weapons and materials monitor details the president's $11 billion request for the national nuclear safety administration, the agency charged with maintaining the nuclear deterrent capabilities and securing vulnerable nuclear materials. "washington journal" is next. ♪ ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this monday, march 5, 2012. yesterday, president obama addressed apac, where he laid out the relationship. calls it an house opportunity to reaffirm the unbreakable bond between the united states and israel and to discuss a range of political

issues. political leaders, including republican presidential contenders, will also address a pac this week. we would like to know what you think about the president's strategy on iran. does it send the right message to iran, israel, and international community? here are the numbers to call. you can also e-mail us. you can find us on twitter. and we are on facebook. look for c-span and weigh in. let's take a listen to president obama's comments yesterday at apac. [video clip] >> and policy to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

[applause] and as i have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, i will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the united states and its interests. host: president obama speaking yesterday, his message on iran. here is "the new york times."

host: let's go to the phones and hear from ike on the line for independents in tampa, florida. good morning. caller: a lot of people make a lot of money off war. there are a lot of untold stories. in afghanistan, there are 500,000 refugees rolling around. this war stuff has got to end. it's perpetual. it's nothing but profit driven. this oil stuff, just like afghanistan.

it is insane, this war stuff. i do not think iran is that big of a threat. i think we can put a stop to it any time. i think we need to cut off all funding to israel. let them fight their own wars. david, a's hear from republican in california. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i think we need to stand up for israel. it is in the bible. if it is fundamental to who we are as a nation. obama has not been standing up for israel like he should. israel is on the verge of another holocaust. the iranian dictator, ahmadinejad, might deny that, but that's what's about to happen. host: as a republican, what did you think of the president's message yesterday? caller: i am not sure i saw that message. host: do you want to hear more caller: about: sure.

host: we will play more clips about that and get some response from the republican presidential contenders. let's look at the facebook messages that are coming in. host: joseph tweets in with his thoughts. next up on the phones is jim, an independent, joining us from south bend, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning, libby, and c-span. i saw the president's speech. of course, aipac -- i hope c-

span will let me get my comments out. while i think there is some room with concern for iran and the nuclear program -- i think it is unfortunate, again, that we have to police the world. i think the saber rattling it does not do us any good. of course, the president has to go there to aipac and do that. it is unfortunate that we are still police in the world like that, dictating who does what when. i do not think iran would be suicidal, wanting to lob one

weapon into israel like that. we all know what the results would be. host: let's take a listen to what's the president had to say yesterday at aipac. [video clip] >> about the resolve of the united states. [applause] just as they should not doubt israel's sovereign right to make its own decisions about its security needs. [applause] i have said that when it comes to preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, i will take no options off the table, and i mean what i say. [applause] that includes all elements of american power.

a political effort aimed at isolating iran. a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure the iranian program is monitored. an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions. and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency. host: president obama speaking yesterday at aipac, addressing his stance on iran. what did you think about that message yesterday? what kind of a signal does it send to iran? what kind of message does it send to israel? what does this say to americans and the rest of the world? here is what jaime rights -- ja mie writes on twitter. bill tweets in and says. dave, a republican in michigan.

what do you think? caller: i do not think obama makes a strong enough statement. you know, when nixon was president, as he told barbara walters, "barbara, i would simply level tehran." if obama would launch two or three nuclear weapons to iran, i think that would solve all the middle east problems. all these things going on in afghanistan are driven by iran. host: dave, do you think the president should have the rhetoric that he is willing to go that far. it sounds like you think he should be willing to do that. caller: i think he should. usually, what ever i hear from obama and up being a lie. i think he should step down and let somebody who can run the country take over. everywhere.

solyndra and this stuff. i think he secretly goes over there and makes deals. he is kind of building up the arab world. they increased the price of gas. now they do all these things. he is selling nuclear material to korea. a total idiot president. host: let's try to keep the conversation productive and focus on the issues and the questions. what do you think about the american tolerance or lack there of four iran? let's hear from james, a democrat in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? there is kind of a simple solution on how to solve the problem between iran and israel. it is something i have been discussing with president bush when he was president.

he did not listen to me in 2007. try to negotiate peace between israel and the cost indians and stop the settlements that the israelis are building. according to the bible, it is their country. they can build the settlements if they want to, according to the bible. still, at the same time, try to stop building the settlements and leave the palestinians alone, and show iran you are stopping building the settlements. this week, iran with back of. host: let's look at "the wall street journal" opinion page. it says --

host: jim in buffalo, new york the, is an independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the president's -- i really think the united states needs to stay out of it. we cannot go into every trouble spot in the world and keep sending troops. we need to let israel stand on its own and by its own battles. for all the callers that really supports the u.s. going to war in iraq, and sure of the took a leave of absence from their job, israel would be happy to sign them up in their army.

host: let's take a listen to what ron paul had to say yesterday. he echoed part of your comment. he had something along the same lines of your opinion. here is ron paul on "state of the union" yesterday. [video clip] >> it does not make any sense to bomb a country that's no threat to anybody just because they might get a weapon and try to point out that containment worked pretty well with the soviets, and they work rather ruthless people, killing millions and millions of their own people. we stood them down in the cold war. i would try to calm it down a little bit. frankly, i do not think we should tell israel what they should or should not do. host: that is ron paul on cnn yesterday. gary tweets in yesterday -- ron paul is joining cnn from

alaska, where he was campaigning this weekend. alaska is one of the caucus and primary states voting on tuesday. that is tomorrow. here is the front page of "the dailey news-miner." "the wall street journal" looks at the super tuesday contests and talks about who is leading the race right now. a new poll is out. let's take a look at what this says. this is "the wall street journal"/nbc news telephone pole. here is what it shows. romney leaves with 38%. santorum has 32%. the story says mitt romney has

regained the lead, thanks to new support from conservatives. tot: let's take a listen comments that majority leader eric cantor made yesterday on

"meet the press." [video clip] >> mitt romney has put forward a bold, pro-growth, pro-jobs plan for the future. a lot of the things he is talking about in his plan we're talking about in the house of representatives. that's why i look to super tuesday. i look to mitt romney winning all of virginia's delegates. i cast my vote already in virginia for mitt romney. i am here today to tell you that i am endorsing mitt romney in his candidacy for the president of the united states. host: that is majority leader cantor yesterday giving his endorsement of mitt romney. he is not the only one supporting the former massachusetts senator governor. tom coburn weighed in in an op- ed piece over the weekend.

he says he thinks the person who can work on this problem is mitt romney. that is the endorsement the romney camp is happy to have. let's look a little bit more at this "the wall street journal"/nbc news poll looking at the killing of americans -- the feeling of americans. it says -- fis host: here is the gop presidential primary preferences. mitt romney turns out on top during the latest poll that nbc

and "the wall street journal" did. our question is about the president's message on iran. it will also be talking more about politics, super tuesday, and how the republican field is shaping up. a couple of stores in the international press first. "the wall street journal" -- putin wins a disputed victory. host: there is an image here. it says, "putin shed a tear." also, in iran, since we're

talking about this morning. here is a piece coming to us from "the new york times" international section. "it appeared the supreme leader had gained the ironclad majority he needed." host: we will be following that story as it develops. what do you think about the president's stance in iran? doug, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. ahmadinejad has no control over the military over there. his rhetoric has been counterproductive as to what the

ayatollah has said. two, 16 intelligence agencies have all come to the conclusion in the united states that iran is not even considering going forward with the nuclear weapons, never mind actually developing it. three, anybody knows that even if they were to get one, even if they were to allow it to be transported to someone else, nuclear technology has a signature, plutonium and uranium. it would be a very short time before we do exactly where it came from and we would turn iran into a parking lot. that would be completely rational and they would want to destroy their nation. -- mr. netanyahu is under a very big amount of stress in his own country economically. the people there are not looking forward to war.

hundreds of thousands camped out in jerusalem and various other places with their weapons shown here on the international networks. for weeks upon weeks, because of economic conditions over there. they are under a lot of strain. on "democracy now," i listened to a tape of mr. netanyahu when he was out of office. he was speaking to settlers. he did not know he was being taped. he was speaking to settlers about undermining the peace talks policies and how he would be able to take land from the palestinians and use local security concerns to push it. this is what he said about america. "i know what america is. america is a thing you can move very easily in the right direction. they will not get in the way." what happens is the american media takes all these e-mails

from the israeli consulates and embassies in this country. n thise 17 of them i ran country. they take it as gospel truth and it promoted in the newspapers. host: he made a lot of points. let's go to kevin, a republican. what do you think? caller: i look at obama and been s close to fdr's home -- i ee chamberlain all over again. i see a man who wants to achieve more than he wants to solve. if you take a look at that country's history, they are fanatical. they are fanatical. i strongly believe they are supporting a lot of the al- qaeda and other problems. to have them come up with any type of nuclear weapon, whether it be used as a thermonuclear

device or even as a dirty bomb -- it is scary. it is scary. obama needs to stand up. if they want to take a look dead democratic presidents, look at jfk and the cuban missile crisis -- look at democratic presidents, look at jfk. host: what do you think about the president's remarks yesterday? did they go far enough for you? caller:no. no. he has to put an end to it. if he does not, it will come back to roost on us. while hindsight is always 20/20, we do not need something that made 9/11 look minor. host: let's look at a couple more stories from politics before we take a few more calls and facebook comments on this morning's questions. rick santorum battles to bring out supporters in a game of

survival. from oklahoma city, "the washington post." host: gingrich vows tuesday in the race. he is resolute on this position. we will look at a story there. he spoke yesterday on a couple of talk shows. he was also on c-span yesterday enjoined us in our conversation on "washington journal." let's look at that.

"he has no plans to drop out of the republican contest. the former house speaker cited rick santorum as justification for staying in the race." we will talk more about politics, but if you want to see what c-span has online, go to c- span.org/campaign2012. look at videos and messages that the candidates have made over the last month on the campaign trail. in the meantime, let's listen to newt gingrich speaking yesterday about the president's message on iran. [video clip] >> every evidence this administration is trying to get the israelis not to preempt.

no israeli prime minister could responsibly allow the iranians to get nuclear weapons, because israel is a small country. it is so compact. two or three nuclear weapons would be the equivalent of a second holocaust. host: newt gingrich speaking yesterday on cnn. this is from "the l.a. times."

host: john is an independent in maine. good morning. caller: good morning. it is like history repeating itself. it is like the iranian leaders are trying to relive the persian empire again. he was right about the appeasement process. history, again -- chamberlain, all over again. the israelis -- i would not hold out waiting for somebody to make promises. president obama is a little naive. i do not know what he is thinking. he's a little too young for me to be president, anyway. anyway, the guy from staten island stole my thunder. thank you. host: how old do you think someone should be to be president? caller: 60 and more. host: that's the cut off.

to's hear what sarah has say, a democratic caller. caller: good morning. first off, with the presidential candidates comments -- of course they're going to spend their time fear mongering. if we look at the last three years, he did get osama bin laden, which was a big threat, and end the war in iraq. from the outside looking in, we can judge however we want. it's obvious from the past what he will do in the future. he will continue to try to create peace. host: blood did you think about his message yesterday? i think it was good. you have to take steps in that direction.

we want to first try to create peace among other nations. we want to create bridges. we do not want to create walls. we do not want to make it to where nobody talks to each other. host: looking at an e-mail from mona in florida. two tweets. we have a dialogue on twitter going on right now did you can join the conversation. let's take a another listen to

-- let's take another listen to president obama speaking at aipac. [video clip] >> already, there's too much loose talk of war. in the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the iranian government by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program. host: "loose talk of war" led to some headlines, including "the new york times." go ahead, ken. caller: good morning. i am also the president for foundation for democracy in iran. i work with the pro-freedom movement in iran. i can tell you this president has missed a great opportunity in june of 2009 when you had 3 million people on the streets of tehran and other cities in iran beguine the united states --

iran begging the united states to do something. i believe nancy pelosi and van hollen are taking us through their appeasement policies. he is not taking all the measures that he says he is, that he could use all our power to prevent a war. the most important thing we should be doing is to be helping the pro-freedom movement inside iran. host: how should that be done, in your opinion? caller: for one thing, we could get the iranian agents out of the voice of america. it's an absolute disgrace. congress is doing some oversight. i'm a republican candidate for congress in maryland. if elected, i will conduct fears oversight of the voice of america. secondly, we can help the pro- freedom movement on the ground with money. f with secure communications and advisers, not people on the ground in iran.

we can give them advice and information and help them to connect with each other. in 1999, you had uprisings in 18 different cities, but they did not know what was going on in other cities. host: let's look at a full page advertisement in "the washington post" today. this was paid for by the national iranian council. it says -- "not every challenge has a military solution." you can see who this is signed by. it has some comments and quotes. joe writes on twitter --

line., independent m good morning. caller: good morning. thank god for c-span and the internet. we all know about the hebrews. if they just do a bing or yahoo! search for israel and the zionists. host: let's go to rick, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i am really blessed with the idea that we can watch c-span and express our ideas as the common man meeting the populace. i called this morning because, you know, israel and iran getting together -- if israel

attacks iraq, it will bring the iranian people to draw nearer and closer to the idea that we really do not want to go there. it really seems like we need to use the diplomatic sources. we have been through so many wars in the last 20 years. the diplomatic source needs to be exploited to its most -- well, until it is exhausted. if israel goes in and does a pre-emptive strike and does not do it all, they're moving all the underground facilities -- i hate to be doom and gloom, but we are talking about the idea of possibly armageddon.

i do not really want to go there. i would like to get past the year 2012. i hope mankind figures this all out. we need to know what to do. i am open for suggestions. i wish hillary clinton would help us all out. host: let's see if david has any ideas or questions. he is a republican in biloxi, mississippi. caller: good morning. i was curious -- when india becomes a nuclear power -- it did not seem like there was much hoopla over that. i did not know. it seems like this iranian thing -- it seems like everybody ought to be a nuclear power. it's kind of a deterrence.

israel -- everybody ought to have them get this thing over with. i have a question for c-span. how come c-span don't get some toos -- they're going biochips the whole world. host: you mean by that? caller: they are biochipping babies in the hospital. right now, they ask the parents of they want to be. ping're planning on biochip and the american people. i do not understand why you do not have some people from the re and let everybody know. host: let's look at more comments from the president yesterday at aipac on american's perspective on iran.

he wants to be seen as holding a firm line when it comes to iran. here is the opinion page of "the wall street journal." israel's is, "i economic miracle."

host: tim, independent in los angeles joins us now. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. democrat's go to ryan, in st. louis, missouri. caller: hello. how are you doing? my comment is to a lot of the rhetoric i'm hearing from the conservative right. the saber rattling. have we not learned anything? eight years ago, 10 years, we

started this whole conversation of nuclear weapons in iraq and there is nothing there. what country is going to operate with a nuclear weapon and threaten another country? nobody wants to deal with that country. i think it will isolate themselves. that's all i have to say. stop the saber rattling. stop it. host: caroline, republican, bedford, texas. caller: hi. i think if we are worried about iran and as he was talking about, iraq did not have any nuclear weapons -- i am sure iran will eventually get them. if we think president obama is going to stop the israelis from defending themselves, he is no uts. israel has been known to be defensive, and they are very

good at it. if they attack iran, they will do a very good job of it. host: looking at "usa today" coverage of this. host: on the commentary page of usa today a couple of voices

weigh in. the op-ed says -- host: mike huckabee weighs in with their response. the former arkansas governor says --

host: 1 last phone call. john in lancaster, pa.. good morning. caller: it would be nice if the moderator inform people of certain things when you get these calls. in this case, if any nation threatened another nation with the war, such as israel and the united states have been doing with iran for years, that's an international war crime. if you knew that, you should pass that along. c-span is not doing anybody any service. you guys just except on face

value all the junk that comes on the air. it is a war crime. obama is no better than bush. host: let's look at mr. netanyahu's response to the president yesterday. the president and prime minister will be meeting today in the oval office. meanwhile, the campaign fight continues for the republican nomination for president with a super tuesday coming tomorrow. let's look at this in "usa today." "mitt romney, rick santorum, newt gingrich, or ron paul would have to master policies in

housing and health care to " it lays out how much money people make there. georgia, for example, the tough anti-immigration law. some farm owners and restaurant operators say the law has created labor shortages. jumping down to tennessee. you can find more of that in usa today. up this morning on "washington journal" -- we will visit with emily's list and we will talk about nuclear weapons in the united states, and coming up next, we will look at tax policies. we will be right back. ♪

♪ >> in this crazy world of ours, we have atom bombs. the question is not how to use them. the question is, how do you restrain herself from using them? any fool can get this country into trouble. it takes a wise man to get it out. >> we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org /thecontenders. >> shouldn't your president have

the highest moral and ethical standards and be an example to our children and young people in this country? ask yourself that question, please. shouldn't anyone you elect to this office always keep his promises? >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> very popular to create a cybersecurity organization to oversee this. the adversaries we're dealing with are becoming more sophisticated. >> how real is the threat? cybersecurity executives bill connor and robert dix. "the communicator's" tonight on c-span2. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: bruce bartlett is the author of "the benefit and the burden: tax reform why we need it, what it will take." he served as deputy assistant for the treasury department in the late 1980's and early 1990's. what do you think about the discussions regarding tax policy? republican candidates have laid out their plans. the president has given his two cents. are the plants making sense to you? guest: not really. the best that could be said is they are opening bids to begin further discussion. i think all the republican plans are completely unrealistic. they're all talking about huge tax cuts, especially for the rich. i think that's not viable fiscally. a big part of the reason why we have a budget deficit is because revenues are too low. i think we need higher revenues, not more tax cuts.

there's no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts are stimulative. otherwise, we would have had a huge burst of growth after the 2003 tax cuts were enacted. there was nothing of the kind. i think obama's plan is more serious, but it is also much more limited. he is talking about reducing the corporate tax rate, but he is also talking about having a special extra low tax rate just for manufacturing. i think that moves us in the opposite direction of where we want to go in terms of tax reform. we want to try as best we can at leveling the playing field and stop giving special deals to special industries. host: when you look at the current income tax system, how does it treat americans if you are wealthy versus those who are not -- the middle-income and poor. how do people come out? guest: the most important thing

is that we tax wages and salary very heavily, because you pay not only the individual income tax, but the payroll tax, as well. relatively modest people can pay 20%, 30% of their income. if you are very wealthy, the bulk of your income undoubtably comes from primarily capital, from dividends and capital gains, which we tax only at a rate of 15% and the payroll tax does not apply to that form of income. unless you are an exceptional person with a very high salary, you are probably paying a lot less taxes if you are wealthy than somebody who makes much less. as we know, warren buffett keeps telling us that his secretary pays less taxes than he does as a percentage of her income. that sort of thing is quite common. host: here's a piece you wrote in "the new york times."

here is how "the new york times" describes you. congressman ron paul is of course now running for the president. what you mean the tax code is basicigned with bic principles? guest: one of the things i was talking about was that we take for granted a lot of terminology doug gets thrown around very commonly, such as -- terminology that gets thrown around, such as tax rate and taxes as a shared in, without having a clear idea of what we mean by income, or what we mean by tax. sometimes you see studies that look only at the federal income tax. others include the payroll tax. others include the corporate income tax. you get wildly different numbers.

the concept of income is also very fluid. if you are a relatively modest income, your income is your salary, your wages. that is the only income that you have. obviously, if you are wealthy, you have income from capital that you might -- that might have an influence on your tax burden. host: our guests, bruce bartlett, recently wrote in "the new york times," -- if you like to join in on the conversation, here are the numbers to call. let's get to the phones. carl is a democrat in chicago. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you guys this morning? mr. bartlett, i'm happy to see that you are on this morning.

i have been waiting for c-span to bring somebody with alternative views, especially from the conservative side, that does not agree with the comments -- the conservative views today. i have heard you and i have also heard dick stockton talk about some of the same economic things that you are saying about how we have gotten into the current economic problems that we have. it's good to see that you have enough intelligence, despite your party position, to acknowledge that the current conservative position of taxes just will not work. it is good to know that someone out there still has some common sense, some intelligence. i give you a lot of credit. i know that your party probably does not want you to be heard out there. saying that what we really

believe in is -- and how we proceed about it now just does not work. guest: thank you for the comments. i did not really hear the question there. i no longer consider myself to be a member of the republican party. i consider myself to be an independent. however, i do still consider myself to be a conservative, although, not a member of the conservative movement. that may sound somewhat contradictory, but that's my position. i'm sticking to it. host: who are you mostly aligned with? a politician in history who you look to as sharing a philosophical and economic belief with? guest: i think the closest person to me and my life philosophically was jack kemp. i think he would be very distressed by a lot of the things that he hears from his party. he was very concerned about the problems of the poor in

particular. i think he would be very upset by all this talk about slashing and spending for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich. i do not think you would like that at all. host: you worked for congressman ron paul. this was a while ago in 1976. you were a legislative assistant on his staff. what do you think of his run for the presidency? are you endorsing anyone? guest: i am not endorsing ron. we kind of went off in a different direction a long time ago in terms of our interests. i do think he has important things to say about the war and about the war on drugs. i think some of his ideas about abolishing the federal reserve are eccentric at best. the interesting thing about ron, i think, is he has not changed one iota in the 35 years i've known him. he still talks exactly the same way about exactly the same

issues. it is really like if you just picked him up out of 1976 and brought him to 2012 -- you would see absolutely no difference between the two. i know that's a source of strength to him, because his followers love the fact that he is absolutely and totally consistent, but it bothers me a little bit that somebody in his position has not apparently changed his mind about anything or grown intellectually in all of that time. i see it as a two-edged sword. host: sean joins us on the line for independents. caller: hello. i just had a question. based on what you said about ron paul being -- i am not really sure i understand what you really ron paul ron paul, since you work for him at one point. can you elaborate? host: i liken -- guest: i like him very much

personally. he's raising issues about the efficacy of war and having -- in the previous panel, they were talking about bombing andiran ad things i think that are ridiculous. ron paul is the only person who has a skeptical view about that in the republican primaries. i agree with that. i also agree that the war on drugs is a terrible travesty. i think some of his economic ideas are a bit unrealistic. host: emma tweets in -- also asks another question. guest: i do not recall the specific details of ryan an mitt romney's plan. i know they involve significant cuts and tax rates, especially for the wealthy. they've said they will pay for

these tax cuts by base- broadening and loophole closing. to my knowledge, neither one of them has ever put on the table one single solitary actual loophole that they are willing to close. it is all very vague and in the future. i think this is because they are afraid that grover norquist will attack them. even if they are combining tax cuts, or rather, tax rate reductions with loophole closings -- and you ask about the bush tax cuts -- ideally, i think a strong case could be made to allow all of them to expire. i think we need the revenue. i think it is there that everybody ought to contribute to that. i think the odds of that happening are very low. even if we have a booming economy the rest of the year, people will still be concerned about the fragility of the economy. i think it's very dangerous.

everybody on both sides will consider it too dangerous to allow a big tax increase to take place on january 1. my guess is that they will kick the can down the road and just extended for another year or two. host: she wanted to know is that will save money. do you have a fear the economy would contract if americans saw a big chunk of money, out of their paychecks? guest: it is possible. it is a reasonable point of view. i think it is unlikely. for tax increases to slow the economy, then you have to believe that the tax cuts that are expiring had to have a stimulus affect. i see no evidence that they had a stimulus to the effect. there was a good congressional research study that's in my book that came out in late 2010 in which they look very carefully at the economic effects of the bush tax cut. they could not find any positive effects at all.

if there are no positive effects, then there can be no negative effects from getting rid of them. i'm not saying we should do that. ideally, i'd like to see us do a tax reform with different tax cuts and substitute all of those for the bush tax cuts, rather than just kicking the can down the road. i see no possibility whatsoever that the republicans and democrats will agree on anything before the election. there will not be time after the election. host: bruce bartlett served as deputy assistant to the treasury secretary 1988 to 1993. he has columns in "forbes" and "politoco." emma ask about mitt romney's tax plan. let's look at "the wall street journal."

mitt romney michele tweets -- guest: value added tax is a type of sales tax that anybody who's been to europe or canada is familiar with. it is different from our retail

sales tax that we have at the state level here because it is collected in parts along the distribution and production process. so it is embedded in the price of goods rather than collective all at once bought at the end -- at the retail level. this has proven to be a very effective way of raising revenue. i estimate we could raise about $50 billion per percentage point for the value added tax and some european countries have raised 20%. erratically, there is $1 trillion per year of additional revenue that could be raised. i am not suggesting a $1 trillion tax increase, but i am saying this is money that could be used to reform the tax system. could, for example, abolish the corporate income tax. this would greatly increase the competitiveness of american companies. one of the values is the value

added tax applies at the border. we are seeing a large trade deficit, more of the tax would apply to imports than is rebated on exports. it would be very clearly an improvement in competitiveness and clearly abolishing the corporate income tax is better than just cutting the rate. there would still be plenty of revenue left over that we could make the bush tax cut permanent , permanently fix the alternative minimum tax, and quite a variety of other things in the tax code and there would still be enough money left over where we could come up with some kind of deal. i don't know specifically how this will be done, but it would compensate those with low and middle incomes so they would not suffer a huge increase in their tax burden. on the other hand there's something to be said for the idea that everybody ought to contribute something to the general operations of

government. it's not realistic that you would get 50% of people who now file federal income-tax returns and pay no pedaling come taxes to now start paying income taxes. in a value added tax is a way of spreading the burden around and making sure that everybody including illegal aliens and visitors to our country pays something. host: michele contends it is regressive on middle income. guest: i agree. something ought to be done. i just don't agree on what that way should be. in some countries they exempt certain goods such as food. that's a bad idea because it creates distortions. you want to have a single rate that applies as much as possible to everything. we will just have to create some kind of rebate mechanism or something to tell those people. host: bruce bartlett is our guest. let's see what erin to say, a

republican in louisiana. caller: my question, i have a disability. why am i getting that cut? why is this? host: the have a question related to taxes? caller: yes, my house taxes, why is it so expensive and i cannot afford it? that's what i'd like. to like guest: >> property-tax as are levied by local governments, states and localities by and large. it does not have any thing to do with the federal income tax except that property taxes are deductible against your income taxes. but that is all controlled by local governments and vary a great deal from state to state. the operation of your property values from state to state.

i simply don't know how to respond. host: 0, democratic caller, virginia beach. -- sarah.han caller: thank you. i have a quick question regarding your comment about the positive effect of the capital gains and dividends rate, leaving it as it is versus raising that, because why not tax the wealthy taxpayers, why not tax their bonuses for companies share options more heavily versus the capital gains and dividends, which is the main avenue for those of more modest means to even accumulate wealth in this country? to me that is a positive effect of capital gains and dividends.

guest: is, the vast bulk of all capital gains and all dividends are realized by people at the very top of the income distribution. something like only 6% of all capital gains and dividends are realized by those people in the bottom 95%. so the idea that having very light taxation on the altar will be somehow helps people of modest incomes is nonsense. the only way it could help them is if it led to more saving and investment that lead to faster economic growth, but lead to more capital formation, that led to more jobs. but as i pointed out, it we now have almost 10 years of experience and with very low rates of taxation on trouble gains and dividends and there's no evidence if that is stimulated growth and all. it is was just a giveaway to rich people just because they are rich. i think that is not justified and economically not necessary.

we had a top rate of 39.6% on dividends in the 1990's to and we had a boom. so the idea we would suffer tremendously for having -- to go back to the same tax system had under bill clinton is just nonsense, it's just wrong. host: roger joins us from hindsville, alabama, independent caller. caller: the morning. thanks for this opportunity. my question is, all of the people out there right now that are trying to start small businesses and the taxes that they have to pay in order to get their businesses going is just outrageous really. it is where low-income people are trying to start a business and have such a hard time trying to get that business to go. i think that my main point is

for everybody that is starting a small business, please call in. it is just way too hard to try to make all love day -- you have a business license, insurance, you put everything -- and high gas prices -- you put everything on the table for small entrepreneurs try to get into business, it's almost impossible any more. host: are you speaking from personal experience? caller: personal experience. it is absolutely almost unable to even do it. host: have you started a small business and had to give up on it or are you managing to get by? caller: i am still struggling. i am not going to give up on it because i have no other choice but to try to keep going. just take for instance, we started off 10 years ago and we are still struggling at the

bottom does like we did when we tried to take off 10 years ago. host: let's get a response on what you brought up. guest: there's no question that starting a small business in this country is very difficult. but the idea that taxes is your biggest problem is complete nonsense. none of the things that the fellow mentioned, talking about insurance and things like that, that has nothing to do with taxes. very few small businesses pay any taxes because they don't have much in the way of profits. they have to pay payroll taxes on behalf of their employees, obviously. but they hardly pay any federal income taxes or corporate income taxes. the vast bulk of those taxes are paid by big corporations and wealthy people. if you look at the studies that have been done by small business groups such as the national federation of independent business, they make it very clear that the number one problem of small businesses is a

lack of sales, a lack of customers, which is a lack of aggregate demand. there's no problem that any small business has that cannot be solved by having more customers and more sales. that is the core problem. any discussion about taxes is just a red herring. host: conversation going on, on twitter right now your listeners and viewers can join that conversation. laura says -- arnold responded -- guest: that ought to be up for discussion. a friend of mine has a book out about this in which he suggests, let's get rid of the personal income tax for all except the very wealthy and just collect all that revenue from a value-

added tax. i think that is a very good idea, one worth talking about. the problem is the right-wing in this country is adamantly opposed to a value-added tax under any circumstances, because in their fevered imagination we would all become tax slaves, we would be living in a gulag just like the people in germany do. i hear people at the cato institute said this all the time, as if everybody who lives in your rope is some kind of slave just because they have a value added tax. that's nonsense. that is a lie. the main thing that they use the value added tax for in europe is to pay for health insurance. we don't. we pay out of our own pockets. our employers pay for it and then it comes out of our wages. we would be a of a lot better if we had the federal government take care of this, paige ford

with a value added tax. then every business would be on the same level. the previous caller was complaining about the cost of getting into business. of them is providing no insurance for your employees. how about if he did not have to do that, if the government was taking care of that for you if and you're paying for it with a tax that does not even fallen businesses, it falls completely on consumers? we really need to have a more sophisticated debate about these issues and not just dismiss them. host: the genie is a republican in washington state. did you participate in the caucus there? death caller: a league did. for the first time i supported romney. -- i definitely did participate. it was the most interesting thing i have participated in. host: can you tell us more? caller: sure.

host: why was it so interesting? caller: i understand the caucus for the last president was 13,000 people in our state and it was estimated 55,000 this time. so there were a lot of people in there. it was great. it was really interesting . i had never done it before. i might do it again. it was good. host: thanks for telling us. go ahead and make your question or comment. caller: i will do my best. i am pretty much bewildered by everything that he has said since he has been on the air. bewildered. guest: buy my book. caller: i am bewildered because if i could address the vat tax. what that means is every time it

is cut from one supplier to the next, every single time is taxed it is hidden. nobody sees it at the end of the line that this has been taxed over and over again. they don't know 50% of that item has been taxed already and then they are taxed when it goes to sail. i think that is a very difficult thing. -- when it goes to sale. guest: something you may not understand about the vowed that attacks is each time a tax is applied, the producer or the seller gets a credit for the taxes they paid when it bought the input. the farmer pays a tax on the value of the week that he sells to the miller. the miller turns the wheat into

flour and is assessed a tax when the cells that store our to the baker. but then he gets a credit for the taxes he paid to the farmer. then when the baker takes the flour and mix bread out of it and he pays a tax, he gets the credit for the taxes he paid to the miller, which includes the taxes that were paid to the farmer. so there's never a double taxation. there's only one level of taxation. and it is whatever the rate is. if the rate is 10%, then there will be 10% at the final consumer check out. the purpose of collecting the tax in this way rather than collecting it all at the end like we do with the retail sales tax is for administrative purposes. it makes it very difficult cheat on attacks because if the retailer sells you some bread

and doesn't collect the tax, you are still paying it through the price of the good itself because the store owner had to pay the tax when he bought the bread to resell. and the idea that it is a hidden tax is nonsense, because you are going to have the same rates on everything. if you go to any european country or any country that has a value added tax, just ask anybody on the street what is the value added tax rate and 100% of those people can tell you, because it applies to everything. so the idea that it's some kind of secret is just nonsense. host: a tweet -- guest: well, they are both a pain in the neck. the problem with the retail sales tax, as i was explaining, if you are collecting all the taxes at one point in the distribution process of, the opportunities for cheating are very high and every country that

has ever looked into adopting a national retail sales tax has come to the conclusion that once you are above a rate of about 10% if the system just breaks down. whereas with a value-added tax, which is mathematically the same identical type of tax,, it is much more easily collected, much harder to evade. it is simply question of do you want two taxes that are essentially identical mathematically, one that's easiest to evade and the other that hard to evade and will break down, those are your choices. host: fox news has the story from yesterday -- you said none of the republican

tax plans meet your goals of what you think is sensible and sound tax policy. what is changed, bruce? you worked in the reagan administration and george h. w. bush administration. have you changed or the political landscape? guest: the political and economic circumstances have changed, most particularly economic. ronald reagan inherited for a tax system in which it was very high as a share of gdp in the top tax rate was 70%. our biggest problem was inflation. a big part of his concern was how do we stop inflation without destroying the economy? i think that th tax cut of 1981 , which i had something to do with, was exactly the right medicine at exactly the right time. but the problem is today's republicans don't pay any attention to what is actually going on in the economy. they just say let's keep doing the same thing over and over again no matter what aunt

completely is disconnected from reality. it seems perfectly obvious, i would think, that you're not going to get the same stimulus effect from reducing the top rate from 70% to 50% as you get from reducing the top rate of 35% to 28%. it's not nearly as big of an increase in your incentive and you are not going to get any kind of reasonable effect. on the other side, republicans talk as if a deficit has nothing to do with revenues. we aren't -- we now have lost revenues as a share of gdp than nevada my lifetime. i am not so young, unfortunately. the idea that we are overtaxes is a line. it is wrong and it's not true. our biggest long-term problem is that we have a huge and growing national debt that needs to be financed. i think we need to raise the tax gdp ratio because i think that it's just a fantasy world to

believe we will cut 8% or 10% out of spending especially if we are going to grandfather in all the old people, which every single republican would do. that would decimate the rest of the people in the country. so i just think there's a total lack of reality, a total disconnect with what the country released. people are just saying things that make no sense whatsoever to me. host: bruce bartlett is there a doctor of "the benefits and the burden: tax reform, why we needed and what it will take." he's also the author of "wrong on race." and in 2006 "imposter." in 1981 he wrote "reaganomics." now and independent caller from waycross, georgia. caller: my comments are about

price distortions. it's really an issue that no candidates seem to be addressing this year or for many years in the past. the way that our tax system works is it distorts prices so that we do not know the true cost of what something is when we go to the store or whenever central planners or government or business planners try to plan something the true costs are hidden, the true benefits are hidden. how can we plan anything? guest: i don't really understand what. the caller is what. it is certainly the case that taxes of different kinds distort incentives and it would be desirable to simplify our tax system and make it more rational. but beyond that i really did not understand what he was talking about. host: mary tweets --

what is your take on how wall street should be treated? guest: i certainly think that we could use better regulation of wall street, whether that means more or less, i think, is a question. i think it is too bad that we cannot have a rational debate on the subject because one side thinks the premarket will take everything and we should just deregulate and let them steal whatever they feel like and the other side thinks that there tight controls and close monitoring by government bureaucrats. there's a middle way that would involve doing things differently than we do in this country. i think we need broader but less detailed clause and we need to give more power to government regulators at places like the securities and exchange

commission so that they can keep a better eye and have more authority and not constantly be hemmed in by the lawyers of the big banks who can always find loopholes that it around wh at they are trying to do. on the other hand, i don't agree with this republican line that as government regulations increase, that this is the primary thing holding our economy back, that is not true. host: st. petersburg, florida, tom, democrat. caller: two comments this morning. number one, years ago i decided to quit my job and go as an independent contractor. i was paying self employment tax rates and they were killing me. they were outrageous. i hired an accountant and decided to create an loc for myself. after that the amount of paperwork i had to do went up so high that the reason i don't

want to grow my small business is not because i don't have customers, it is because if the complexity of the form i have to do and pay my accountant to do is so daunting that i don't want to deal with it. that is the reason i am not growing my small business. guest: i'm sorry to hear that. i'm certainly familiar with the problems of the self-employed business tax, myself. i don't really know what to say. i think that simplification would clearly help. it would go back to what we talked about earlier, about the possibility of eliminating the income tax for all but the ultra wealthy and just have a value- added tax that would been -- it's not really a problem in practice, once the system is set up. it's really a very easy tax. that's why agencies such as the world bank and international monetary fund are urging

developing countries to adopt this tax because it is simple enough that you can collect it with a roughly rudimentary form of tax collection process. i wish we would talk seriously about these ideas rather than to just constantly hearing ranting and raving from people on the right about how we are all going to become slaves if we have a value added tax. host: a tweet --\ talk about these loopholes and how the system is set up. do you see your opinion getting spare time right now, on the campaign tell, in the serious debates, in the white house? do you see a chance for change? guest: unfortunately, i don't see any serious discussion about what economists call tax expenditures. anybody was curious can find these laid out in the president's budget or the joint

committee on taxation on capital hilla produces lists of every single special deal in the tax code, every single poll, exactly how much revenue is lost. there are hundreds and hundreds of these things. many of them have completely outlived their usefulness. some have distorting effects. there are many subsidies for energy that are not necessary. we really need to wipe the slate clean. the simpson-bowles commission a couple years ago recommended that we do exactly that, just wipe out every single tax deal including the mortgage interest deduction and a deduction for charitable contributions and deduction for state and local taxes, which are very big ones and less just start from scratch. but i don't hear anybody advocating that. so i think all the republicans ever talk about his tax cuts. and obama has this narrow kind of thing he's talking about it.

but nobody is talking about what really need to do, i'm sorry to say. host: kentucky, mary, republican caller. caller: good morning. i have a couple comments. number one, i cannot hear anything -- any ideas from eruope to keep with the week metaphor that they are on fire over there. we cannot take one idea from europe. host: is that because you think the economy has tanked over there? caller: i absolutely think that they need to look at everything again, because we travel to europe 25 years ago and paid vat taxes. over a period of years it is obviously more complex than that. my second comment is that "

republican" ideas are all lumped into one group and your guest is commenting on republican ideas. he has said that he has neither looked at paul ryan's plan or mitt romney's plan. there is variable information and proposals in both of those. host: i think he said he's not able to give us all the details off the top of his head but he is familiar with the plan. guest: of course. caller: third, we have a very different philosophy about money. what we started with in this country is you ear -- your money is yours. we expect certain limited services from the federal government and that's where we depart. i don't know where we got off

the rails and why we think we need to go out on a limb and finance somebody's idea about solar energy. a great idea, but it should be done in the private sector, not without the permission of taxpayers'. host: she has a couple of issues. guest: she has no idea what she's talking about. she is reading from the republican party's talking points. the idea that europe is some kind of gulag because they pay the value added tax is simply a lie. one of the interesting things you can do if you feel like it is go to the heritage foundation index of economic freedom and you will find that a great many european countries such as denmark where they pay 50% of their income in taxes, are rated as more free than the united states is. it is just repetition of party talking points. i'm sorry to say that the lady

does not have a clue what she's talking about. host: can you tell us if the value added tax in europe has played a role in economies that have had trouble or those exceeding their? guest: these countries got into trouble because they borrowed too much in foreign currencies. we are not talking about the major countries of germany and france and britain. we are talking about the peripheral countries such as greece. almost all their problem has to do with the euro, which they all adopted some years ago and deprives each individual country of having an independent monetary policy. the problem is really not fiscal at all. it's not tax. it's all monetary-related. if these countries had the power to devalue their currencies, their problems would go away. they cannot devalue because they are all locked into this unified currency system. host: let's look at the heritage

foundation lists you were talking about. we will put that on the screen. and final comment about the philosophy of republicanism. she was saying the government should not pay for green energy programs and such things. do you share her philosophy? guest: in a general way, that's the american system. the problem is that i am sure that she would draw the line. but she sounded like she's probably on medicare. if i wonder how she feels about abolishing medicare, which is what paul ryan would do? i think she might feel a little differently about her party's philosophy if she thought she would lose any benefits out of her pocket. that is the real problem we have in this country is everybody talks in theory, let's give it of all the loopholes, butlet's get rid of mortgage interest, although we cannot do that because that would hurt me on my house. everybody wants an exception for what would help them. host: bruce bartlett rights for

forbes and contributes to politico. he's the author of many books. thanks for being with us this morning. guest: thank you. host: coming up, nuclear weapons. first, women's issues with the president of emily's list. we will be right back. ♪ >> in this crazy world of ours we have atom bombs. the question is not how to use them, the question is how do you restrain yourself from using them. in particular as your commander in chief, it can get this

country into trouble. it takes a wise man to get us out. >> we look back at 14 men who for the office of president and lost. go to our web site c-span.org to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> should your president's not have the highest moral and ethical standards and be an example to our children and young people in this country? ask yourself that question. should his life not make him a role model for your future children? anyone that you elect to this office, should they not always keep their promise? >> c-span.org. >> i know in washington it is very popular to want to create a cybersecurity organization. i think that is falling. the adversary we are dealing with today are more committed, better resources, and becoming

more sophisticated. we talk about the advance of persistent thread, i do worry about that. >> cybersecurity executives bill connor and robert dix on how to handle the threats to government and business communications networks. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. stephanie schriock, the creator of emily's list. guest: it's an organization that has been working on advancing women for 27 years. we had an historic number of women running for the united states senate. we have endorsed 11 already. we have a growing number of women stepping up to run in the house. emily's list as an organization has more than doubled in size in the last year, crossing 1

million members this past january. this 2012 election not only is going to be a year of historic races with women candidates in them but i really do believe that this is going to be a cycle that is determined by women voters that are going to stand up and vote against these outrageous republicans. host: tell us how the dialogue has changed over the last couple weeks? we heard so much focus on economic policy, the future of the american economy. there's been a shift in focus towards social issues. the white house decision on contraception. and something about abortion. how was that playing out? guest: very interesting. i would say women in this country, we want to talk about the economy, we want to hear about jobs, that's the number- one priority facing americans today. what we have seen and not really in just the last month but and lin the last year is a republicn party that has really stepped up the debate on social issues, defending planned parenthood and

the contraception issued. it's been nonstop. in the last few weeks it has really picked up. what we are seeing at emily's list and what our campaigns are seeing around the country is that this is not what women voters are interested in. everybody is concerned about the economy, but they are also not putting up with it. it's not the conversation we want to have. these are women across the country who support access to birth control and support planned parenthood. republicans keep on this path, we will continue to energize women voters this november. host: let's look emily's list pac campaign contributions in 2012. total receipts, over $15 million have come in.

and dallas about the money coming in. and the money in. guest: absolutely. emily's list has doubled in size in the last year. we just crossed over 1 million members. those members across the country have really stepped up in giving. a $50 contribution or a $100 contribution, we have seen an increase of money going directly to our candidates. much of what emily's list does is we are a national network of women and men who care about electing pro-choice democratic women. in that, much of our support goes directly to campaigns. we call it bundling. we get $200 checks directly to the campaigns. that has also increased this year. we expect that to continue all through 2012. host: as far as some of the candidates emily's list is especially excited about that you are pouring money into the races of, if t.

guest: the list is longer and longer. we are working with 11 specifically. mazie hirono, congresswoman in ohio running a great race to elizabeth warren in massachusetts. and tammy baldwin. the list goes on. to step back, it is a group of women, and a store number of women stepping up to make this an historic year for democratic women. it is a narrative about how important it is to get women in the house of representatives in the you -- and in the u.s. senate. women only represent 17% of congress today. let's think about that. that's one in six members of congress are women today. we feel that must change, that we have a great opportunity in 2012 to make that change. we know that when we do, when we get more women in their -- in

fact some day when we truly have an equal number of women and men sitting at the decision making table it is that day that we will get the best policies for the bulk of americans. host: a tweet -- guest: emily's list' mission is clear. we support pro-choice democratic women and have fro 27 years. we have elected 15 u.s. senators and 87 members to the house of representatives and hundreds and hundreds of democratic women across the country. our focus has we did it is where our focus has been. i would like to see more women across the board. our focus is pro-choice democratic women. host: a recent story is about another group that is working on women's issues. this is from the republican perspective.

what do you think about this? guest: we need more women to run across the board. i certainly hope that we see more republican women, but i have to say we have to see more pro-choice republican women. when emily's list started 27 years ago, which started as an organization dedicated to electing pro-choice democratic women, there were so many pro- choice republican women at the same time. now we have seen the republican party move to the right so much that those moderate republican women really have no place to succeed in their party. and so, we say come on over to us and you can work with us in this endeavor.

i can say that i am very excited about the number of women that the democrats have running right now. we have been working with 11 senate candidates. already 20 house candidates. with another 20 possibly coming on line in just the next few months. we have a really good cycle building and we need to help these women, because we need the cha -- need to change the dynamic in washington. the time is now. host: we are talking about women's issues in campaign 2012. the goa tweet -- if you would like to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call -- in's take mark's call

washington, d.c., in the penn line. caller: hi, i wanted to know of your organization is going to do anything concerning the comments from rush limbaugh, because i think what he's said on the radio was truly insulting to women. if he is allowed to say that, i think it sets the women's movement back. i remember when trent lott, the company said about black people in the south and then in d.c. there was a disc jockey who said something about martin luther king. he was taken off the air. i wondered if this could happen to rush limbaugh. this might be the only time you have a chance to do this. i wonder if you'll take

advantage of the opportunity. host: stephanie schriock. guest: i certainly hope that this ends up with rush limbaugh off the air. his statements last week about a student at georgetown university and women in general was disgusting, insulting, and inappropriate in any political discourse in any society. i am happy to see that a number of companies who once sponsor the show have been walking away. i ask all companies who are involved in sponsoring his show to walk away. anyone who has a daughter or a wife or a mother should be discussed by his statements. i certainly hope that everybody just walks away from his show. enough is enough. there's no place in our dialogue for this. kind of this host: here's a

story -- majority leader republican in the house representing virginia weighing in on the debate over the white house rule on contraception and whether or not religious organizations should cover it. [video] >> it's about the administration saying to the catholic church that we know what your faith holds and you have to abide by that. it's about like saying to those of us in the jewish faith that we know what the laws of being culture means and we will tell you what that means. that's not who we are in this country. that's why the rule has no place

in american politics. again, i think it is very important that we uphold the tenants of religious freedom. it is at the core of who we are as a country. host: that was yesterday. david gregory had asked if he sees the other side of the issue, does he see this as a women's rights issue rather than a religious rights issue? stephanie schriock, do you see the conversation as being about religion as well as that it's about women's rights? guest: i think it is absolutely about our freedom. and as americans we have the right to believe in what we want to believe. we have the freedom to do what we need to do it. as women in this country that means we should be able to believe what we want and we should be able to have access to the necessary help care that is going to give us all the ability and opportunity to succeed in our lives. this is a core principle. this conversation is a core principle about american democracy.

it is about individual freedom and freedom to do what we need to do across the board. i think this discussion would look incredibly different if we had many, many more women in the house and the senate. i think about the day when the house hearing occurred that congressman darrell issa had and that you probably saw where there were five men on a panel to discuss contraception for women. that is not going to happen when there's an equal number of women and men in the u.s. house. it is something emily's list is working on every cycle and feel like this year in particular is one where we can get a lot more women elected and we need their voices. host: let's go to ed, democratic caller in manhattan, kansas. caller: good morning. i have to agree with the young lady.

i don't understand the way that these republicans can in the name of religion and christ tell people how to run their lives. i feel like if they want to keep the women back in the 1930's, a slave to the kitchen and being barefoot and pregnant. i just wonder if they feel the same way about the contraception issue for men? viagra aunt that sorting. -- and that sort of thing. guest: it is an interesting point. these debates continue to be incredibly one-sided. as you have put it, it's about the place of women. i think the vast majority of americans agree that there is equality among women and men and

that women should have equal opportunity and the ability to make all the choices they need to make in their lives and that this is not the time to send women back 50 or 60 or 70 years into the kitchen. and i am concerned about the discourse that has been going on particularly in the republican party right up through the presidential nomination. again, as i look at 2012, not only are women and men like yourself engaging in this and saying where are we going, we also know that one of the ways to stop this kind of debate so we can focus on the economy and getting more jobs is really truly to elect more women. if we had more women sitting in the senate's plan to house right now, i really think this discussion and would look very different. i am not entirely sure we would be having this debate. host: let's look at some of the

money emily's list is contributing to campaigns throughout the country. contributed $39,000 to federal candidates. why are some of these candidates appealing to emily's list? guest: our mission is to elect pro-choice democratic women. all the races you just mentioned -- that is just a snapshot of what we do -- are all incredibly important as we try to change the dynamics and make washington work again. if you just spoke about the contributions were made to these candidates. the way emily's list works, is that is one of the smallest things we do for these

candidates. what we really do is go out to our network of over 1 million members. if you would like to join, we ask our members to make contributions directly to those candidates. we may send a $5,000 pac check, but we raise tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand dollars to help these women get started, get organized. you mentioned suzanne. she is the recently elected congresswoman from oregon. we were with her sitting around a kitchen table talking about how that race was going to go before the ship that in the race. we stuck with her as an organization until the very last vote was counted. independent arendependent vote

also went out and was involved. we are happy to have her in the house and hoped to repeat that in november. host: a tweeet -- guest: interesting question. one thing about citizens united, it will cause chaos in all these races. men and women are going to have to deal with this in ways that we hate to see. it has opened up the floodgates of unregulated contributions from sources that we may not even know about. so what i tell our women candidates, this store number that are willing to step up this year in this environment, is that we have your back. we tried to do everything we can to give as much money into the hands of the candidates so they

have the ability to tell their story and dr. cook to the voters. at the end of the day, that's the most important thing. these big organizations that are going to be spending it sounds like hundreds of millions of dollars and karl rove keeps talking about an american crossroads and we are hoping that our candidates will have the resources that they need to get their message out to the voters. voters across the country, i believe, are going to see through all of this big spending and look directly at who the candidates are. host: steve is in baltimore, republican. caller: my wife and i talk about politics all the time. both of us are republicans. both of us are most o frustrated about it is a couple years ago when obama was hammering through congress is health care reform, the republicans were not able to really speak about anything

because they had the house and the senate. now that the republicans have the house and we want to start talking about changing part of the health care bill, not totally get rid of it, but changing it, we are looked at as the bad guy, people saying they are anti-women, anti this or that. i am in my mid 40's and she's in her early 40's. we have two kids that are two and six months, none of which was ever denied by our insurance company. it is just democrats are hammering through with anti-

women's rights. no. we are trying to fix women's rights. i'm glad that you have had good health care. that's important. that is what we are hoping every woman in every family across the country has. i have had friends that have had health insurance and ended up getting pregnant but did not have maternity coverage and therefore was denied maternity coverage for her baby. ever situation is different. i think all americans want to ensure that everybody has the same coverage that your family has. i think what happened is when the republicans did take over the house, the first thing they did was not to maybe make some changes around the edges. unfortunately, the first thing they try to do was repeal the whole health care bill. i think that set us all off on the wrong path.

this health care reform really did open up the opportunity for women to get coverage across the board. as nancy pelosi said, it ended the era of women being a pre- existing condition. that is a huge thing for all women across the country and something that is incredibly important that we maintain. i look at our women members of congress that emily's list has supported over the years. congresswoman jackie spear of california, and a congresswoman from wisconsin, during the debates and even last year during the debates on whether or not we should make changes, they were there to share their very personal stories of motherhood, of trying to get pregnant, of dealing with pregnancies. i can say we absolutely need more of those voices so we ensure that policies we end up with in this country really do

balance the needs of the entire family, women, men, and our children. we have a lot of work to do. host: stephanie schriock, president of emily's list. white house initial decision on contraception and how it should be covered by religious- affiliated organization has changed. they amended its zero insurance companies would cover that cost. were you ok with a compromise? do you think the white house has done enough for the issues you? care you guest: president obama and the white house have been very good on issues smattering to women and families across the country since the moment he got in. there was the living ledbetter act, which was about allowing women to fight for pay equity under obama. this has been -- this administration has been very pro-women. i am proud of the president and the administration.

on the contraception decision, the most important thing was to ensure that all women across this country were going to have access to contraception, for the birth control they needed. this compromise, to me and i think the woman across the country, makes a lot of sense. most important thing is to make sure women have access to this. i think about the women that we work with in the senate. senator patty murray and senator barbara boxer, who were so strong in the debate to ensure that women across the country have all the opportunities and choices they needed in their health care system. they need. some need if we have five new members of the u.s. senate who are pro-choice democratic women, policies are only going to get better for women and families in this country. host: independent line, california, lori.

caller: i am proud represented by barbara boxer. i am a mother and grandmother. i'm so pleased with her. i believe rush limbaugh will go the way of howard stern. i was working in obgyn 20 years. the birth control pill is used for so many other things regarding women's health. it is used to regulate the menstrual cycle, if it's used to help with hormone stabilization and used to treat some tumors. it is used for so many other things. i think it is funny if that these gentlemen think that you can just take a birth control pill one day and suddenly you are not able to have children. as if viagra -- also when a

woman is on the pill, imagine a woman who was on welfare, my daughter for a time had to receive public assistance and she did not want to have children while on public assistance to, so she turned to the birth control pill to prevent unwanted pregnancy, because she cannot afford to have them. i just wanted to say thank you very much for assistance on this issue. guest: i could not agree with you more. you think about the debates happening in the house and senate. these conversations are going to be different when there are more women in the debates. the u.s. congress is only 17% women, one in six members are women. what is missing from these conversations are the personal

stories you just shared of being an obgyn and women having access to health care. there are many other reasons for women to have access to the birth control pill and other things. it is about health care, the economy, what women need to do to protect their families and to have families. i am with you. sometimes i wonder where the conversations are going. you know when there is an equal number of men and women at the table with women sharing their personal stories, this conversation is going to look different in the future. host: the hill reported last month that emily's list was putting out what they called an advertising blitz attacking republicans for not including women witnesses at the congressional hearing a couple of weeks back. has this been good for your

organization, this dialogue? guest: this whole debate republicans have ignited has awakened women and men who care about women to get engaged politically. we have seen record growth in the last year. what is most important is that women and men are saying this debate should not be happening. it happened 50 years ago, 30 years ago. we need to focus on what is important for our families. shows there are wonderful women in the house and senate. in 2012, we saw the house hearing to discuss contraception with a panel of only men.

where are our women's voices? it is up to almost across the country to stand up and say we need an equal number of women and men at the table. to do that, we have to select more pro-choice democratic women. in 2012, we have a great opportunity to make significant gains in the house and senate with strong women candidates from coast to coast. i think about the number of women running for the house. the police chief in florida is looking to run for the house seat in orlando. these are women who are going to bring a strong point of view and experiences that are not there right now. that is what we need to do to change congress, to get us back on track on the debate is about the future of our country and children instead of the debate

we're having now that looks like a debate we had in the 1950's. there is no place for that. it is 2012. it is time to look forward. host: john joins us from new mexico, a democratic caller. you are on with stephanie schriock. go ahead. caller: it seems there is fundamental dishonesty with republicans. it seems like every election cycle, i have an sec complaint letter against rush limbaugh -- fcc complaint letter against rush limbaugh. he insulted the president's mother and every black person in the world. our local radio station played the racial parities. they have an sec complaint --

sec complaint letter -- fcc complete weather. host: some see that bill maher made derogatory comments to sarah palin. is that the same thing as what rush limbaugh did? caller: you cannot help if you are born black or a woman. the fundamental dishonesty of the republican party, i have a facebook page to get rush limbaugh removed from the airwaves. i am of the opinion that they are political appointees at the fcc. rush limbaugh has so much money can keep it in court for two or three election cycles.

host: bill maher called sarah palin a derogatory word used for women. is that similar to what rush limbaugh did? should he return campaign contributions for that? guest: there is no place for that kind of dialogue. in the case of rush limbaugh, he has gone so far and done very little to get himself out of it. i was so insulted by the first round of statements. i was shocked that he doubled down the next day. instead of having a full apology, he threw something up on his blog over the weekend. this is on our american airwaves. this is not on the cable service. it is enough.

he has been doing this for years. now he is insulting 51% of the population, our daughters, mothers, grandmothers. it is unacceptable. i hope that he is done. the best way to do that is for all of us to join together to say it needs to end. host: the same call for bill maher? guest: i have to say that rush limbaugh continues on the american airwaves across the country. we have to pull back and walk away from that absolutely. host: hbo is different? public airwaves versus table -- cable? guest: there is a long history of what rush limbaugh has been doing.

i think he has gone so much further on this one. it has just been outrageous. host: let's hear from david, a republican in detroit. caller: my question or comment is about what i am hearing from your guest on the show. speaking of bill maher, the word he used against sarah palin was disgusting. he pretty much double down on it by saying the only difference is he does not have sponsors. host: why is that a concern to you? caller: he doubled down pretty much because he does not have sponsors. last year, someone pretty much said about the same thing about laura ingram. is it ok to-conservative women conservative women?

guest: there is no place in the discourse for any of this. there should be demands for apologies and they should be held responsible. and shultz was held responsible and taken off the air for a bit. he also had a full throated apology. we all need to hold these folks responsible. there is no place for this. you just listed off all of these folks. this is another example of why we need more women involved. it is more difficult to make those statements if you are sitting at a table with a woman across from you. i think the entire dialogue says

to me and women and men who care that we need to work to change the political dialogue. one of the best ways to change is to involve more women in the process. the first place to do that is by electing more women to the house, senate, legislatures around the country. we can get off of these topics and focus on what we need to do for the future of our country to ensure we have a strong economy. at emily's list, we work with is stored numbers of women running for the cycle. i believe we have the potential to make great change in november. host: man is calling on the independent line. are you involved -- amanda is calling on independent line. are you involved in super tuesday? caller: i absolutely am sure ron

paul -- for ron paul. i am stunned at the hypocrisy. rush limbaugh is an american citizen the same as you and i. e.ur rights seem to trump min i have the right to practice my religion. it is the first amendment rights. this is america. the supreme court said the nazis have the right to say with the want to, but republicans do not? republican women do not have a table ormily's anyone's table. look at what you have done to any conservative woman. guest: we focus specifically on electing democratic women. that is what we have been doing for 27 years.

when emily's list started, and no democratic women had won the congressional election in her own right ever. that was 27 years ago. across the board, we need more women to run. we need more republican women to run. i call on all women to find a way to run for office today. i do believe when there are more women at the table we're going to end up with a much better dialogue. list disagreed with republican women counterparts on policy issues? we do. but i believe more women involved in politics is going to help this country. i am concerned about the republican party right now. it has moved so far out of the mainstream that a lot of strong republican women who used to be

involved do not have a home now. i look at what just happened in maine with olympia snowe retiring. she is not one we would be interesting because she is a republican, but as an american woman is a big loss for this country to have olympia snowe retire. her voice as a moderate republican woman was incredibly important. we need to find some more olympia snowe's. host: chalk is a democrat. go ahead. -- chuck is a democrat. go ahead. caller: it is upsetting to me about alcohol being raised to 5.7. host: what does that have to do with the topic today?

caller: domestic violence. women have smoked candidates -- cannabis during the menstrual cycle and beyond for better health. host: he is bringing up how alcoholic content in beverages can contribute to problems. is that something you are involved with? guest: not really. i cannot address the points of that question. i do believe as we work to elect more pro-choice democratic women, you end up with a variety of views that we're missing now. the debates and dialogue will be brought up in a different way when we change those numbers. host:-bill, north carolina, republican. -- asheville, north carolina, republican.

caller: i will agree with this lady on one point. we do need someone in. we need conservative women in congress. we do not need any more women and people like that. we need more conservative women. i watched c-span all the time since i have retired. i know what is going on in this country. i watched the debates, the hearing with the panels. the democrats have been so defensive. i heard ms. boxer get on the floor and said there were no women on the panel. she even showed a picture. there were two panels. there were no women on the first panel. on the second panel, there were two women. guest: the major panel had no women on it. you saw the picture. they are talking about women's health care. i do not think that happens.

i would like to see more conservative women on that committee. it would not happen if there were more women in the house of representatives today. i hope you consider running. i think we need more women to step up and run for office across the country. emily's list is focusing on electing proestrus democratic women. we have had been a success. i am hoping for better success coming into 2012. we have seen an historic number of women candidates stepping up to run across the country. shelley berkley is running for the senate in nevada. she has served her house district well in nevada. she is stepping up to say it is time to change the dynamics of the senate. that is exactly what we need to be doing. host: this person writes is to

be about electing the best candidate. a new report claims emily's list owns certain states. the report was entitled "who owns your member of congress?" tell us about the relationship when you donate to a campaign. do you expect something in return? how does the dialogue take place? guest: 27 years, this has been the case. we just want to elect more pro- choice democratic women. that is our job. we do not lobby. we're not an advocacy organization. we are about campaigns and elections. we helped recruit, train, women candidates. we hope to build a staff around the campaigns. we advise and counsel as the

campaigns go through the election. we ask our membership of over 1 million to help fund the campaigns. on election night, we will sit there holding her hand in celebration or otherwise. we look at the next cycle and keep on moving. until the numbers change from 17% to 51%, we have our work cut out for us. that is what we focus on and nothing else. host: stephanie schriock, president of emily's list, thank you for coming in today. next, we will talk about nuclear weapons and material safety. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> in this crazy world, we have atom bombs. the question is not how to use them. the question is how to restrain yourself from using them. any fool can get this country into trouble. it takes a wise man to get it out. >> as candidates campaign, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> should your president have the highest standards and be an example to our children and grandchildren in this country?

ask yourself that question. should his life make him a role model for your future children? should anyone you like to the office always keep his promises? >> i know in washington is popular to create a cyber security organization to oversee this. i think that is falling. the adversary today is better resource and becoming more sophisticated. i worry about the persistent. >> how real is the threat? cyber security executives on how to handle networks. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we put a spotlight on the

federal program looking at what it does and how much it costs. our guest is todd jacobson of the nuclear weapons and materials monitor. he is a senior reporter there. what is the mission of the national nuclear safety agency? what does this one do? guest: the main part of the mission is protecting and maintaining the weapons we currently have. that is about half of what they do. the other part is the nonproliferation aspect. that is in charge of securing nuclear material and real-world -- around the world. they go to various countries upgrading security making sure

other countries materials cannot get into the hands of terrorists. there is a third component which is the naval reactors. those are the reactors that power our nuclear submarines. they are in charge of the upkeep and maintenance on that. it is a three-fold mission they have. host: what has been done to upkeep and maintain nuclear weapons? guest: there is a cadre of scientists and researchers constantly study them. they are constantly looking to answer defense questions -- different questions. there has been a moratorium on testing since the early 1990's. a lot of computer simulations are done. a lot of experiments below the nuclear threshold are done to make sure that what we have is secure and still works if they ever have to be used.

there are various sites and on the country in charge of examining the weapons we have. every year, they take apart some of them to make sure nothing is going wrong. what i am told is to make sure there is no rest norust -- to make sure there is no rust, to oversimplify things. there is the potential for different problems to pop up. they do. those are classified. they answer different questions about them. host: do we still build nuclear weapons? guest: no new nuclear weapons. we maintain what we have and they refurbish them. there is an effort now to refurbish one of the warheads but those on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, to add

modern technology to its. it is not a new weapon in terms of a higher or lower yield or anything different. it is a weapon from an existing stockpile that they had modern features to. they do not change what it does. that is going to go on for decades. our cold war nuclear weapons are changing. officials at the nsa said the stockpile is the oldest in decades. that is the focus now, upgrading things and making sure everything is safe and secure. host: todd jacobson is the senior reporter at the "nuclear weapons & materials monitor." he covers the national nuclear safety agency, the nsa.

let's look at the numbers. the obama administration has asked for $11 billion for 2013. tell us how the budget breaks down. guest: they have lost $4.70 0.6 billion for the weapons program. do they have asked for a -- they have asked for $7.6 billion for the weapons program. there are three locations. there is a cadre of scientists constantly studying these things. that is a large portion of the budget. $2.5 billion goes to the non- proliferation account. approximately $1 billion goes to the nuclear reactors. there is a program that is about $500 million a year where they go around to different places in the world to secure

things. a couple of years ago, they were in chilly -- chile taking a highly enriched uranium out of the reactor there and bringing it back to the united states to take care of it. it is safe. we know terrorists will not get hold of it. there was an earthquake during the operation. it was dicey. there are a lot of logistics ago in to making it is secure with their moving it, making sure no one knows about it ahead of time and that there are no threats to the operation. host: someone asks about the idea of going overseas to deal with nuclear weapons. why are u.s. taxpayers paying to clean up russian and other nukes?

guest: the goal is to take a leadership role. it has become a concern of ours if russian nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons in pakistan are not secured. the likelihood of a terrorist getting hold of it increases. there is a risk for us of a nuclear weapon potentially being detonated in one of our cities. that is why there are programs like the nonproliferation program. there is the cooperative threat reduction program. they have done a ton of work in russia to make sure all that is secure and up to par with what we have in this country. it is a responsible approach to securing nuclear weapons around the world. if we were not doing it, you wonder who would be. that is why we have been proactive on that front. host: michael is a republican

from jackson, ohio. caller: there were reports during and after the cold war that the russians. -positioned nuclear weapons inside the united states -- russians positions nuclear weapons inside the united states. guest: i am not aware of those reports. i have a hard time answering that question. i do not know of any russian weapons being stored in the u.s., sleeper weapons i guess you would be referring to. if they were stored, there would be safety issues and reliability issues. i guess your question is whether they would go off if they wanted them to. i am not a scientist so i cannot answer that. if they had been dormant for 20 years, i think there would be some issues with that. host: shelby is an independent

scholar -- collar -- caller. caller: it is hard to find information about this online. host: he is a senior reporter, but we're talking about the the nuclear commission. caller: i mean the "nuclear weapons & materials monitor." one of my questions is how you are dealing with environmental concerns. our nuclear weapons being stored? is there waste people need to worry about? what happens when we do not want the weapons anymore? what do we do with them? guest: there is a large effort to draw down our stockpile. you are seeing reduced numbers.

nuclear weapons are being dismantled. there is a large q of weapons -- queue of weapons waiting to be this mantle. there is a large plant in amarillo where they are taken apart. the radioactive parts are taken apart and stored there. there are secure facilities around the world. there is a separate nonproliferation effort to use the plutonium. a site thatding will use the -- plutonium from nuclear weapons to turn it into commercial fuel that will be burned at nuclear power plants around the country. it is taking what was nuclear weapons and converting it into something that can be used for a

different purpose. on the environmental concerns, there is part of the department of energy in charge of the cleanup of the cold war nuclear stockpile. aside from the eight main sites that currently make up the weapons complex that i cover and maintain our weapons, there are various sites in the nation trying to get cleaned up. it is a decades-long effort and an expensive one as well. host: todd jacobson from the "nuclear weapons & materials monitor," tell us about the monitor. guest: we are an independent newsletter. we are read by congress and folks in the industry, arms control groups. we are completely non-partisan. we try to be a voice, an objective voice covering these

issues. i cover congressional hearings. i go over budget documents and reports to get to the heart of what our policy is, what our stockpile is like right now. it is a difficult issue because there is a lot of classified information, but there is quite a bit you can get so you can get a sense of what is going on. host: does it cost more to maintain or dispose? guest: that is a tough question. we have to maintain our stockpile. we cannot just get rid of the warheads we have. disposing of them would be cheaper. president obama was at the forefront of pushing and arms control agenda with a vision of

a world free of nuclear weapons. at the same time, he has said that will not happen overnight or probably in his lifetime. in the meantime, if you have to make sure what you have is safe. you cannot just say we're going to get rid of all nuclear weapons. the rest of the world is not thinking that way. in the meantime, we're going to have nuclear weapons. the president has said he has a vision of no weapons down the road, but we have to spend money to make sure we have these cleanup and reliable. caller: i am curious on your opinion on what would cause opposition to safety?

what portion of our society would oppose -- being that we live in such a fragile society where anything could happen? host: what are you asking? caller: why would anyone question moneys being allocated in regards to our future safety? whether it is nuclear weapons, terrorists threats, etc. host: do you see that coming into play when we're talking about disarmament? caller: i think it is a rational reason for spending. guest: i think his point is we should be spending money on our nuclear weapons stockpile. the other side of the queen --

coin is folks say we have too much. in 2010, the administration revealed for the first time in decades the size of our stockpile. there are one of the 13 warheads. a lot of folks in congress think that is too much. -- there are 113 warheads. a lot of folks in congress think it is too much. it is expensive to maintain. some think we do not need to be spending billions on infrastructure projects -- something we need to be spending those billions of dollars on infrastructure projects. that is part of the debate. the treaty was signed in 2010. part of the debate on the was what we're doing with our current stockpile and how much we're modernizing. a large and it was made, $80 billion over the next 10 years -- a large commitment was made, at $88 billion over the next 10 years to replace cold war facilities. some people think we're spending too much on that.

we could have a smaller stockpile. that could secure our nation as well as what we have now. that is the debate in congress over these issues. host: our guest just talked about the number of nuclear weapons in the united states. as of 2009, it was over 5100 warheads. the number dismantled was 8700. guest: there are about 3000 more still in line to be dismantled. it is a difficult thing to do. the national security administration just completed the dismantlement last year of one of the cold war vestiges, one of those weapons that does not have a use in our current stockpile.

it was the be 53 -- b-53. it was the size of a minivan. there was no reason to have it now. the nsa dismantles a weapon like that. it is a difficult thing when you are talking about dismantling something the size of a minivan with radioactive parts and high explosive potential. you do not just take out screwdrivers and taken apart. it is a very methodical process. just moving something like that is difficult. they have to develop special tools and cranes to do that. the nsa maintains what we have. they also dismantle stuff we do not need. it happens at the same plant in texas, the pantex plant.

they dismantle and take apart the warheads we do not need any more. host: a different jim tweeted in. guest: i do not think anyone thinks we should get rid of all of our nuclear weapons tomorrow. there are a lot of hurdles and people who disagree with the president on his vision. it has to be a slow, methodical process. it cannot happen overnight. most people recognize we cannot to say we're done with these. along with the international community, we have to take things down a slow path. that means having treaties with russia, eventually bringing in

france, china, the u.k. into the armed costs -- into the arms control discussions. host: the next call is from round rock, texas. welcome. caller: iran is threatening to build a nuclear weapon. we have iran surrounded now. we have over 5000 nuclear weapons ourselves. we are the only country in the world to drop nuclear weapons. what gives us the right to tell any country whether they can build a nuclear weapon or not one we have already dropped one? guest: i think your point is well taken. i would go back to the non- proliferation treaty decades ago.

it was an agreement among all countries that nuclear weapons are the ginnie that is out of the bottle -- genie that is out of the bottle and we need to stop it. at the time, just a handful of countries have nuclear weapons. there was a fear than -- then in the 1970's that eventually there would be more countries with nuclear weapons. there was agreement for countries that have them to get rid of them eventually. other countries cannot develop them. at the same time, if you want to develop nuclear technology for energy, you can do that. i think most people would agree to the security of the world would not be enhanced if every country had a nuclear weapon. there would be difficult issues with securing them and terrorism. that is a real concern.

is a real concern whether countries with nuclear weapons are securing them. it is a fear of a lot of people in this country that terrorists could get hold of it and do something bad with it on our soil. host: we talked about the number of nuclear warheads in the united states, over 8500. this is looking at who's around the world has nuclear weapons. this is an approximate number. russia has 11,000. the united kingdom over 200. china over 240. israel has between 75 and 200. pakistan between 9110. north korea has five or six. that is an estimate based on the amount of plutonium they are believed to possess. guest: the point of the arms control regime is to get a

handle on those countries and stem them from expanding. that is why there is so much focus on iran. if iran were to get a nuclear weapon, you could see the dominoes falling in the rest of the middle east with other countries pursuing them. syria a couple of years ago was pursuing a nuclear weapon as well. it is a real concern to keep that number lower. talking arms control negotiations, is really the u.s. and russia. we want to bring the stock of closer to china in the u.k. you will have to see multilateral arms negotiations. host: greg joins the conversation. caller: you said israel has over

75 nuclear weapons. how come they do not make that point when they're talking about the middle east and iran? why do we not send nuclear inspectors to inspect their stock and so we're doing something proactive? we're showing the iranians is not only you and then we go to iran. guest: that is not in the direct line of what i cover. you are right. israel is not a declared nuclear weapons state. we assume they have nuclear weapons. that is not in the direct line of what i do. it is hard for me to answer why the u.s. does not have a policy of going in respecting its nuclear weapons. host: todd jacobson is a senior reporter at the "nuclear weapons & materials monitor. " we're talking about the

national nuclear safety administration. it is charged with maintaining nuclear weapons. it has a budget of over $11 billion allocated. the security of sites is actually affecting the work of the labs. talk about security. guest: what are you referring to in terms of security? host: the maintenance of stockpiles is the core mission according to a national report last month, lab employees through contracting have diluted the goal and put it at risk.

guest: the real issue is how much oversight is on the labs. years ago, congress forced the nsa to compete the contracts for the labs. they are privately managed. at the time, there were managed by the university of california. they were managed like that for decades. in the early 2000's congress moved to force them to compete those for the first time in many decades. there were other labs they did at the same time. that brought in private industry. both of those are now run by teams consisting of university of california and other industry partners. they would like them to do less of telling what to do. they want more freedom to explore the scientific issues

they think need to be explored without them telling them every step they need to take. they say the administrative burdens are hampering what they can do. one example in the report is a scientist needed to write a position paper to go to the conference. the scientists complained that all of their work and time is taken up by red tape. there is a debate as to where the sweet spot is so the money we spent on weapons does not just go to filling out forms. that is one take on it at least. host: donna is a democratic caller in baltimore. caller: it was almost right after president obama cut the military budget like $30 billion.

the following one week, he gave $31 billion last week at the conference with netanyahu, he gave them $31 billion for their defense. it seems redundant. my first question was, are they working on everything getting smaller with computers? are they working on tiny nuclears that could be on drones? guest: i do not think nuclear weapons could ever be on drones. the airborne lead is the bombers we have that are equipped to carry nuclear weapons. the submarines are always out on patrol. they carry submarine-launched ballistic missiles. we have around

the country. i do not think there is the possibility of drones carrying nuclear weapons. host: is yucca mountain disposal site operational? guest: it is not operational. there is a big debate about what to do with yucca mountain. this is not something i cover directly, but you cannot avoid it. around the country, we have tons of nuclear waste from commercial nuclear energy sitting at various sites. we need to find a disposal path. that is the debate over yucca mountain. for years, we thought we would put it there. the obama administration reversed course. a lot of republicans are pressing for a reversal of that decision. it is in the courts right now. host: if a militant is outside this -- the jurisdiction of the

nnsa. guest: nnsa is not into disposal of commercial nuclear waste. it is really about how we maintain the stockpile we have. there are eight sites to run the country tasked with that. there is the other mission of securing nuclear materials around the world to make sure it is safe. that has been the agenda of the obama administration as well. the money goes to efforts overseas to make sure things are safe overseas. host: you mentioned a lot of this is classified. you report on the topic that is challenging to delve into. how close of you got into the story? have you been able to go to the facilities and visit the sites? have you seen the teams in action? guest: i have been to five of the eight sites. i have been to los alamos

national laboratory. there are certain things i can see and certain things i cannot see. as a journalist, i would not want to see something i could not report on. if i go to los alamos, i was not able to see them building things. the quality plutonium center of excellence. they are in charge of building the pins that were going to nuclear weapons. i think there are 11 now. that is a far cry from what they would do during the cold war. when i went to los alamos, i was not able to see that i was able to tour other things they do, some of the construction they are planning. a tour of one of the facilities that was to be one of the pillars of the modernization issue, the replacement agency.

at the time, it was a hole in the ground. it is still a whole of the crown because they have put on hold to reassess -- it is still a hole in the ground because they have put it on hold to reassess. it gives you a perspective on what they do. as a reporter, it is great even though they will not give me a pin to hold. host: this talks about the role the laboratory has played in new mexico. it helped to give birth to the manhattan project. last month, the obama administration decided to confer restriction of the new research facility for a least five years because of budget constraints. last month, the lab announced it would need to lay off up to

11% of the 76 employees. guest: that was a huge issue. los alamos is really an economic engine in that community. it is an isolated area. pretty much everyone who lives in that town has something to do with the lab. it is almost a crisis for them up there. their budget was cut even before the decision on that facility. their budget was cut by $300 million. they have had to do some scrambling to figure out how they will still do the mission. without that facility in the budget they need, they are not going to the bill to meet the requirements the military -- they're not going to be able to meet the requirements the

military wants them to meet. they are looking at potentially 800 cuts. they want to do it without forced layoffs. they are taking applications for april 5 -- through april 5 for buyouts. they were able to avoid layoffs before. hopefully they will do that again. at their sister laboratory in california in 2008, the also had a voluntary separation program. they did not get enough and have to force people to be laid off. it has been a difficult process. there is even a lawsuit still in the courts now that will go to trial in october from people who feel they were age- discriminated against. whenever you have to force people to leave an institution like that who have worked there for 30 years, it creates a huge

issue for morale even from people still there. livermore is still recovering. lasalle most wants to avoid forcing people to leave. -- los alamos wants to avoid forcing people to leave. caller: and want to preface what i say by saying i am an independent. i try to deal in the real world. the reality is if 300 of these things go off, does anyone want to live on the earth? will it be inhabitable? why have 30,000 or whatever? the second point is it is a deterrent. this is what people do not understand about iran. iran wants to get one because then they know they will have to be dealt with. if you get a nuclear weapon, you are on an equal playing field in

diplomacy. that is where the win into iraq. if they ever got one, you have to respect your enemy if they have it. guest: i do not think anyone believes we have to have a stockpile in the tens of thousands. that is why we are on a gentle slope towards lowering it. that is the direction everyone is heading. there is a current study in the pentagon as to where we can go next. there is debate as to whether we should go lower than the treaty attacked our stockpile at 1550. some say we should go lower. that is the administration's stance. a pentagon official says he believes we could maintain security with smaller numbers. that is the direction they're going. a lot of republicans feel we

need to put the brakes on the, make sure we're modernizing, and what we have is safe and taken care of. that is a tremendous debate in congress about the right path forward. some of the budget cutbacks have not helped recently. host: glenn is a caller from vermont. caller: thank you for taking my call. and was wondering about your knowledge on broken arrow incidents and the the the -- and the efforts of the dod to monitor? guest: that is not something the national nuclear security administration does. i focus on the sites that maintain our weapons that we

have. the broken arrow stock is not within my direct line of sight. he is referring to win a nuclear warhead gets into an accident. it has happened over the last 60 years where airplanes have had nuclear weapons on board that have crashed. there are sites from the world where that has happened. the dod is in charge of monitoring those. the effort was made when it happened to clean up. at no time was a nuclear weapon detonated because of one of those. sometimes when a nuclear weapon crashes to the ground, even though it does not detonate, radioactive material is disbursed. that is something dod takes seriously.

host: someone writes in about the idea of using thorium. do you know much about that? guest: that is a commercial energy usage. the obama administration is behind nuclear power. thorium is in the range of options they are looking at. small reactors are a big deal now. there is a push to develop those. that is not in the direct line of what i cover. host: todd jacobson is a senior reporter at "nuclear weapons & materials monitor." thank you so much for being here this morning and helping us out with our segment looking at how public money is spent. obama administration requested $11 billion for the national nuclear safety commission.

that is all for "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning. until then, have a good day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house and senate are back today. they will be working on naming post offices today. coming up later, they are working on a couple of bills. working on a couple of bills.