesis on the great depression. and one of the things i believe he has worked very hard to do is to keep these financial institutions working and open so that businesses can continue to pay their vendors, so those businesses can continue to play their employees, and so commerce can move forward. if we had let it crash -- and we were really on the edge of a total economic downturn before the government stepped in and reversed this. i was getting calls in the middle of the night with people screaming. there was a run on the money market funds, there was a run on some banks. we were really on the edge of a complete and a total economic collapse.

we are working our way out of it. it is certainly better to have taken the steps we have taken. one of the problems about holding is that in the economic crash there was no one there to buy the vacant homes because the jobs were not there to pay their salaries. so, it has been a huge challenge for everyone involved. but i saw an optimistic bumper sticker the other day. it said, osama bin laden dead, american auto industry alive and growing. the government stepped in to revive the american automobile industry. i certainly supported it. i could not think about unmet -- an america where we could not make our own cars. now general motors and ford and other big auto companies are exporting their cars. they are making them more fuel- efficient so we will be less

dependent on foreign oil that is driving up these gas prices, the speculation and unrest in the middle east. we cannot be dependent on what happens in another area of the world for our gas prices. it is a huge success story. general motors have hired more than 1.7 million people and are now exporting. i am proud of the american government coming in and helping the american auto industry. it is certainly good for our overall economy, good for the people who work in these industries, and our technology and fuel efficiency hopefully will help all of us conserve more energy and be less dependent on foreign oil. host: congresswoman, on the issue of gas prices, here is the headline in "the washington times." democrats are fearful of the gas prices and the impact it could have on votes. here is a quote --

do you share that concern? guest: we are all concerned peers so far there are no gas lines, people are able to buy the product, but the gas prices spiked. i was in a hearing yesterday where one person testified he believes we are -- that up to 16% in due to speculation. others testified they thought it was the unrest in the middle east. we have an uptick in the oil and gas prices, and then we move toward policies to become energy independent. then they dropped the price of gas and we abandon those policies. we need to stay firm and steady, and in a bipartisan way, moved to address this. we are at an eight-year high in gas production or energy production in our own country, which is good. we are using our own resources.

but also wind and sun does not cost any money. that is not going to fluctuate. so are efforts to move into energy alternatives are important. in the district i represent, some large building owners retrofitted their buildings to make their windows and energy system more efficient, and they are literally saving money and paying for this investment. that is a way to create jobs and to conserve energy long term. it should be a number one priority of this nation. it should be an area where we can work together in a bipartisan way and also on job creation. but regretfully, there is such a division in the politics now in the country. host: chairman bernanke likely to be asked this morning when he testifies before the committee about gas prices and the impact they could have on the -- on the recovery. c-span 3 and c-span radio, 10:00

a.m. eastern time. prescott, arizona. jack, independent caller. caller: representative maloney, you are one of our favorites. a hard-working representative and your state should be proud of you. one thing -- it is including gas and everything else -- but the big problem is this. we have a sovereign nation except for one thing -- the global economy. we --as you mentioned earlier, getting loans is difficult. we do not own anything anymore. you have a global economy which controls the world's money. now, they have money, but they don't have a country. and this is the same thing that got into the depression, our

oil. it is united states oil but we sign leases to foreign countries to send the oil to opec and we by the oil at whatever price they want to put on us. until we get more regulation -- which they had to do during the depression -- it is not going to be controlled. like i said, they have bank accounts. they don't have a country. this is what is hurting us more than anything. host: to add to the comments, on twitter -- guest: he is talking about the oil industry basically, and the administration and the democrats have been pushing to cut the 40% subsidy to big oil. they are making all time profits. why should we continue with this subsidy? the administration came out with reforms that were blocked

by the republican majority. said that oil extracted from publicly owned property, land owned by the american taxpayer, that there were huge -- that the not pay oil royalties to the government. the reforms were stopped by the republican majority. it the administration also called that if you have leases -- whether foreign or domestic -- and you are not using the least, you are not drilling, you are not doing anything with it, then pay rent on that lease so the economy and the american taxpayer is recovering from the lease we had given on land basically owned by the american people. so, there are huge areas in the oil industry that need to reform. but the bottom line is, why are we subsidizing an industry, 40%,

when they are making huge profits? this needs to stop and that money should help go to helping the american people, paying down the deficit, or investing in alternative energy sources so we are less dependent on foreign oil. host: 10 minutes left with the congresswoman. james is a republican in texas. caller: good morning. i did not know how you can sit there and not mention the government regulations -- the community reinvestment act that made banks lend to people who cannot afford it? there was a caller a few minutes ago who hit it on the head when he said he is paying his mortgage, as are about 90% of the people who got these loans, but nonetheless, when the banks take steps to protect their own, their own best practices, by bundling these loans, you blame them. also, the bush administration tried to reel in these

government-back entities like fannie and freddie in the early 2000's and new democrats, you fought him to and nail. -- you democrats fought and twos and nail. guest: we need to focus on answers and working together and focus on solutions. no one is blaming anyone. many of the bad of users were the whole on regulated mortgage broker system that was not regulated. many of the subprime loans came from that segment that was undercutting reeling the financial institutions and their prices and they were not responsible in any way, shape, or form. but we changed that and we are moving forward and we are looking at ways to reform the government-sponsored entities, fannie mae and freddie mac. the republicans are now in charge, and they have not

brought their solution to the table yet. i am sure there will be many people listening and working to find some type of solution to move us forward through this critical time so that we have a strong economy for our people. i, for one, will not be satisfied until every american who wants a job, has a job. regrettably for every job there are six people waiting in line and trying to get these jobs. our fundamental first responsibility is getting the economy moving and the private sector job growth expanding even more. they created 4.7 million jobs in 23 months. it is a good record but we need to do more. the president has called for a bipartisan meeting of the democratic and republican leaders to work together on the economy and job creation. that is important. i hope that the partisanship will stop for a moment and we

can join hands and come forward with positive solutions, working together to help people. host: we will go to larry. he is an independent from rockville, maryland. caller: you touched on a subject i have 20 years' experience in, mortgage brokering. i can tell you that both prime and subprime, first hand, we are the whipping boys. if you really understand the mortgage industry, securitization and credit ratings, you will know the demand came from the securitizeers like -- securitizers let goldman and lehman. they get all their prices from lenders, but not one loan that we did was not under wic -- underwritten and reviewed by the lender.

you say it is the brokers. i will tell you right where it was. i studied this. i have listened to the hearings. i have written articles. the problem was, when the rating agencies rated these subprime loans, rather than triple c or c, they rated it investment- grade. the proof of that, lehman and other company did not know because when they went down, they held these things. they thought was good, too. but rating them -- if they had raided them triple c -- that is what the pipe line came from. ben bernanke at one of his hearings said that demand came from the people who securitized loans. guest: and at that time, like the brokers or the banks or the

lenders -- securitizers had no skin in the game. a packaged and sold them and now they cannot figure out who owns them. securitization process was a huge part of the problem. we changed that in the dodd- frank reform. securitizers act has been in the game. they do not like the law that of going in place. we need to make sure it goes forward and that there is accountability and responsibility by them and everyone in that chain. i would look forward to reading the articles you have written on this subject. mail them to my office, larry. i would like to read them. thank you for your input. host: l.i., new york. anthony, democratic caller. caller: out. on long island we had a developer ingratiating himself

with all local politicians. he was getting all of the contract and any money available to build the monstrosities with hud homes. $30 million in one year alone was siphoned off. they were building these houses that the people could not even afford, and they were using their names and getting them into the homes and then for closing on them and doing it all over again. -- and then for closeclosing on them. it took predatory lending to a new level. the dellon was pardoned by the president when he left office, george bush. -- the gentleman was pardoned by the president left office. over five cundiff families -- 500 families sued him and not one of them was made whole. ultimately the market was building homes that these people

could never ever afford to own or physically occupied because of the high cost of heating these places and the taxes. but the problem is, there is no oversight. and even now, ms. maloney, you are saying there is no way of knowing who these people are or with these loans are. but the reality is, you go to any closing. i believe it anywhere from $7,000 to $12,000 and closing fees but yet i cannot understand how come you can say we do not know who owns the loans now. if that is the case, they should get free houses. if you do not know whose loan it is and you are so lackluster in your accounting -- there is no accountability at the top. guest: i agree, there should be a penalty, and it should, or early, not later.

the story told is really a terrible story. right now the fbi is running ads on television saying to report when you see any illegal activities taking place or abuses that you feel are happening to you or anyone else. a report into the fbi. these ads are on television now. also, as a citizen of new york city, we have a very aggressive ig reporting system. if you see activities that you feel are illegal and wrong. law enforcement cannot act unless they know about it. we as citizens need to bring it to their attention. the majority of men and women working in america are honest and hardworking. and we know a bad apple can ruin the whole barrel. so, we need to get these bad apples punished.

host: speaking of the fbi ads -- michael douglas and boeing sort of a public announcement on insider trading. regulators are singing -- regulators are saying, where is this? guest: abuses across the country. we hear the frustration from the last german who called where he knows there was of use -- the last gentleman who called where he knows there was abuse. the regulators have the regulations but the ones who can enforce our law enforcement, the justice department. and the justice department is running these ads. if we had come in and stopped the subprime crisis -- think of

the pain and suffering. one of the most interesting hearings i heard from the bureau of labor statistics was that in this was the first financial crisis that was caused by mismanagement or fraud in the financial industry. this was totally preventable. so, it is incumbent on leaders in government, leaders in the private sector, individuals, certainly the whole justice law enforcement area, to work harder in the future to prevent them and to bring people to accountability. host: how big might this be, the insider-trading investigation? guest: i don't know anything more than what i have read in the papers. we have to wait and see. host: we will try to get in one more phone call. kevin, a republican from north carolina. caller: when bush was president, and gas prices were skyrocketing, democrats across

the board, including our president now, were blaming bush and cheney -- they are with oil. it is now the democratic side. all of a sudden it is speculation. but congresswoman mention taking away the subsidies. if the subsidies are taken away, what do you think they will do? they will pass the prices to the rest of us and the prices will still go up. why isn't obama taking any of the blame, just like bush did? guest: i believe president obama is part of the solution, not part of the problem. president obama has called for more investments in energy independence. he has called for 54 miles to the gallon by 2025. he has charged that our automobile industry to make our cars more fuel efficient. i applaud that action. his leadership not only in

saving the industry and the jobs but i am proud we have a product made in america that we are exporting now. but he has also called for reforms of the industry to make the cars safer for the american public and also to provide more miles per gallon, which helps preserve oil prices. this administration has also called for reforms. i think every american could support his policy. that oil extracted from publicly owned properties for use in which the industry is making a profit, they should pay royalties to the american taxpayer. there are many reports -- in fact, one was given by the general accounting office before the oversight committee -- and i happen to be at that hearing -- where they said we could recoup as much as $80 billion by i

think -- i think they said $50 billion and the republican report said as much as $80 billion if we close the loophole. i think that is something republicans and democrats should work together on, to close the loophole and save the money for the taxpayer. the administration also has a proposal that if you have a lease and you are not drilling, and you are just holding onto it, pay rent for it. again, it would help the american taxpayer. and many of his proposals to retrofit homes -- we need to reauthorized that. we need the republican majority in the house to join the president and democrats to help the american public to retrofit their homes and make them more fuel-efficient. there are other programs he is proposing that we need to pass in our democracy that would have an incentive for larger buildings to retrofit and become

more energy independent. it will not only create jobs, which we need to think about in this recovery, but also make buildings more energy independent and less dependent on foreign oil. i think the president is working hard in many ways to achieve these goals. host: congresswoman monet, thank you so much. up next, we turn to this headline. in a recent edition of "bloomberg businessweek" -- this is referring to apple's ceo first, the headlines. >> numbers this out or showed the economy grew at a slightly faster pace in the final three months of last year and americans aren't more income than previously reported. the commerce department says the economy expanded at a 3% annual rate in the last quarter, the fastest pace since the spring of 2010. the growth estimate was revised upward because consumers spent

more than first thought and businesses cut spending by much less. we will deal -- hear more about the economy at 10:00 a.m. eastern went dead chair ben bernanke testified on capitol here -- capitol hill live on c- span reappeared an update on yesterday's primary elections from the chairman of the republican national committee. in remarks earlier on cnn, he says he is feeling good about the nominating process and, in his words, he is not nervous about this at all -- at all. he says he thinks the drama and a top party is a good thing for us. his remarks follow mitt romney's twin wins yesterday. rescuers are still searching for three people who were on board a coast guard helicopter that crashed in alabama's mobile bay during a training mission. a fourth person was confirmed dead. the three missing are all coast guard members. those are some of the latest stories on c-span rio. >> even a person who is a

senator, even a person who is president of the united states, faces a predicament when they talk about race. they face all sorts of predicaments. they face the fact that there are some, an appreciable number of americans, who are racially prejudiced. they faced the fact that a much larger portion of the american populace wants to deny the reality of race, even now. >> sunday, harvard law professor and former law clerk to justice thurgood marshall, randall kennedy, on racism, politics, and the obama administration. the author of five books will take your calls, e-mail, and tweets for three hours live on book tv on c-span2. >> and with a firm confidence in justice, freedom, and peace on our, that will raise the hearts and the hopes of mankind for that distant day when no one

rattles a saber and no one drags a chain. >> as the candidates' campaign, we look back at 40 men who ran for office and lost. go to c-span.org/thecontenders to see video of those who had a lasting impact. >> it is further cause of republicanism to restore a clear understanding of the tyranny of man over man in the world at large. it is our cause to dispel -- to avoid hard decisions in the delusion that a world boyd of pop -- world full of conflict will mysteriously resolve itself into a wall of harmony. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. "washington journal" continues. host: every wednesday in the last hour we turn our attention to a recent magazine article. here is a headline in the recent

"bloomberg businessweek." is any ceo worth $189,000 an hour? your, let's begin with question. what are it your arguments before and against your question? guest: the argument i guess before -- i did not -- the question is referring to tim cook who succeeded steve jobs last year. this is his first year as ceo. i guess the arguments for it art that he has been under study to steve jobs for a while. this company is obviously very successful. i just got my first iphone, an apple is doing a very good job for its shareholders and animals. host: let me just stop you because there is a headline in "the financial times" that echoes the sentiment.

ipad 3 coming up, we are told, march 7. the profits are way up. guest: right. let's agreed to coke deserves a very good living, rewards for the success he has contributed to -- let's agree tim cook deserves a very good living, and perhaps incentives that if there is more success down the road he would get even richer. but $189,000 an hour -- you know, we were saying how about $189,000 and minute or $189,000 a second or $189 million a second. at some point, presumably some person would say, shouldn't there be some sort of limit or should this number be tied to something? it should not just the how many zeros tim cook or the board can

right after the,. -- after the comma, so that if cook has a bad year, he is calibrating the possible return but also the possible bad -- downside. and this given his first year as ceo, the proportion seems all wrong. before he has even had one good year, one bad year, and the year as ceo, $189,000 an hour, which came out to -- it was a derive the number from $370 million a year -- what possible risk that he faces that he will not get all the money if the stock falls, but he will get a lot of it. but does tim cook go to sleep

that night thinking, gee, i am afraid i am taking too much risk and i will only get part of the $370 million? what motivates people is the desire for the first million dollars and not $378 million. when you get to that level, when you think of him facing any realistic possibility personal loss -- forget hardship -- we are now up in wonderland territory, right? host: bridgette down on average a ceo's pay? if you go to the afl-cio website they break it down like this. on average, for 2010, for the s&p 500 companies, about $1 million. maybe $250,000 and bonuses, stock awards, almost $4 million. option awards, almost $3 million. pension and deferred compensation earnings, about $1.1 million.

we are taking the example of tim cook, but $378 million is not all in cash, is it? guest: it is not all in cash. it is the present value. he got various awards and incentives, but if he went to some bankers and said this is what i am offering this year, what is the cash value of it is now? it would be $378 million. if you get a new car and it is a mercedes or something, the fact it is not an cast of not mean it when i get you where you want to go in good style. but let's get back to your basic question. as i added mentally numbers, it sounds like they got to $10 million or $11 million. the number i got for the ceo's and s&p 500, is for the median pay -- the average is a little higher because the tim cooks in

the world still would -- the median pay is a little over $8 million and that number five years ago was about $5 million. the figures he gave are in options and stock incentives. by the way, in that decade from 2000-2010, the average investor lost -- the investor who bought the s&p 500 lost 14%. so, the median ceo who lost about 1/7 of his investor's monee or presided over stock that lost about 1/7 of their money, for that performance, which many would say it was not even mediocre, but subpar, got 60% from a level which the average american family earns something light $45,000 or $50,000 a year, so still like 100 times an average family, up

to 160 times average family, for doing a bad job. is that pay for performance? it does not sound like that to me. and to go to the basic area between paper for performances, the inconsistency, the unfairness -- and i did not mean -- we live in the capitalist system. athletes make more than journalists, journalists make more than some people. that is where the system is. when i talk about on fairness on this end, i am talking about within the capitalist system, what do these executive to serve, what was the value they treated for their shareholders, company? even if they're losing a 14% for the shareholders over 10 years, which is a tremendous loss of opportunity and capital, and then to get a 66% raise, how does that come about?

the biggest thing is options. a ceo comes and your one and they say we will give you options. if the stock rises, it will be worth more. you can buy it at the old price, and you can make a profit. if the stock does not rise, you do not make any money, so the ceo has incentive. that is the ceo of an incentive to get the stock up so that the shareholders' benefit. ok. after two or three years, and this happens time and again, if the stock goes down, they give him more stock incentives, options. now if the ceo gets the stock up, he is profiting just for getting the stock up to where it was before, but differently, he is making money for recouping the losses that the shareholders have suffered under his tenure.

that is what happens in company after company. the board keeps getting lower after the company it's a stumble, so ceo's are rewarded for recouping the losses over which they have presided. host: the phone lines are lighting up for you. let me read you this. george. democratic caller in bloomington, indiana. caller: i want to tell you about my experience. i worked for a relatively large restaurant chain. i trained new employees. this guy came and. he took everything from everybody. he cut wages, vacation pay.

he took everything everybody worked hard for and enriched himself. that is the heart and soul of our economic problems. workers are treated like replaceable parts. what we have seen over the last four decades, workers working harder and producing more. you cannot have a healthy economy if everybody is producing more and receiving less and ceo's are enriching themselves. guest: this is a tough problem. i want to separate the problem in two. some of the corporations and their boards of directors can deal with this. top executives are getting paid more than they deserve. by the way, you do not see cdo's like athletes colon from one team to the next. like athletes going

from one team to that -- ceo's like athletes going from one team to the next. in year three the stock goes down, they get another bonus to get them back to your one. that is an issue that the board can deal with. the caller, i think, is calling another issue. the issue of not the 1%, but in fact, a 99%. what is in a corporation's interest to pay workers less? what if competition is so acute that corporation can make more money by paying less? that is a terribly serious problem for the united states. that is not always a problem that a corporation can deal with. that is something the educational system, tax system

has to deal with. that is not necessarily a problem that every corporation can deal with because they are out there in a competitive world and shareholders are saying to these directors, you cannot pay these workers more than the next guy. i am not saying the problem is not serious. i am just saying you cannot put those problems on the shoulder of the board. caller: my understanding is the board of directors serves as the approval mechanism for the compensation packages. also, these ports are comprised of ceo's of other corporations, so they tend to scratch each other's back. wouldn't you prefer that these board members are truly independent and responsible for their fiduciary duties? guest: that is a very big

problem, and if his been a problem of corporations ever since we have had corporations. shareholders own the company's but they have hired management in there. shareholders have busy lives. they cannot be running corporation every day, so who watches the watchers? we have the board of directors. the issue to the solution -- by the way, we have laws that say directors have to be independent. there are certain qualifications that qualify a director as independent. the majority needs to be independent on the nominating committee, compensation committee, and so on. those laws were strengthened after enron. the problem with the solution you proposed, if you get people from nonprofits -- if you think about a company like citigroup,

it is a complicated operation. you also want people who understand the business. these are pretty complicated businesses. you are underwriting mortgage securities? what are we paying for those? not that the director did such a great job. but you want people who have expertise in the businesses that they are boards of directors for. you want them overseeing the capital of the companies so that it is profitably invested. host: are there any rules about the ceo swayed over the corporate board? what was written about how steve jobs was able to push out people he did not like and was able to put in people, ceo's of other companies, that he thought would be more favorable to him. >guest: if you look at the rules

as they are written, you would think it is a democracy. nominees have to be independent, board members are elected by shareholders. but it is a democracy sort of the way the old soviet union was a democracy. what they to get want. institutional shareholders are guilty because they just cross off the proxy the way that management wants them to vote. shareholders the book in the mirror because they are not responsible voters. they fall the wall street rule, love it or leave it. it is a democracy that does not function as a democracy. we hinted at a solution after the recent financial crisis, where we passed a law that shareholders now get a non-

binding vote on ceo compensation. you will see this reported. shareholders will say they will vote on a ceo's contract, but it is non-binding and does not have much affect. host: let me add this tweet to the conversation. guest: it does not, except in this provision. they are non-binding votes. for a time when banks had received t.a.r.p. money, when the henne bailout money from the government, for all sorts of restrictions on ceo pay. as those were paid back, there were no longer under the control of regulations issued at the time of t.a.r.p. so that has gone away, too.

really, boards can do what they want, and they are. host: sylvia. democratic caller in burlington, vermont. caller: there is something else to all of these multi salaries that these ceo's to get. it is stuck at the top. none of it comes down. for instance, it used to be fun going to baseball games and hockey games. who can afford to go to those every time they are in town? it used to be a fun going to plays and movies. who can afford them anymore? i am a 75-year-old woman on a fixed income. but when i was younger, i was a very young person on fixed income. host: there is a tweet here that

reflects what you are saying. guest: especially fixed income. sylvia, what are you making now on that income? your savings account is not paying too much. ceo pay is contributing to the inequality in pay. there was a study for the diversity of chicago. theou added up the ceo's in s&p 500, their total stake is less than 1% of what the 1% makes. athletes, movie stars, high- priced lawyers. i share your frustration about the cost of baseball games. it used to be a hot dog, crackerjack, ticket about $10 or

something. now it is well above $100. you cannot blame all of that on ceo's. we live in a global economy, wages are down because we're competing with china and india. people on the other end of the scale can sell their goods all around the world and are making more. things are skewed. i do not want to confuse the issue with ceo pay. both are important, but we cannot blame tim cook for the price of a ticket to a red sox game. host: on twitter -- let's go to chicago. charles. a republican. caller: if the spread between ceo pay and the average worker

continues, eventually, i believe the workers will revolt in this country. how can we incentivize the corporations to correct the problems themselves, without government interference, which i think will only make the problem worse? guest: here is my thought. i kind of agree with the suggestion that you do not want the government deciding how much tim cook could make. if it $40,000 an hour, how many people do we employ in the department of commerce to figure that out? not sure we can do that. instead of a non-binding say on page, perhaps we have a shareholders' vote. it is their money that tim cook is getting. perhaps we said, only an executive getting $5 million or more, that has to pass a shareholder vote. if the shareholders want to say

yes, that is fine. it is their store. we see an awful lot of companies saying, if we give them $5 million, we have to go to a vote. something tells me he is worth 4.9. it is not the government setting the limit. it is just if you go above a reasonable -- still very rich -- then you need some kind of approval. some system where the shareholders have some say. host: john is an independent from massachusetts. caller: why don't we just nationalize everybody and make sure when these companies, foreign and domestic, come into the country, they pay the taxpayer? or put a tax on international goods.

we have to live on this planet. if we are going to keep giving money to the oligarchies, we are basically going to be cattle. i heard the vice president say the supreme court will have to make a decision on those chips that they will implant people with, and that is how they will pay everybody. host: what about the tax rate for ceo's? guest: it should not be different than people of high income. we should not discriminate between cdo's and baseball players, and so on. there are a couple of ways in which the tax system discriminates in favor of rich people. one in particular is the carried interest, for people that manage hedge funds and private equity. they get to pay the lower rate

of capital gains, 15%, instead of 35%, as is the earned income rate for money they earn. we had a pretty good thing in this country in the 1990's before the tax cuts that were enacted in 2001, 2002. we had a balanced budget, we had a growing economy. why those taxes were rolled back, i am not sure. i would certainly be in favor of reinstating those tax cuts on every bracket. host: "the financial times" has this headline. margie, democratic caller. pratt, west virginia.

caller: $4.4 billion of taxpayer dollars goes to the oil industry every year in subsidies. would you be willing to investigate, including subsidies and tax loophole problems, how much money do we give out every year in the form of subsidies, and to whom those subsidies code? -- go? guest: that is a big investigation. what obama proposed, which would lower the corporate tax rate, to breaks that lower the rate for certain corporations is the right idea. right now we have one rate for corporations but virtually no corporation pays that because there are so many ways to get around it. the idea of lowering the nominal rate but in forcing it is a good

idea. it is harder than it sounds, because a lot of people want to do that. everybody has their favorite industry right now. should we give manufacturing a brick? the oil industry certainly has its constituencies. you might even say the home interest reduction. why should we give people that own a home and break over those that rent a home? all sorts of breaks that feel awfully good to the people that get them, but i am certainly in favor of doing away with them. host: another tweet -- guest: it seems like a real stretch. maybe for a while. ken lay earned a whole lot at enron. chuck prince heard a whole lot

at citi before the bailout. i think that is a very expensive form of therapy. host: here is another one. guest: i think a lot of ceo's work harder at selling their products and pleasing the customers. certainly, apple does. i do not think the solution is to demonize ceo's. it is to get them to rationalize how they are paid so there is some long-term relationship between what they realize, what they are paid, in other words, in proportion to their long-term results, not just for suppressing some series of

short-term hurdles any time the stock falls, and that they are accountable. one of the problem we did not mention, when they come in, they cut these severance agreements where the ceo says, if something happens and you do not want me anymore, i want $80 million. the board is in their first flush of new love and they're ready to give them anything but then people want to know why, when they are fired three years later because the relationship did not work out, it is all in the contract with these severance agreements. when they do not perform and are dismissed, they should get a year's salary like anybody else and should be sent on their way. host: there are no rules over severance packages. guest: there are no rules. one company looks at what the last company did and that is why you see these truly

outrageous settlements where ceo's will be getting six figures when they are dismissed. those things were agreed on when they came in. we are never going to get rid of truck prints, stanley o'neill. it turns out the ceo has failed, it is too late. every one of these should go to a shareholder vote so that they know, here is what we are promising this person if they fail. host: rockford, iowa. roy is a republican. caller: as far as shareholders not having any way to take on the cdo's, when the government took on gm, the shareholders lost out. as far as the taxes go, i have not paid taxes in probably 20

years. i do not think that there is anybody that should not have to pay at least $100 a year. guest: i do not know if you're earning income, but perhaps you should be paying taxes. i can give the number of your local irs. as for the shareholders of gm, they did not deserve anything. they invested in the company and the company went downhill. they made all sorts of mistakes for years and years. they signed labor agreements that could not afford. they were slow to realize the changes in consumer taste, and they failed. just let the shareholders of lehman brothers did not get anything. that is the way the system worked, the way that the system should work. host: moe rock tweets in --

to recall the restriction, i think it should be restricted by what the owners want to pay. it is their money. i question whether it really is a pre-market. if you want to buy a hamburger, there are 18 places that sell hamburgers. it is pretty hard to charge more for labor than one is worth. but if we think about ceo's, they are hired by a small group of directors, there is very little chance for another ceo to say i could do it better for less. they have these long term agreements in place. there is really not an open market, the way it is for just about any other occupation. they are paid in so many different ways. typically, six or seven different ways they are paid, you cannot even compare what one

ceo gets compared to another. host: we are talking about roger lowenstein's piece in bloomberg businessweek. referring to the new salary of apple's tim cupp. -- cook. joe is an independent in kentucky. -- new jersey, excuse me. caller: i want to talk about nafta. it is a global economy and everyone's pay scale is going down. the only thing you have is the restaurant industry which is growing. you cannot raise a family on $8 an hour. these ceo's are getting $189,000, and then everyone gets mad when they move to mexico.

and when you move to mexico, you cannot compete with that. how this nafta so good for the country when gdp is so down on exports? guest: i think nafta is good for the country, all free trade agreements are good for the country. if you think about what the auto industry was like before we had any imported cars, basically, cars that were too big, too costly, too fuel inefficient. the manufacturers were wholly on responsive to consumer demand because there were just three of them in a cartel in detroit and did not care. then when we started to get imports from japan, suddenly, they had to care about it. then detroit began to say, we have to start making better cars ourselves. we have to be more efficient. now you see transplants in japan

and other countries saying, the workers can do the job, we are going to start making cars in those countries. if you start having one form of trade barrier after another -- cars, steel, computer parts -- you have every industry protected after a while and then you have consumers facing a choice in every industry or the products are subpar, unresponsive, and uncompetitive. i do not think protecting american industry is the answer. host: minnesota. clifford is with us on the republican line. caller: i do not think we can do anything about pay for ceo's. on the tax form, on your bonus income, i think we should charge a 90% tax on all bonuses. that would settle all of that.

host: were you able to hear that? guest: 90% sounds like a lot, but i think a higher rate than they pay now on income above $1 million, i would go for that. 90% -- there is no perfect tax system. we will debate the right number for a long time. or forever. there is no perfect number there. 9% sounds high to me. host: this is a headline in many newspapers this morning about the dow going about 13,000. "the new york post" says that this will aid for 1 k's. what does this mean for shareholders and ceo pay? .- 401k's

guest: when the financial system and stock market crash, ceo's got a new round of options at lower prices. so they will be cashing in these options -- they are going to reap a bonanza. the ordinary shareholders who own stock, they bought into the doubt when it was 13,000, their stock went down to the level it was when it went down to 7000, and are not able to reload. but the ceo's got a new round of options. now they have nearly doubled. that highlights the problem of awarding these options to frequently. on the other side, the fact that the dow is up, companies are making money, they are hiring people, and that is good news. host: are there any rules about when you can exercise your option and when you cannot, as a ceo?

guest: it is all over the lot. most of them come to the restriction that you have to wait a certain amount of time -- two, three years -- they usually run for 10 years. the point to recognize. if you give someone the opportunity -- the stock today is a $10 and you can buy it at $10 any time in the next 10 years, which is how an option works. the freedom to buy some time in the next 10 years, that stock is going to be higher than $10 almost always. even if the ceo is on vacation. it is a tremendous benefit. it is all one way. the stock goes below $10, he does not lose anything. he just waits until it goes above. sooner or later it will go above. it gives