with joan lowy about the senate transportation bill. at 8:30 a.m., we discuss income inequality. at 9:15 a.m., we talk about mental-health in the military is diagnosed and treated. >> the government -- the government of sudan led by the three men who orchestrated the atrocities in our four have turned their farms -- bombs on innocent men, women, and children. ♪ host: that is george clooney testifying at the senate foreign

relations committee yesterday. he attended the state dinner last night for david cameron at the white house. he is that the first celebrity to testify before congress in the recent past -- he is not the first celebrity to testify before congress. in the past, many testified on various issues before congress. now, what do you think? do you think celebrities have an impact on public policy? we want to hear from you this morning. numbers are on the screen. you can contact us by e-mail journal@cspan.org or on twitter. if you would like to continue the conversation, we have this

posted on our facebook page. faceboom.com/cspan. here is the cbs news report about george clooney testifying yesterday.

host: cbs.com. we want to get your reaction as to whether celebrities have an impact on public policy. in a related piece, angelina jolie hailed icc verdict in child soldiers case.

that is from google.com. baba on our democrats' line, what do you think? do celebrities have an impact public policy? caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have about four months and years now that celebrities do not speak out enough. they can have such an impact if they do want to speak out. look what happened to the . >> chicks -- look what happened to the dixie chicks.

they are afraid of taking it in the pocketbook where they are going to -- where is going to hurt. if i was a celebrity, i would be screaming at the top of my lungs on anything from small patio big issues. could you imagine if a celebrity says, i think that the bush tax cuts should go away and that rates should go back to the clinton area. we should raise the 4.5%. kutcher but we raise the taxes up to 4.5% and balance the budget -- god forbid we raise the taxes up to 4.5% and balance the budget. host: celebrities do not have expertise in the shoes. george clooney travelled there. he did not use notes. he seemed to know very much what he was talking about an seem devoted to the cause. is a celebrity is simply

tweeting out an opinion, is that something that should be taken seriously? caller: why not? my hat -- george clooney was very impressive. i listened to his testimony on c-span. the republicans take the celebrities. you know, they call them communists. they are so anti-celebrity. celebrities also have the right to speak out, just like any other citizens. you know, god forbid that celebrities speak out, even on the monday issue like raising the taxes back to where they work and getting the budget under control. host: will leave it there. susan is a republican in philadelphia. good morning. caller: i think i disagree with the previous caller. when i hear a celebrity speaking, i am suspicious as to

whether they really know anything about the subject whatsoever. furthermore, there in a business which requires them to story motions and i think that when you are addressing these issues, you want to be as logical as possible. host: max is also a republican in austin, texas. you are on the air. what do you think? max, turn down your tv. we will put that on hold. from this morning's headlines --

host: that is in the "washington times." this morning. this is in that the cocoa washington -- austin times this morning.

host: that is the take on a press conference yesterday. here is the "wall street journal" headline. host: that is in the "wall street journal." this is the front page of "usa today."

host: back to your calls. this is a republican from cambridge, new york. what do you think about celebrities impact on public policy when they testify before congress? caller: celebrities have a gigantic impact on people because most of us go to work and then we come home and turn on the tv and we see them. we have made a celebrity out of our president and our senate. it is all just a big theater like somebody is acting on a set, and everybody wants to get

their point across. everybody is forgetting that we are talking about real people. real lives. real money. it we do not have it. we are talking about our country falling apart. we're also talking about a media that does not mention ron paul. ron paul is still running for the presidency and he has cut over 7% of the military backing him up financially. host: a couple of tweets on this question. of course celebrities have an impact on congress, anyone with money gets listened to. stephen colbert would be for congress and fred says, the

impact policy, but i wonder how smart they are or if they. what people say them -- say. stephen colbert testified on immigration -- immigrant workers in character. here is the article from "to huffington post." host: there was a profit to be made from the public taxpayer funded forum on one of the nation's most important issues. host: that is from stephen colbert's testimony in 2010.

john in annapolis, maryland. what you think about celebrities'impact on public policy? caller: there is no doubt that they are given a special status based on their platform. they have specialized training in speaking. i think your indication of using notes and speaking is an indication of george clooney's ability to articulate the situation. we as citizens need to think critically about what people are saying, not just follow a tweet because someone started the most recent blog. host: that was done in annapolis. here is "the wall street journal." their editorials beginning with -- their editorials today.

the proper course is to align the forces -- host: john mccain has the opposing editorial.

host: those are both in "usa today" this morning. back to your calls and on publics' impact policy. good morning, ruth. caller: this is not just about celebrities. i wanted to get back about the -- to the troops in afghanistan where it was mentioned of that in the near future, we are going to give control of our troops to afghanistan where they have more of a say. in essence, that is surrendering our troops and putting them and how -- in harm's way to the afghans. do you realize that anything that has gone wrong, like the recent shooting of the civilians in the village and stuff like that, is going to come back on those soldiers? host: we are talking about celebrities. we are basing this on george clooney's testimony yesterday about sudan.

he spoke before the senate foreign relations committee. several celebrities have testified in congress about various issues. george clooney is just the latest. wyoming, bonnie on our republican line. what do you think about celebrities in public policy? caller: well, i disagree with the caller that said the republicans hate celebrities. we do not. we disagree with them at times and we disagree with their -- we disagree with their being different than a christian. i believe that george clooney is being truthful. i just do not know if we should get involved, but possibly we

should have to. we cannot let people die for nothing. host: here are some of the facebook comments. scott says, as long as a message barris truth, i do not care who delivers it. host: out of great britain this morning, sigrid e-mails with the lid of life of us saw the -- assad's inner circle. host: several thousand e-mails

were received and sent by bashar al-assad and his wife. host: here is a picture of his wife with him on the front page of "the guardian." bowring flavio, -- bowring file clerk tweets in. host: the next call comes from hammond, conn. hello. caller: hello, good morning. i think celebrities to have an impact because they have so much money they can visit these places and see what normal

people without money cannot see. they get to see their real hardship that life is growing at people. if people understand, the celebrities have money. they can travel. they can actually go places and see the real deal. you cannot hold them accountable for having money and no one -- knowing what to do with it. that is ignorant. they are smart. they travel. they see things. they talk. they want people to know. look, this is what is going on. because you do not have money and you cannot visit, you cannot see. once you get out of your own backyard and to see what life really is like, you appreciate america. you appreciate what we have here because outside of america, it is a hard life. without money, you cannot travel and see that. to leave itgoing there. if you would like to comment on the "washington journal" the

numbers are on the screen. "the new york tomimes" -- this is going on line tonight.

here is a little bit of it. [video clip] >> how do we understand this president and his term in office? do we look at the day's headlines or do we remember what we, as a country, have been through? >> the president has named the members of the economic team and they all fly in for the first big briefing on the economy. >> what was described in that meeting was an economic crisis beyond anything anybody had imagined. >> our time of standing and protecting narrow interests and putting off things has passed. >> his advisers us, where to begin? which need will be put first? >> which will come first? >>

host: back to your calls on public policy. this is john, hello. caller: hello. everybody keeps referring to celebrities as that just actors. there are more types of celebrities than just actors. second of all, i see a lot of republicans disliking celebrities. yes, we know they are more liberal, most of the time. most of you should remember that president reagan was also an actor. he was in command of policies and so were other people. celebrities can run businesses as well as other people and they see what is going on. i do not know why they would be

discredited. as far as the impact they have, i think it. but because people listen to a lot of celebrities and they want to hear what they have to say. host: are you excited about the democratic convention coming to your caller: city very excited. host: is their activity? caller: they're setting up and getting ready hotels are being booked. host: rochester, new york. jim, please go ahead. caller: good morning. i believe the celebrities, when they get involved in political arenas, they hurt themselves due to the fact that they are -- they live in a world that is unrealistic.

their ratings drop and people do not support them when they voice their opinions. the more they do that, the word they go. the perfect example would be that nowadays, they try to find out who real movie stars are. they use will smith as an actual movie star and he has stayed under their radar. we do not know what his beliefs are, his political views and he does not publicly announced them. whereas people like george clooney, who you would think would be a movie star, his ratings are down. people do not support him anymore. host: from facebook -- beverly says to those opposed to celebrity opinions and politics, remember ronald reagan, the actor.

host: jon auer democrats' line, good morning. -- john on our democrats' line, good morning.

caller: i cannot hear you. host: do not listen to your tv. talk to your phone. caller: i am not listening. celebrity should think about what is best for america. we have gas prices that are going up. we have people here that do not know whether they should purchase medicine or food or gasoline. what about us? what about the americans? we need to worry about america, not other countries. host: thank you. we move on to which can. -- michigan. good morning. caller: good morning c-span. i wanted to comment about george colony. -- george clooney. in the big cities, we have teenagers murdering each other every day. gasoline prices through the ceiling. people out of work. pretty much turmoil in our

political system. george clooney wants to talk about africa and what we should do over there. he is clueless, is what is going on. just because he is handsome and he has got perfect hair and perfect teeth and a perfect life, a lot of people take what he says with a lot of weight, but in reality, he is not perfect. he does not have the american people's best interest in mind. he is lost in the hollywood dream world. people need to think about what they believe in and stick to it include being taken this way and that way by celebrities. host: we have a tweet -- that is what is great about our republic. freedom of speech and free will. if you do not like what you

hear, walk away. "washington post." -- host: virtually every exit poll highlights voters resistance to his candidacy.

host: in other news, this article -- voters in illinois deccan tug-of-war between candidates. this is one of the next big primaries.

host: here is where the delegate total stands. 2286 delegates available. 1144 needed to get the nomination in tampa in august. total delegates to date that have been awarded 907. mitt romney has 477, mavericks or -- santorum to 48, ron paul, 47, two uncommitted. two belong to others. back to your calls on the impact on public policy that celebrities have. dave on our democrats' line. good morning. caller: i wanted to point out that ronald reagan was one of the biggest celebrities. someone else just said that.

it is nice when a celebrity takes a dime to keeping informed and involved. more power to them. either side. host: this morning to tech headlines -- -- this morning's headlines. if he were to take 39 --

host: he will have momentum -- host: back to your calls.

david in san antonio, texas. you are on "washington journal." caller: i used to have an opinion that celebrities have no real place speaking before congress, but having just heard the entire testimony of george clooney and the two men who spoke with him, regarding the situation in sudan and its relationship to door for, i heard what sounded like the kind of testimony a career diplomat or career politician in foreign relations would make. he made it points that i never even considered before. i think if more people listen to what was testified before they made a blanket comment about celebrities, they might change their opinion. host: a couple of e-mails on

this question -- i, like every other viewer, have well informed opinions. host: here is another. host: next call comes from to reset in vermont. hello. caller: i wanted to remind everybody that jane fonda regrets her visit and, she heard our troops. -- how much she hut our troops. people are forgetting that reagan left acting to become a governor. he was a good politician in my hero. thank you.

bye-bye. host: if you watched c-span last night, you saw our coverage of the state visit by david cameron. the obama is hosted them for the state dinner at the white house on the south lawn. 362 guests showed up. we want to show you some of the pictures from the "washington post." there are the two first ladies. over here is the vogue editor. there is george clooney again. there is warren buffett and his wife, misses buffett. richard branson below that. and then the actress elizabeth mcgovern. eric holder and his wife were

also there, as well. and, a little bit from this style page article. here is joe biden -- jill biden . here's just a little bit of the flavor of the article. british actor damian lewis, last seen as a pow trying to assess g-8 -- assassinate someone -- "when does he watch tv?" he brought his wife --

host: prince harry has been gallivanting around the caribbean, dancing in jamaica, gambling down the track with a runner. they conclude the article by saying, the first lady, representing all women, both american and from abroad, seeded yourself next to george clooney.

here is the entire guest list. a 362. we will show you the head table. president obama is that seat number one here. next to him his samantha cameron. on his other side is prime minister cameron. the then, michelle obama is number 20 here. 19 is george clooney. if you were sitting across the table from the president, you would be warren buffett and damian lewis. some other guests that attended the dinner and that we thought on the list, a couple of senators. senator richard lugar. john kerry. they all brought their wives. patrick kennedy, who was at the press club yesterday -- we covered his talk yesterday. he was at the dinner. martin o'malley was also there. center clare mccaskill, as well. antonin scalia was there, as

well. if your interested, that is all in "the washington post." this is from "the new york daily news." this is what the obamas gave the camerons -- host: that is all about the state dinner last night. you can watch it on c-span that organ -- c-span.org. thank you for holding. what you think about celebrities and public policy? caller: good morning.

i think it is great. many years ago, my son wrote a paper that outlined the human atrocities going on in our four. this never emerges in the general news. you never hear about the things that are going on. i think something like this -- anybody get -- bringing like to this horrible situation deserves some credit because it is horrific. i do not think anybody, if they knew the intricacies, would want to allow it to happen. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: "wall street journal" --

host: and, from "gledhill" newspaper -- host: onto west virginia. bob on our independent line. celebrities, a public policy, and their impact. what do you think?

caller: good morning. i would like to add to the list arnold schwarzenegger and others as being celebrities that have been elected. for people about the staying for -- for people who have disdain for celebrities. as far as them testifying and all of that, mary tyler moore testified before congress because she has been advocating for diabetes research for years and years and she is upset with the disease. elton john testified because of the young man had died years ago from aids. it was not because of his life style or anything. i do not think it is wrong for celebrities to bring a little light and a little heat to subjects that are important to them. they are just as entitled to their opinions as we are to ours. like sean penn when he testified, he has actually been getting his hands dirty and

doing the work in haiti. i do not see anything wrong with them having an opinion and expressing its. host: next is ron in detroit. caller: good morning. i do not see any problem with celebrities influencing the politicians because they have a right. they are americans. we do have -- i have just art of listening to advice and i am embarrassed by of the comments that some of these ignorant people make about anything. i think celebrities have a right and in influence. people can trust them if they like them. this is our right to freedom of speech. i think we have a problem then a lot of people did not believe in that. host: front page of "the chicago tribune" --

you can see the picture. the other lead story this morning is romney moving up campaigning. republican front runner will ride friday -- a ride friday. those are the two stories. here is "the 8 risch daily news" -- -- "the anchorage dailty news" --

host: that report is coming out today. that is the front page of "of the anchorage daily news." here is a market watcher -- the bill in new hampshire. what do you think about celebrities and their impact? caller: good morning. i think he is terrific these people -- it is terrific these people are generous enough to share their views with the world because as the prior caller said, these people are

americans. they have their right to be heard. i would hope anybody listening, if they went to their representatives, they would be heard as well. as far as getting involved in darfur , the british are still paying for what they did when they encouraged the egyptians in the 1900's. when the british opened fire rhonda people, they desecrated a tomb, took the body, sent ahead to london -- the head to london -- host: we are going to leave it there. thank you for calling in on that segment this morning. this is from "the wall street journal."

-- host: just a little bit from that article. we have three segments coming up

and we will be talking a little bit later in the program about our armed services, armed forces. and mental health issues. we will be talking about income inequality. coming up next, a look at the transportation bill i got past left side by the senate. we will be right back. >> if there is anything that concerns the american family today, it is this. our government has not caught up with then american -- with the new american family life. families have changed, so why can washington not? moms are working. nearly 65% of all mothers are working part-time, full-time,

all the time. keeping the family together. making ends meet. making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable day care and the pay they deserve. it too often, they cannot get either. >> this saturday, this senator will become the longest serving female in congressional history. she will surpass the record held currently. eavis rogers -- edith r. rogers hold it -- holds it now. you can check it out on the line -- online. congratulations to the student cam fitial documentary contest. a record number entered show in which part of the constitution is important to them and why. watch all the videos on

studentcam.org. we will talk with the winter sturla -- the winners during "washington journal." >> the strong support we have gives us an excellent base. [unintelligible] >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c- span.org/thecontenders tuesday video. >> there is been on his -- on

his contention. spirited disagreements. i believe considerable arguments. do not let anybody be misled by that. you have given here in moving in dramatic of view of how americans, can move forward shoulder to shoulder. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is joan lowy -- the transportation reporter with the associated press. she is talking about the transportation bill. joan lowy, what happened last night? guest: they passed a major transportation bill by 74 to 22,

which is an overwhelming bipartisan votes. that does not happen very often. host: how much money, how long is this? how is it funded? guest: this is a two-year bill. this costs $109 billion. mostly, it is funded through gas taxes and diesel taxes and other transportation taxes already in existence. but, that is not completely cover the cost of the bill. and there is another $10 billion or $12 billion paid for through a series of adjustments to other tax credit toor to -- tax credits or to other cuts in the budget. host: what is different from the original transportation bill we were talking about a month or so ago that was going to be brought up in the guest: house -- in the house? guest: the one in the house was

$260 billion, five years. it took a little bit different approach than this bill. it devolved a lot of the of responsibilities for transportation programs to states. the senate bill does, too, but does not go nearly as far as the house bill, which wanted to basically put all the decision making and for how to spend the money in the hands of state departments of transportation. the house bill also streamlined economic -- environmental regulations in order to get projects built faster. so does the senate bill, but the house went a lot further and environmentalists were unhappy with it. host: in "political" this morning -- highway bill over to house speaker john boehner.

guest: john boehner is in a rough position. the house crafted a very partisan highway bill that was five years and they did not really include democrats in the drafting process. now, they have democrats offering a lot of amendments in committee. a few of them were incorporated into the bill. but, pretty much, the whole velocity -- philosophy of the bill is conservative. it doesn't do a lot of the things democrats want to do and that leaves john boehner in the position to try to get the magic 218 votes entirely within his own republican conference. that is a problem because the conservatives, the tea partyers are not entirely comfortable with how much money the bill spends and that it needs other ways to be paid for besides gas

and diesel taxes. he is going to lose some conservatives on the right and he is losing some moderates and urban area republicans on the left because they are not completely happy with the way some of the items in the bill -- he has not been able to find the sweet spot. he could adjust the bill to appeal more to democrats and try to pick up democratic votes, but he would have trouble in his own conference, if he did that. host: joan lowy -- the numbers are on the screen. we are talking about the transportation bill working through congress. it was passed by the senate yesterday. the house has to act before march 31. what is the magic march 31 -- guest: the last transportation

bill expired in 2009. we have kept transportation programs going since then. through a series of eight short- term extensions. the most recent extension expires on march 31. congress could do in other short-term extension, but it gets more complicated this time because the authority of the government to levy the fuel taxes expires on march 31, too. there are a lot of questions on how to fund this. gas taxes and other taxes are not bringing enough money. it would be better to do it in a bill that is more comprehensive and addresses all of those issues, but we only have about 16 days left before that deadline. host: the numbers are on the screen.

pan.org orjournal@cs send us a tweet. the co-sponsors are senators jim inhofe and barbara boxer. that is not a usual pairing. guest: that is a classic -- an unusual hearing. schmidt barbara said she was one of the most liberal members. she reflects the values of california on issues like global warming. senator inhofe from oklahoma is very conservative. he thinks global warming is a hoax. they clash all the time on environmental issues because she is the chairman of the environment and public works

committee and he is a rating republican on there. on this issue, they have come together. on transportation, they have done what most lawmakers are saying is a remarkable job of creating a bipartisan bill in a very partisan congress. host: $109 billion over the next two years before by fuel taxes, tax changes, and cuts to federal programs. $1 billion credit assistance program for select transportation projects -- what guest: is: -- what is that? guest: this is a program that is to projects ofe regional and national projects -- significant.

by giving the backing there, it makes the borrowing to pay for those big credit projects lower and less expensive. it makes the project less expensive to do. barbara boxer certification said that this program can generate $30 in private investment for every $1 it spends. that does not always do that. it has generated as much as that. it helps get a lot of private investment for transportation projects, so it is not all done with federal money. i do has to be a revenue stream. that -- i do has to be a revenue stream. host: let us take some calls. we are talking with joan lowy,

transportation reporter. we're talking about the transportation bills working their way through the congress right now. we begin with a republican, bobbie, in indiana. go ahead. caller: caller: thank you for taking my call. the blood is dripping out of my ears listening to more programs. is this not what mr. obama did with a shovel-ready project? we cannot even drive cars down the highways. this united states is bankrupt. $186 trillion in unsecured debt? we're talking about another bill? wake up. what a pairing, a republican and democrat getting together to do what? spend people's money that we do not have. guest: the program is not new.

we're talking about extending existing programs. unlike other existing programs, these historically have been paid for with user fees -- the gas and diesel taxes, sec -- taxes on truck sales, tires, things like that. most of the program is paid for with user fees. what has made it so difficult to get a bill is that these user fees no longer covered the entire cost of the program. while there is strong support in congress, and generally in the public, in trying to make roads and bridges better, relieve traffic can get -- congestion, maintain things so they are safe, there is not a lot of support for raising user fees like the gas tax.

they no longer covered the cost of these programs. host: just to go back to the senate transportation bill -- a couple more items. this bill reduces the number of federal transportation programs by two-thirds. guest: you will see a lot of small programs eliminated. there will be no more covered bridge program. it was a little program to restore the quaint, covered bridges that we see throughout new england and the midwest. there is an enhancement program that did a lot of things that is now wrapped into one other thing. a lot of these functions will remain. you can spend the money on those things, but they are no longer separate programs with the

requirement that you spend a certain amount of money. host: it also toughens regulations on long distance and for all bosses -- auto bosses. guest: there have been a series of turk -- horrific crashes like the one in new york where 15 passengers were killed, and everyone else was injured coming back from a gambling casino in connecticut. there are safety issues with the motor coach industries, but the industry will point out that the very few fatalities are with the amount of miles they drive, but the issues are the fly-by-night carries, who the

government shuts down for safety violations, and they open up under new names. host: the next call from -- for joan lowy comes from peter yin sarasota, florida. caller: one of the issues i have for transportation is funding. as a candidate for congress i have proposed using gambling revenue not only for road project, but for this infamous train we have wanted to have built here basically from tampa to daytona beach. they have a train in place that goes from palm beach county to miami international airport.

this is a necessity. the interstate corridor is congested. there are accidents like the joan lowy mentioned. one of the things that would alleviate is the traffic problem on interstate four. one creative way to do it is to use internal funding from casinos, dog tracks, and also the horse racing situation. host: we will leave it there, peter, in sarasota. could you talk about funding, state and federal? guest: sherer. states relied a great deal on the federal government for support for highway and bridge projects and for transit. most of this is paid for by user fees. historically there has been a philosophy and a policy that

goes back to the eisenhower era when we started the highway system that the user pays. when you talk about going to gambling money to pay for this, you are going away from the philosophy, the policy that has been there for so long. there has been a lot of discussion about that in congress recently because for the last couple of years the government has had to supplement the highway trust fund that pays for the federal share of these things with money from the general treasury because the gas and fuel taxes have not kept up with spending. so, do we continue to supplement, keep spending at the current level without enough user fees? do we go to other sources of revenue, like gambling?

do we increase motor vehicle or fuel taxes or go to a vehicle miles traveled tax? those options are on the table, but none are without consequences. host: free lancer tweets -- why did the governor's kill high-speed rail? guest: they said it spent too much money. it varied from state-to-state, but the governors in wisconsin, ohio, in florida were -- and florida were concerned about how much it would spend in state money, because none of it is done with federal money

completely. they were concerned about the operating costs, and whether they would pay for themselves after they were constructed. the governor in florida was particularly concerned about that. the transportation secretary ray lahood has made it clear that he thought these things would pay for themselves, and i cannot tell you all of the details in florida. it has been a while since i wrote about that. i believe there were state reports that indicated that the train system that was proposed down there would not run a big operating deficit for the state. so, it depends upon who you are talking to. host: jim tweets in, what specific language in any of the bills guarantees the targeted tax goes to the specific

purpose? guest: do you mean the fuel tax? it has always bend in the law that they go to the highway trust fund, and that goes to highways or transit. i do not think there is any question that the money raised from fuel taxes goes to transportation, but, the problem is it no longer covers all of the cost. fuel taxes have not been raised since president clinton's first term, 1993, 4.3 cents a gallon. the gasoline taxes now 18.4 cents a gallon, and the diesel tax is 22.4 cents a gallon. since it has been almost 20

years since they were last raised, they no longer buy as much highway or bridge as they used to. construction costs have gone up. while the taxes have remained the same, you do not get as much construction or maintenance. host: the next call for joan lowy comes from wisconsin. sue on our republican line. caller: are we not reaching a debt limit crisis? if we are, our gasoline here is $3.98 a gallon and we will raise taxes? this is an absurd. we're going into $17 trillion of debt. explain that. guest: actually, the bill does not raise the gasoline or fuel taxes, and as i said one issue

is that a lot of people think it should be raised and we need to do something out of aging, crumbling transportation infrastructure in this country, and also expand to accommodate population growth. we will have a significantly larger population according to census predictions. there needs to be expansion in some way. how do you pay for it? yes, we have a huge debt crisis. i do not think the transportation programs are getting that much to that. most of it is user fees, although there has been some

reading of the general treasury. host: that caller's two point -- viewpoint -- is that some of the troubled speaker john boehner will face? guest: yes. well, sort of. john boehner faces problems with his conservatives in his conference in terms of a feeling there that everything should be done with the user fees. the transportation program should be limited to whatever the user fees raise, and then other times of offsets in the budget should not be used. the republicans in the house -- leadership has been proposing to pay for this with cuts

elsewhere. they are not proposing to add to the deficit. there is a philosophical feeling amongst some conservatives in the house that you should only use user fees to pay for this. host: g.o. in atlanta, you are on with -- joe in atlanta, you are on with joan lowy. less chance for g.o.. we will go to new york. john, you're on the air. caller: i think this is a great, wonderful thing, but we are talking about an idea that is far ahead of where america is. the country is falling apart.

there is no money for anything because the military industrial complex has been given over to the united nations with obama so he does not need approval from congress to start wars. we are stuck here with a puppet leader that is controlled by the offshore banking cartels and drug cartels. we are sitting here arguing over who will transport themselves from one place to another. host: we will leave it there. just to pull something of what he had to say, joan lowy, the $109 billion pot, is this a large transportation bill historically? guest: now. it will pay more money per year than the last transportation bill, which was the biggest ever, but that reflects

inflation. so, adjusted for inflation, it spends about the same amount of money per year as the last transportation bill. it is a victory. things are so tight in terms of spending money in the congress that it is a victory to get any kind of big spending bill through, even if it is sort of just maintaining what you are already doing. host: according to the highway safety administration some of the most costly routes in america -- if you look at this chart as well, is this for repairs? interstate 95 runs through 16 states that an estimated cost of $8 billion. is that what they're estimating for the cost of repairs? guest: i am not familiar with

the cost of repairs on i-95. there has been concerns about some states wanting to put more expensive tolls on interstate 95, particularly in new jersey. host: how do the toll systems work? is each state allowed to have when toll road with a charge? guest: there were some senators that wanted to give states more power to toll in a different way to raise money through user fees to pay for this, and other senators, led by kay bailey hutchison of texas said no more tolls. historically, only highways that were in existence before

eisenhower started building the interstate system, like the new jersey turnpike, where the turnpike in delaware, that already had tolls, they were grandfathered in when the system was created, and are allowed to continue to levy tolls on motorists. other states do not have the power to put up eight toll booths and charge people for using the federal highway -- put up a toll booth and charge people for using the federal highway. some senators wanted to increase the power of states to experiment with this. there is a pilot program in which three states are experimenting with polling, and there are mixed reviews. host: the interstate system is approximately 47,000 miles in total.

north carolina, frank. go ahead. caller: i am an avid c-span watcher. i enjoy your show. i have been following this transportation bill, and my experience it is i do not think america needs a very expensive- to-build high-speed rail system. everytime i choose to look into the cost of writing on amtrak, it is outrageously expensive. i hear that amtrak is not making a lot of money, probably because of those costs. why should we get another rail system, or a high-speed rail system that will probably cost just as much for people to use, there for people will not use

it. is there a cost benefit? somehow i do not think so. guest: i should clarify this highway bill does not include any money for high-speed rail. the obama administration, which has tried to make high-speed rail a signature program for the president, would have liked to see a lot of money in the bill for that, but republicans in the congress do not approve of high- speed rail in general. in the effort to create a bipartisan bill, that was not included. host: oklahoma city, gerry, a democrat. are you with us? sherri. less chance for shari? we will have to move on. california.

nina, please go ahead with your question or comment about the transportation bill. caller: one of the things no one discusses is the federal davis- bacon act, which forces union cost on each highway bill. it totally inflates the cost of construction. it needs to be addressed. host: joan lowy? guest: there is nothing on the davis-bacon in the senate bill. it was not in the house bill that came up and did not go anywhere, but there are house bills that would like an opportunity to amend the senate bill or get that included in the

house version of the bill. host: an article says the speaker john boehner could take up a truncated, at 18-month version of the longer bill, which the gop has already rejected. if you would, walk us through the next couple of weeks and what may happen. guest: speaker john boehner says when they get back they will do something on the high well -- highway bill. the current plan is to take up the senate bill, or something like it. it is hard for anyone to imagines the house will take up the senate bill and pass the senate bill. they will almost certainly want to put their stamp on it and amend it to their liking, which would make them go to conference

and negotiate with the senate and a final version, which we do not know how it would look. finally, to get enough votes to pass a republican bill in the house, they are trying their hardest, they say, to talk to members and get to the magic number that will support a longer-term bill, and barbara boxer in the senate and james inhofe saying they would have liked a longer bill, too, but they could not find the money. the reason they want to do a longer bill is because state departments of transportation, the construction industry and others say that those problems -- projects take a number of years, and they need more lead time, more assurances of a

stable flow of money to get the financing to do those projects. host: what happens the house does not pass a bill and nothing goes to conference? guest: the nightmare scenario is the shut down we saw that the faa times 10, or maybe a 100. this is a bigger issue. we are talking about a lot more money. some employees will be furloughed. the main concern is worked on construction projects across the country will slow or even shut down if they cannot get federal reimbursement to the states for the federal share of those projects. the construction industry at the end of january at an unemployment rate of 17.7%. they are really hurting because

of the housing crisis. if, all of the sudden, the flow of money shots down to construction products, it could really hard in the economy. i meant to say highway products. projects. -- highway project. caller: instead of raising gas taxes, i would like to see polls -- tolls. the biggest lobby against high- speed rail is the airline industry. if we had a decent system, people would use it. that is what the airlines are afraid of. guest: on high-speed rail, the obama administration would agree to you -- with you that the way to use high-speed rail, to make it practical, is to put

it between cities better somewhere in the range of 200- to-500 miles apart. high-speed rail between cities of that distance has been shown to be fairly economical elsewhere around the world. as a big market, you would relieve airport congestion. air travel is growing in this country. the faa came out with a forecast that it will double between now and 2032, the next 20 years. you think it is difficult building a high-speed rail project? try a major airport. the last one we built was the denver airport in the 1980's, but in most metro areas is

almost impossible to build a new airport. so, that kind of travel will need to be accommodated. tweets, will the house put the keystone pipeline bill -- keystone pipeline in the bill to try to kill it? guest: de -- their pay-for are different, said they would have to negotiate. host: all of this would have to pass the house, go to conference, get to the president, be signed by the president before march 31? guest: yes, and if that does not happen it will be a big deal. host: michigan.

good morning. caller: i am trying to figure out why we want to believe the politicians. they claim there is no silver bullet. a gas tax -- i want 24 cents off of the pump today. and one penny per date -- per year, and that pays for 24 cents off of the pump today. our politicians have never accepted a non-burdensome tax, and that is why we cannot pay for anything. we are not enabled standard. i want 99 cents a gallon on gas. i hope i get to run for president. i do not know if we can handle a

president with a beard. guest: the response you would get is roads and bridges are not free. the gas tax taxes people who drive on those roads and bridges. that is the philosophy behind it. another alternative, and this is probably somewhere down the road and it has consequences would be a vehicle miles traveled tax in which the government meters how many miles you've drive, and it could adjust that for whether you drive during peak hours, or on major thoroughfares as opposed to local roads. you can download that information at the gas station, and charge you a tax there. that might be somewhere in the

future, but it is not in this bill. host: our last call for joan lowy of the associated press, fort lauderdale, bill. good morning. caller: i have a comment, but i would like to comment on the mileage metering things. talk about intrusion of the government, this is almost orwellian that you would suggest that is a possibility. on to my other question would it not be nice, since truckers are paying a large amount of user fees, would it not be nice if the compressed natural gas initiative would be improved to help out the truckers since they will be bearing a lot of the burden with user fees? if this was done, it would help to lower the cost of oil, fuel

in the united states and help people nationwide with their budgets. i just wonder if you have an opinion on that. guest: i assume you're talking about senator menendez's proposal of a program that would boost the use of natural gas vehicles in this country, and he proposed pay in for it, actually, with a couple cents tax on the fuel itself, and they want to get users to encourage more places where you could recharge and we fuel around the country, trying to generate

more use of these vehicles, especially since we have a large quantity of natural gas in the united states and prices are very low. actually, it costs less than the gasoline we have in our cars, we are paying today. host: finally this tweet -- a big rig and a motorcycle pay the same test techs, but a big great tears up roads more than -- the same gas tax, but a big rig tears up roads more. do they pay the same? guest: you pay by how much guess you use. presumably, a big truck pays a lot more -- uses a lot more gallons than a small motorcycle.

so, there is a big difference right there. most trucks are diesel, and the tax on diesel is higher than the tax on gasoline. there are also other kinds of fees on trucks. i cannot tell you all of them, but i do believe there are other fees. there might be one on tires. there may be one on truck sales. i believe the trucks do pay other fees. host: joan lowy, associated press transportation reporter, thank you for being on "washington journal." guest: my pleasure. host: we have mental health in the military as our final segment, but next we will look at income inequality after this news update. >> the afghan taliban in a statement earlier says it is suspending preliminary peace

talks with the united states and will forgo opening a political office due to what they call washington's "alternating and ever-changing position." it was not clear whether the decision was related to the killing of 16 afghan civilians by a u.s. staff sergeant or the burning of the koran, which both sparked widespread outrage. this comes as leon panetta was wrapping up a trip to kabul, meeting with hamid karzai. u.s. military officials say the raids by special operations forces are essential to defeating taliban insurgency. president karzai complains that the raids produced too many casualties. in the states, former illinois

governor rod blagojevich has left his home for a federal prison in colorado. he will have to undergo a full- body strip search and hand over his personal belongings. he is the state's second governor in a row to be sent to prison for corruption. new tobacco advertisements will air soon, with the government launching a graphic campaign highlighting the health dangers cigarettes can pose. past anti-smoking campaigns have succeeded in cutting back the percentage of people that smoke, but their rate has stalled at about 20%. president obama makes a trip to prince george's community college in suburban maryland this morning.

new vice president joe biden will travel to ohio to talk about the bailout of the auto industry. his speech will be the first of four campaign events as the obama campaign ramps up the vice president's role in their reelection bid. c-span is covering the event. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> if there is anything that concerns the american family today it is this -- our government has not caught up with the new facts of the american family life. families have changed, so why can't washington? new sap -- moms working. nearly 60% -- 65% of all mothers are working part-time, full- time, all of the time, keeping the family together, making ends meet, making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable day care and the pay they

deserve. too often, they cannot get either. >> this setup, maryland senator barbara mikulski will become the longest serving female congress member in history, surpassing the record held by edith rogers, who served in the house from 1925 to 1960. watch senator barbara mikulski 's speeches from the senate floor and other appearances all archival and searchable at c- span.org/videolibrary. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to introduce you to diana furchtgott-roth, who was with the manhattan institute, along with gary burtless, who was with the brookings institution, and our guests will discuss income inequality. ms. furchtgott-roth, you recently wrote an article with

the headline "the misleading tell of income in the quality -- any quality -- inequality." defined income inequality, and why do you call it misleading? guest: we find that people are worse off when we need more redistribution, but quite of lot of what has been going on with income inequality since the 1980's is a change in demographic patterns. more people are living alone at the bottom of the scale. the age of marriage is rising. in 1970 it was 21 for women, and it has gone up to 26. for men it was 23, and gone to 28. at the top of the scale, we see more married couples. when we look at households, one

characteristic is they have many more married couples. 78% in the top are married. in the bottom quintile, we of many people living alone, and many of these measures do not account for different household sizes and different numbers of earners. in the bottom quintile we also have more retirees, students waiting to start careers, and we do have people who are poor and we need to help, but that is not the only group in the bottom quintile. host: since the 1980's, have the richest 1% down and richer, while the middle class has basically stayed so stagnant? guest: in a sense, they are all liars. we have celebrities, sports players. -- out liars. we of celebrities, sports

players, ceo's. that does not really affect the average american as a whole and does not effect the people in the top fifth. when we talk about raising taxes, as taxes will go up without any kind of congressional action next year, this is not talking about the top 1%. it is talking about people lower down in the income scale. host: gary burtless of the brookings institution, is their income inequality in this country? guest: the question is whether it income inequality is widening. -- whether income inequality is widening. the last 35 years have seen an increase in income inequality. there are two stories. one focuses on the late-1980's, early-1990's, where incomes were

growing unequally. the poor were fearing worse than the middle class, and the middle class warfare in worse than the top. that trend came to a end in the middle of the 1990's. since the middle of the 1990's, the inequality track has been dead people in the top 5%, -- been that people in the top 5% have put greater distance between themselves and the rest of the population. in terms of income, that is pretty much the situation and it does not matter if you make adjustments for differences in household size, for the age distribution of the population -- in the quality has been rising for the last 15 years -- inequality has been rising for the last 15 years mainly because the top has been putting a difference between themselves and the lower population.

host: we have divided our phone lines differently for this segment. we have divided them by income. if you make under $50,000 a year. host: we thought this would be an interesting way to explore this issue of so-called income inequality. gary burtless, is income inequality, number one, and effected policy, and it is it a bad thing? guest: it is not a policy, it is a description of what the economy is doing, highlighting their resources and the gains in

income achieved by a growing economy. the gains in income have been disproportionately received at the top end of the income distribution over the last 15 years or so. host: is it a bad thing? it is it negative? guest: i am and economist. i of one set of views as an economist, and one -- i have one set of views as an economist, and one as a private citizen. i have concerns about the politics. it is tough to look at the fact that a lot of money will give you influence over political decision making. i think a lot of policy errors have been linked to the fact that very well-to-do people, especially in finance, have a influence on policy and that is not a good thing.

host: diana furchtgott-roth, any response? guest: people at the top end of the scale pay more in taxes, and people at the bottom get more in transfer. the top 50% of earners pay 95%. the top 1% paid a disproportionate share. people at the bottom have medicaid, housing supplements, food stamps. when we look to add spending patterns between the top fifth and the bottom fifth between 1985 and 2010, the ratio has been about the same. the top fifth, adjusted for inflation, spends about two and 1/2 times the expenditures of someone in the bottom fifth. that was true in 1985 and 2010 according to the government's consumer expenditure data.

if we see the distance is widening, we do not see that in the expenditure data, and one reason is taxes are taken off the top and transferred to the bottom. another reason is the differences in household size and the numbers in a household. if we wanted a more equal society, we could only have one earner per family because the movement of women into the workforce have added to this income inequality, and i would not say this is a bad thing. host: gary burtless, a response before we go to calls? guest: the question about whether there has been a rise in inequality in consumption is much more doubtful than diana suggests. spending patterns are based on a survey called the consumer

expenditure survey. there is no survey conducted by the united states government that has seen such a terrible decline in the quality of responses in the last 30 years. in the mid-1980's, 80% of the consumption of the u.s. household was recorded by responses in this survey, and that number, by the middle of the last decade was down to just 60%. we of gone down to a missing almost 40% of the consumption, and no one knows how that extra consumption is divided among the very affluent and the low- income. if you cannot trust this to tell you the overall trend in average consumption, you can not trust it to tell you the distribution across well-to-do, and less of the when households.

guest: i am not saying the service it is perfect, but what is interesting is the consistency -- the two and a half times rate. if this is not a good survey, why are we wasting variable taxpayer dollars on it? for whatever reason, the government thinks it is worthwhile. i would not paint emphasis on one year and -- put any emphasis on one year, but what is interesting is the consistency. host: our guest will be here for the next 40 minutes or so. diana furchtgott-roth is a senior fellow at the manhattan institute. she spent several years at the hudson institute. she was on the president's staff of economic advisers from 2001 through 2002, and has her master's degree from oxford.

bill gary burtless is a graduate of yale and got his ph.d. at mit. the first call comes from a richmond, texas, richard, on our $50,000 to $100,000 line. caller: can you hear me? my grandparents immigrated from mexico. i was the first went to graduate from college in my family. i was a democrat most of my life, and now i am voting straight republican. for me, my wife and i were pretty successful. it is more of a responsibility in the quality. host: what do you mean by that? caller: there are more people that seems to not want to be

responsible for their family, for themselves, and this is effectively destroying the country. i told my two children who are in their 20's, you have to think about your future, and if you are going to redistribute income and you want to be successful, you will have a harder and harder time getting there, and it is really sad for me. host: we will leave it there. diana furchtgott-roth, any comment for him? guest: in terms of responsibility, 82% of households in the top 5% are married couple families, and a substantial portion of those in the bottom 20% are single, and female heads of household tend to be in the bottom 20%. in other words, the data shows if you are married, had two

earners and you work your way up, you end up in the top 20%, and i think that is what you're talking about with responsibility. guest: i agree with that, but about half of the rise in inequality in the united states is due to the growth in the inequality of earned income. it is not solely the change in family composition, or the rise in two earner couples. the biggest single source of the rise of inequality in the united states is the growth of how unequal is the distribution of labour income that different households have, and much of that is driven just by the rise in the inequality of hourly rages. that does nothing to do with

responsibility. it is what the economy is handing out in different positions. guest: if you look at characteristics of the bottom 20%, households on average have half of the and earner per household. in the top 20%, they have been average of two earners per household. there is a difference in participation in the labour force, and number of earners, and not just the skills or the wages. guest: there is no disagreement with that, it is just that of course you have a lot of people in the bottom that are retired and for legitimate reasons the heads of households are 80, or disabled and they cannot do any work. so, simply pointing to the fact that some people do not work, well, that was true in 1900, in 1950, when we had a golden age

of responsibility. there will be an inequality in the capacity to have earned income, and the people that can not will not have earner's present. guest: but it does not necessarily mean it is a social problem or that they are poor. host: rockville, maryland. under $50,000 a year. caller: i am calling to say that not only do the rich have more opportunities, but the tax loopholes are off -- all stacked in favor of them. my husband works for a non- profit organization. there are some rich people that will donate paintings and have them valued at $100,000. when the organization goes to sell them, they are worth less than $5,000. they have tax write-offs for

$100,000. not only that, but loopholes for medicare. rich people give a major portion of their money to their children. they divide it before they die, and i personally know of two people who were filthy rich, went on medicare, and went into nursing homes at the government's expense. host: we will leave it there. gary burtless? guest: some programs are not directed at the port. medicare is available for everyone in the united states who turns 65 or has become disabled after a lifetime of working and contributing to the medicare system. so, there is no chicanery involved in people applying for

and receiving medicare benefits when they are eligible to do so. if instead the references to medicaid, which is a program of health insurance and that low- income people, then it is certainly true that there are some clever people out there that do become entitled even though taking a long term view of the income position of these people they probably should not be receiving medicaid. the basic point i would make is that in general in the united states, as you move up the income in its -- distribution, people do pay a larger percentage of their incomes as taxes. it is not as the distributor of of the system as some other rich countries, but the tax system does redistribute from wealthy people to less wealthy people in

general. host: the next call comes from montana. koe, -- joe, go ahead. caller: corporations in america need to step up to the plate and pay a fair wages. i am a business owner. the corporations that are hiring need to look at the region bay work -- where they work, what it costs for a family for two children to live, and pay that wage rather than the wage of how much you can get somebody for an and the shareholders and upper management pockets the cash. host: diana furchtgott-roth? guest: we need more jobs, more job creation, and we find

employers have to pay higher wages. in north dakota, with the lowest unemployment rate in the country at around 3.3%, you find that jobs at mcdonald's and regular jobs are paying a lot more. employers have to pay more to attract people. the state is booming. what we need is to have all of the state's booming like north dakota. employers do not pay high wages out of the goodness of their heart. they need to attract workers and they need them to stay with them. we need to recreate that economy in all 50 states, not just in north dakota. host: paul krugman road and january -- wrote on january 8, 2012, if you ask why america is more class down in practice than the rest of the western world, a large part of the reason is our

government falls down on the job of creating equal opportunity. i know i'm taking that out of context from his entire column, but gary burtless, any reaction? guest: i think what paul is referring to is the fact that when we have conducted a careful statistical studies, the condition of children when they reach adulthood with respect to the position they're parents had at the same age, the united states shows less income mobility at the top of our income distribution, and especially at the bottom compared with other wealthy countries. in other words, if you are born into a well-off parent, you are more likely to stay in the well- off portion of our distribution, but if you are at the bottom,

you are more likely to stay at the bottom than is true in canada, great britain, sweden, where this comparison can be made. host: maryland. $50,000 to $100,000. caller: i do not know what distribution of wealth means. if you take a person making minimum wage, i would like someone to do a survey to imitate that paycheck, look at what comes out of it, look at what is left, and tell me how they will pay for health care, food, clothing, utilities, and feed a family. i want you to tell me how it can be done. do a survey on that. people talk about distribution of wealth. i still do not understand that.

host: diana furchtgott-roth? guest: it is very difficult to manage full-time on a minimum wage job, which is why it has to be looked at as a starting point for a next job. in terms of measuring wealth we are not that good and measuring whelks because we do not get government data on wealth because -- we get data on income there are certainly problems in moving up from minimum-wage jobs, and i think paul krugman was absolutely right. these people at the bottom, we have a graduation rate of 75% from high school. we need to do something about getting more skills to these high school dropouts and perhaps putting them in some kind of vocational, educational program,

and giving them the option to do that in 11th or 12th grade, the way happens in many european countries, so once they graduate they could get a job in plumbing, carpentry, air- conditioning, heating -- occupations that pay very well, and the average age of the worker is rising. guest: the minimum wage is not a living wage. there have been analyses by some think tanks of what it would take -- what is the minimum wage it would require -- to have a poverty line level of living, and my recollection is it is probably 30% or 40% above the minimum wage in the united states. as diana said, this is not a wage we expect people can live on, and for many people it is a

wage people will earn only between the ages of 16 and 24. this is not a common wage for people olderhost: diana furchtg this week has come in for you. how much money is the taxpayer being cheated by on-taxed bank accounts? guest: we are trying to get a handle on the offshore accounts. many offshore accounts are legal. they can be declared on your tax form. we have entered into discussions with switzerland about revealing the account holders who have the swiss bank accounts without identification. there trang -- we are trying to get a handle on it. irs in tax enforcement is challenging. many two tens billionaires' have are quite legal.

they invest -- sometimes they have losses from investors. they have legitimate write-offs. ira's tax enforcement is a work in progress. host: mr. burtless, what can you say about income inequality over time? what were the best years versus the gap in income? host: -- guest: the years of lowest and equality with the late 1960's and the early 1970's. a lot of these programs that the u.s. government introduced in order to equalize in,, social security, medicare and social assistance benefits for the poor including food stamps, a lot of these programs have become very mature. in the private economy, unions have negotiated much better wages relative to the wages paid

to the top executives than earlier in the 20th century. those factors compress incomes and incomes were more equal. since the beginning of the 1980's, a quality has risen. i think mainly, it has risen because of the growth of inequality in the private sector of the economy. not all of the increase in private sector inequality has been offset by the effects of our tax system and our transfer system. host: diana furchtgott-roth, in your markets article, you talked about the effect of the 1986 tax act. what was the effect of that in your view? guest: this has been widely reported. it lowered the top individual tax rate to 28%. what that did was make it lower than the corporate tax rate. the many businesses that had previously been corporations decided they were going to become different kinds of

vehicles. small businesses such as partnerships, s corporation since -- a lot of money moved to the individual sector. you have the perception that the top income groups were getting very well-off, but i t was a shift in the way that income was declared. i also want to say with regard to. 's point about the '80s, that was the decade that women moved into the work force in record numbers. we started having many more women. they went back to school. now, they are in 50% of medical degrees, law degrees, 45% of degrees from business schools. the they are earning on par with men. there are more women and that makes it more unequal. host: gary burtless, one of the topics we talk about in this

country is the bush tax cuts. whether or not they should expire. diana furchtgott-roth was chairman of the economic advisers at the time that those cuts were formed. do you think they should be reinstated when it comes to income equality issues? guest: i do not think the main reason we want to raise taxes is to do with equality. the main reason to raise taxes in the long run, not right now, is because the government does not collect enough revenues to pay for the bills it is incurring. that was a large part of their reason for that. that was a p aoint a contention -- a major point of contention the opponent's head. they said, if this schedule of taxes continues forever, the

federal government will not be able to pay its bills. that has turned out that way. host: when president obama talks about the surtax on millionaires or a higher tax rate for those who are millionaires, do you agree with that? guest: well, i certainly think that given how the economy has distributed did gains in income over the past 25 years, it makes sense to lift the tax rate on the people who have the highest incomes. by the way, that would include diana and myself -- not that we are millionaires, but we are an above-average incomes. i think there is a very strong argument in favor of getting revenue from the taxpayers who have benefited the most from the

economic trends of the last 30 years, and that includes people in the top 1%, 10%, 25% of the american income distribution. guest: by 206, -- by 2006, the government was raising as much revenue as it would have without the tax cuts. in the absence of the tax cuts. when taxes are lower, people work more. there is more investment. what happens is the economy grows. our deficit this year is about $1.2 trillion. we can raise taxes on all the income groups, everybody, but we are not going to get rid of the deficit by raising taxes. we need to grow our economy. make serious changes in government spending. look very carefully at entitlement programs.

means test some of them. raise the retirement age, gradually. means test medicare. we need to have a serious look at the way our tax system is functioning. i would argue for lowering tax rates, broadening the base, and thereby getting more economic growth and more tax revenue in the long run. host: do you agree with means testing? guest: i think it is a bad idea. medicare is financed out of a tax that we pay throughout our working lives. people who are in a lot of wages paid the highest taxes. -- earning a lot of wages pay the highest taxes. gahanna -- my firm belief is that if the americans think this is unfair, the support for the medical program will erode at the moment it is a popular

program. one reason it is popular is that every american who turns 65 receives the benefit. host: we are talking with gary burtless and diana furchtgott- roth about income equality and related economic issues and policies. california, on our under 50,000 per year -- under $150,000 per year line. go ahead. caller: i am 50 and i have never lived above poverty level. right now, i am on -- i did social security and ssi every month. i get $9,800 per month -- per youear. i am worried about them cutting social security because i cannot afford to live without it. right now, i am barely making

ends meet. i just -- people scare me when they want to cut entitlements because it is what i live on. they cut me off and i am dead because i will kill myself. anyway, thank you. bye-bye. host: diana furchtgott-roth? guest: their people such as yourself with a very, very serious problems. when i talk about means testing medicare, i was not talking about people such as yourself. means testing means that people earn above a certain amount -- this is not talking about people on minimum wage. they get less help with medicare or they pay more for some of their medicare benefits. what is really interesting that gary is have be with taxing the rich more but he is not happy with having elderly rich pay more for their medicare. that is very interesting. many people are willing to raise

taxes on millionaires, billionaires', but they do not want the millionaires and billionaires to pay more for their medicare. i am not sure why. it seems inconsistent to me. guest: there is nothing inconsistent about believing that a benefit that people have paid for throughout their life should be available to them when they reach the age when people claim that benefit. the political calculus that president roosevelt made and that lyndon johnson made are these are programs for the entire community. for rich people, middle class people, poor people. part of the political popularity of the programs will come from the fact that when people work, they pay for these benefits, and when they retire or become disabled, they will receive them. the notion that we would tell

affluent americans, i guess, you paid for your entire life, but you cannot receive the benefits is the absurd. it would destroy the political popularity of these programs, in my opinion. guest: medicare is in some much trouble. should we not be asking the affluent to pay a little bit more for these benefits? guest: we have been doing so over the last 25 years. we have lifted the cap on taxes that are subject to the medicare tax so now, no matter how high your earnings are, you pay the medicare tax. we have changed the premiums you may forepart b of medicare. i have note of check in. i have a star magic didn't -- i have no objection. i have a strong objection to tell people they cannot receive a benefit regarded as a community benefits for everyone in our society. host: we will move on to our next call from new jersey. hugh, over $100,000 per year.

hello. caller: i come down on the side of miss roth in that i think our whole lives in school, from elementary school on, they told us education, education, education. a huge percentage of the people in the bottom ignored that advice. they did not graduate high school. did not get a good solid blue- collar skill. to make up for not going the academic route. secondly, i also agree with the notion that if you get a couple that stays together, even if they are in the lower income, $10 and our times two is $20 an hour times 40 is $800. now, you have $40,000 a year and you are not in such bad shape. thirdly, i do not think we have

discussed the impact of mass immigration on the bottom quintile of the american workers in that you took the low-skilled jobs, which if you did not have a lot of low-skill workers would bring a higher income. you have created a surplus of available ray burke -- labor in those low-skilled jobs. that is why we can get our lawns mode so cheap and why janitorial work is not unionized. there is not a city where you cannot pick up labor for $10 an hour. host: we will leave it there. let us start with gary burtless. guest: i agree with diane on a couple of those points. i think it would be better for people with lower skills and ability to have a high educational payment if we had schooling that combine the

attending -- combined attending classes with obtaining a concrete skilled that is useful in the economy, perhaps in blue- collar jobs or white collar jobs, but nonetheless, specific training for those kinds of skills. i agree with diana and the caller. i also agree that if we have families that remained together, if marriages occurred and then stayed for a long time, that would be very good for income equality. that has been one of the sources of rising inequality. my basic point is that the economy has been handing out more unequal awards for the people they do. those mean that a lot of the productivity gains over the last 30 years have been received by people in positions that they hold the best jobs, the best paying jobs, and that has

limited the income gains at the bottom and i would finally agree with the caller that imass immigration is one of the -- immigration is one of the reasons the bottom hasn't risen as fast as it would have. host: diana furchtgott-roth? guest: i think it is important to give people at the bottom a choice. so this is not just a matter of return to skilled. for example, if you killed someone in the 11th grader 12 carried -- 11 prater 12 great if you just get a credential, after two years, you would be earning $45,000 a year. in six years, you would be earning maybe $60,000 a year. a lot of these young people would be a lot more willing to go to community college in one of these high return fields such as occupational therapy, physical therapy. i have seen from data in florida

that these young people do very well, indeed. they do not know that option is open to them. they get put by guidance counselors in to four your college programs from which they do not complete. or they do not provide a very high return afterwards. we need to make a lot stronger -- to a much better job of guiding young people, especially students coming into high return professions using the community college system. host: we have time for one last call. fairfax county, virginia. $50,000 to $100,000. go ahead. caller: how're you doing? guest: great, how are you? caller: great. medicare did not -- people are getting $3 for every $1 they pay in for medicare. we are only running a trillion dollar deficit. second thing, and equality, i think according to the cdo charts, the increase that was

biggest happened and during the clinton and ministration. i think this is all about raising taxes. cbo has said that taxes are regressive. the top 2%, a 28% for the federal. the typical or medium income earners are paying 20%. they are using the warren buffett example of him paying 15%, but that does not include the corporate tax, which cbo incorporates in the calculations of the effective rates. host: we have to leave it there, sorry. diana furchtgott-roth, last word from you gary burtless and then gary. guest: -- diana furchtgott-roth last word from you and then from gary burtless. guest: we do not want to raise taxes on small businesses under

the individual tax code. we want to keep the incentives to work at the bottom. we want to give people the skills to have low-paying jobs -- well paying jobs. they get married. there have scold -- their household incomes doubled. we want to cut back on entitlements programs to get the deficit down now and in the future so we can say these programs for future generations. host: and do you agree that the income tax is progressive? guest: yes. we have the top 50% paying about 95% of the tax. the top 10%, 5% a higher proportion of the tax, also. guest: it is true that the overall tax system, broadly speaking, is progressive. it is untrue that the tax burden on both african-americans is a

comparable -- is comparable -- to the most affluent americans is comparable to the rest of the u.s.. we can raise taxes on people in the top courter, the top 1/8 of the income and tradition and expect to see -- taxes rise. this is one place to look and i certainly think that he is a place we should look. host: gary burtless and diana furchtgott-roth, thank you for being on the "washington journal." we are going to be looking at the issue of mental health in the armed forces. we will be right back after this update from c-span radio. >> jobless numbers in this hour show fewer people applying for benefits last week. the labor department says weekly unemployment benefit applications dropped by 14,000. there at 351,000. unemployment applications below

375,000 is usually a signal that hiring is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate. higher gas costs drove wholesale prices up last month. excluding the big jump in gas prices, inflation was tamed. the labor department says the index rose 0.4% in february. the most since september. in the past 12 months, also prices increased by 3%. the smallest yearly gain since august of 2010. the foreclosure listing firm says the number of homes in foreclosure rose last month, but only in states where the courts have been supervising the seizures. in 24 states where they do not play a role, the number declined. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the strong support we have in our area of the country, where this movement originated, gives us an excellent base --

[unintelligible] when you couple this with a few other states of the union, you have the electrode was necessary to win the presidency. >> as candidate's campaign this year, we look back at 40 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c- span.org/thecontenders. >> there have been spirited disagreements and i believe, considerable arguments. do not let anybody be misled by that. you have given a moving and dramatic view of how americans

move forward for the nation's well-being shoulder to shoulder. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. "washington journal diana furchtgott-roth -- "washington journal" continues. host: we want to introduce you to elspeth cameron. she is here to talk about mental health in the military and the armed forces. how would you describe the mental health aspect of the armed services health benefits at this time? guest: the army and the other services have been at war for 10 years. they have been deploying back- and-forth and basically, they are tired.

there are a lot of -- there is a lot of posttraumatic stress disorder. there is some traumatic brain injuries and there are other psychological effects to include depression, anxiety, and being tired. host: are we seeing an increase in posttraumatic stress disorder from these two what words -- from these two wars? guest: we have much better data now. posttraumatic stress disorder was an even recognized as a diagnosis until well after the vietnam war. we know it happened before. we called it other names such as shell shock or battle fatigue. we have been measuring it now. we have a series of surveys called mental health advisory teams. we refer to them as m-hats.

every year, the army has measured the psychological well- being of the troops. what we have seen, unsurprisingly, over time, is the symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder have been gradually rising. not to enormous amounts. it is between 15 and 20% of troops have symptoms of that society and ptsd and depression. it shows that the effects of long years of war have taken their toll. host: with the 15% to 20% who are suffering varying degrees of those issues, what is the treatment? what to the services offered to guest: the: there are treatments of it -- what are the services offered? guest: it is very treatable. sometimes, it goes away. some people refer to it as the common cold of psychiatry because lots of people get symptoms and then it goes away.

sometimes you need treatment. there are two main types of treatment that we know to be affected. one is talking therapy. there is exposure therapy, a cognitive behavioral therapy, and then there is medication. there are a number of dedications very helpful. there are also treatments that we do not have a good scientific basis for yet. i think they are very promising. those are what we call complementary and alternative treatments or complementary and alternative medicines. for example, acupuncture and add to pressure. there are trials that find a detective. -- find a that effective. a lot of soldiers relate to therapy dogs or trainers and psychiatrists who have dogs in the way they would not do if they are asked to go and see the shrink. there are other alternatives that are emerging.

the military is doing a lot of research, both on the conventional treatment and the alternative. host: you are retired from the army. guest: correct. host: do you think they are doing enough to help them prevent mental health issues in the armed services? guest: i think they are doing everything they can, but we have 2.4 million veterans of iraq and afghanistan. that is a lot of people. the other point is tha tmany members do not want to seek help. even if the army and the other services are offering it, it takes a lot for somebody to get the courage up to go see a psychiatrist or other therapists. host: we are going to put the numbers up on the screen if you would like to talk with dr. elspeth cameron ritchie, retired colonel of the u.s. army, about the armed services. the numbers are on the screen.

we set aside our fourth one this morning for active duty and for veterans. 202-628-0184 is the number for you to call. we will also flashed our electronic addresses if you would like to send an e-mail or a tweet. do you see an increase in issues in mental health issues with some of the repeated deployment we have seen in the last two wars? guest: of course. we see an increase in mental health issues in general issues about life and coping. one of the big problems for soldiers is coming back. re-integrating. what is it like to be in civilian society again? especially if nobody around you has done that. we see that especially with the reserve and the guard who do not have a lot of other military around them.

how do you get used to normal, everyday life, washing dishes, mowing the lawn, when you have been the mayor of a small town in iraq or how do you relax when for a year or 50 months, every time you went outside the base, you might have a sniper and on the base, you might have a mortar attack? it is are to come back home. -- hard to come back home. when your home, you are thinking about going again. people did not bother to read to agree because they think they're going to turn around and they do not want to get re-into -- they do not want to go again. this is hard on the family members. parents and siblings and other people who expect a person to come back and embrace them and do not understand why the service member may be kind of aloof and cold and distant. host: dr. ritchie that her undergraduate degree at harvard enter medical degree at george

rushed to it. she did a psychiatric internships and residencies at walter reed and several masters and fellowships at the uniformed services univ.. what made you decide to go into the military out of harvard? guest: the army paid for medical school. i t was a great deal. after i finished, they offered me for their assignments and further education. you mentioned i actually did two fellowships while i was in the army. the other services have other similar programs or there is a military medical school. the uniformed services univ. of the health sciences, where i got mine mph. i t was a great deal. i had a great career with it. >> -- host: what do you look for when somebody comes in and they are suffering fromptsd? guest: the first thing i'm going to do is talk to them as a human

being. i am not one to talk to them as a diagnosis. i will ask them about their job. what do you do? i encourage the civilian providers to start out with asking the person what their military occupational specialty, mos, is and find out about their background. most soldiers -- all service members are very proud of what they have done and their career. start out by asking them where they went to basic trainee and where have they served. after you have developed a report, then you may want to ask about the signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, a dramatic break injury, and psychological effects of war. -- traumatic brain injury, and psychological effects of war. there is real experiencing what happens, flashbacks, and interests of thought. numbness, and not wanting to connect to people around you and

then there is hyper vigilance or being in a lurch. looking around you to see if there is an ied or a bomb on the side of the road. those are the clusters of symptoms. you also have -- these last for a while and cause a problem and social functioning or work. host: according to the arm for his health surveillance center, 42% of the male soldiers have deployed twice in iraq and afghanistan. 13% have had three deployments. the 4% four times and 1% five times. how many are voluntary? guest: 2 during the military is voluntary. then, it will depend -- to join the military is voluntary. then, it depends on your obligation.

people who join are motivated. unlike prior to 9/11, they know they're going to war. by and large, people joy knowing they're going to be deployed. many people like deployment. idf good and bad. -- it has good and bad. you are serving your country, but you are away from home. it is also very dangerous. i think people should realize that. afghanistan is a dangerous place. host: dr. ritchie is our guest. our first call from scott -- comes from kinetic. peter on our veterans line. caller: i respect your education. thank you for your service, ma'am. guest: i appreciate that. i assume you have served, as well. where? caller: i was a military police officer in desert shield and desert storm. guest: good for you. caller: i respect everything you

are saying because during my deployment, this was the first time we had first dramatic -- posttraumatic stress disorder on military families. that was the highest number of divorces whereas now we have a more serious mental issue with iraq and afghanistan conflicts. the mental issues of the people with what they have seen that nobody really can understand. i just recently joined my veterans of foreign wars organization here in canada can and we are trying to start up a not-for-profit to assist with people with ptsd. this is only for veterans because even though there are civilian providers, it is difficult for a veteran to be able to express to a civilian what is the cause of the nature of their ptsd because a lot of times, it is a circumstance someone cannot fathom unless they have and there. guest: that is a good point. i encourage any veteran who has

returned and feeling kind of lost and lonely to seek peer support groups like the one you are mentioning. there are a lot over the country. a lot of places. you said you are with vfw -- there are a lot of organizations. if you are feeling disconnected, look for a group like the one that peter talked about and see if you can qnexa. -- connect. host: bud, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am from the vietnam era. one of the questions that has been on my mind ever since we have gone into iraq and afghanistan is it seems to me that the stress level is different in that even in the non-, you could get away from the front.

you could go out to the jungle and get away. you could get away from the stress of battle. in this war, you are under constant stress. 24/7. i have not heard anyone talking about that. i wondered if you had any thoughts on that issue? guest: yes. very good point. vietnam, you could go for our and our -- for r &r. most people went for a year and then they came back for good. in iraq and afghanistan, there are repeat deployments. there is no safe place, even at the bigger bases. you still have the marchers coming in and people have died. there is no front line. there are a lot of -- there is a lot of discussion about doing r &r but people are reluctant if

it means they might be killed on their way there. you're absolutely right. there is a constant level of stress. our soldiers have adapted very well. they do hero commissions, but there is no question that it is difficult. host: elspeth cameron ritchie retired after 24 years in uniform. she was the chief of inpatient psychiatry and director of proponents see of behavioral health at the office of the army surgeon general. what does that mean? guest: i was doing mental health policy for the soldiers. for the five years i was there from 2005 to 2010, we were always trying to improve the quality of the mental health care or behavioral health care for our soldiers. for example, we dramatically increased the number of providers at our bases. we really tried to lower stigma

so that people would come in. people talk about ending stigma. i do not think we will and it, but i think we can look closely at the policies that perpetuate itn try to change them. i had some success in doing that, although i think there is a way to go. host: dr. ritchie writes for a blog. tweet -- re statistics kept on military suicide? guest: yes. the military has looked very closely at the suicides and that causes of suicide. i have published papers on this. there than others. you can look at the department of army suicide report and the dod task force report that is out there. in general, about 70% of the

suicides are because a romantic or other relationship breakups. the others are because of legal or occupational problems, which include hazing. in many cases, it is a combination of different stressors that lead to the suicide. sometimes, the suicide seems to be related to the high tempo of the unity. . i will tell you in the person who wrote in that this problem is a very high priority for the army leadership. recently retired vice chief of staff made it a priority to see what you can do to reduce suicide. it is a tough problem. there is no easy, one answer solution to it. if you look at the task force reports i mentioned, there is

literally hundreds of recommendations in there. host: next call comes from emporia, kansas. go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you? guest: good. how are you? caller: you see things at the back end. you know, diagnosis and so forth. the thing that amazes me is the first of all, it i served eight years in the military. it is not a normal nativity. i went to vietnam. -- id is not a normal activity. i went to vietnam. we do things we do not to a normal life. that is part of the military way. you have got these guys now being deployed at three or four times. what bothers me is that the policymakers will always say the right things. but, these guys who make the

policy and send these guys three or four times into harm's way, doing at normal activities, things human beings are not geared to do and to think they're not going to explode at some point, particularly when the mention -- when the mission -- yesterday, there was a post about the president not doing a good job. they're saying the president is not doing a good job of defining the mission. it changes from day to day. can you imagine the impact that has on the people over there? on the other side, you have people who are supposed to be allies. host: are right, we got the point. guest: let me pick on one or two. there is a perception that the generals do not care about how often they are deploying troops. that is not my experience. my experience is that the senior army leadership -- i speak most

on army because that is what i knew, but all of them -- the senior army leadership cares about the question of local people immense and what we call dweel time -- dwell time. they tried to increase the dwell time. the mental health advisory teams showed clearly that you needed to have the least two years and preferably three years back in the states in order to reset to get back to normal. the generals received briefings on those and they really did everything they could to try to increase the dweel time -- dwell time. it is hard when we have two worse. this has been 10 years in afghanistan. host: regarding female soldiers, 31% have deployed twice. seven% three times. two% 4 times and 0.55 times.

-- 0.5% five times. are you seeing any different trends when it comes to mental health issues? guest: women in the army are more similar to a man in the army than not. the rates of ptsd we have measured in men and women are very close. having said that, there is a unique stressor for women that we often do not talking about. one is, very basic -- how do you manage reproductive issues in the field? another is how to take care of small children, aging parents when you're deployed over and over? women are the linchpin and when they are gone, it is difficult. women soldiers, service members are incredibly tough and resilient and a coke and they rely on family and it takes a village to help a female soldier

who has kids when she is gone. they are highly motivated. they hang in there. i will say, i do not think there is enough research in this area. most has been done on combat troops. my definition, women soldiers are not "combat." we need to do more research on what it is like foremothers, daughters, to deploy. host: what are the divorce rates light for military? there was a story in the "washington post." guest: divorce rates went up in the beginning years of the war and then they dropped. it seems like in many cases, the marriage guide used to the frequent deployments. -- the marriage that used to frequent deployments. everybody knew that mom or dad were going to be going away every other year for a year. again, it is hard on the guard

and reserve. and around the bases, there is a community that is there to help people cope. reserve, guard, there is not the same community to help the family when they are gone. host: kathy, you are on with a retired colonel cameron ritchie. caller: thank you, sir. my question is in regard to the tri-care and the costs for the veterans. i would like to know if there is going to be mental health co- pay increases? barriers for veterans to get to a psychiatrist, which is a difficult medical professional to get to from a management -- if you have to wait a long time to get that appointment.

guest: yes. i do not want to speak to the benefits of try scare -- try care, specifically. -- tri-care specifically. this is part of the department of defense health affairs. you can direct that question directly to them by going to their website. i will say that i think it is important to promote good access to care. it is true that psychiatrists often are shorted and, especially child psychiatrist. i think that for military veterans and the general population, we ought to be doing everything we can to improve access to care. host: lee tweets -- how much is a stress increased when units are in remote locations for months at a time? guest: the forward operating base, fobs, are difficult to get

to and from so you often have small units who are out there and we send combat stress control members or chaplains to the units to help them. there is no question it is difficult. difficulties of time and travel and wheeather -- there are a lot of stressors out there. we, as if i am still in the army, we are trying hard to provide tella -- telemedicine, but there is difficulty with bandwidth. it is not easy. host: this is any know. hi, might the draft have a bearing? guest: i was stationed at twice in korea. korea is near and dear to me. sometimes, the soldiers are

pretty much for cuts in. i was there when saddam hussein invaded kuwait and we felt left out. in terms of a draft, that is a political decision, not really medical. i will say that i think it is great that the army is volunteer. and so professional. the challenges only about one for -- 1% service there -- in there is a widening gap. i think we have to do something to bridge the gap. i do not know about a draft, but something. host: next call comes from montgomery, alabama. michael, go ahead, please. caller: good morning. thank you for your 24 years of service. i retired after 24 years. thank you for your profession and -- in mental health. i would like to say one thing and that goes back to your first comment. we have been doing this, as you

know, since 1991. he got the first group of soldiers that are retiring after 20 years of deployment in work, which is unusual for the average person that joins. you brought up that, you know, they deploy almost every other year during 20 years. the families learn to cope, but it is not a good situation. i did not always go in when i was not feeling good because there is a stigma on that. i understand now that are retired, maybe i should have because i am getting services now. those things affect the family. over all, after 20 years of seeing someone come and go, come and go, come and go, you can cope, but that is not a good thing over all. you, ma'am. guest: your comment is very

good. i am glad you are getting services now. know that some of our policies do keep people from getting treatment. one of my pet rocks is the question on the security clearance questionnaire, had he saw treatment -- have you sought treatments? i still think that is a barrier people people -- is a barrier. people do not know what is going to be asked. this is for the state department and other employees. i would like to see that question taken off. that is my private opinion, not that of the army. i am no longer in the army. anything you can do to reduce the barriers to care and make it easier to get treatment is the right thing to do. host: what are you doing today? professionally? guest: i am the chief medical officer for the department of

mental health in washington, d.c. i grew up there. i have not come back to my stomping grounds. my office is only a few blocks from here. one of the things that we are doing is trying to have a better connection between our department of mental health and the veterans administration in providing services for veterans in this area. we are only part of a national movement. samsa has it policy academy. they are going state-by-state to see what it is that we can do to do more to take care of veterans. i would encourage anybody who is out there and interested in helping veterans to liaison with what is going on in their state. lots of people want to do something to help, but it does not do much to say that you want to help. you need to find out what the needs are. what the services are and where to get them. -- where the gaps are. we are trying to do that here.

there is great work being done in ohio and a lot of other states, too. host: when you were coming on to the studio, i was given this book that you brought with you. you and i did not talk about this. what are we looking at? guest: this is the newest textbook of military medicine. it is called "come back and operational behavior of health." it is published by the army surgeon general and i and a senior editor. that came out last fall. it is available online as pdf for free. you can go to the website and the dow mota it. it has cut 47 chapters, 153 are others. it covers really mental health over the last 20 years and it includes issues around humanitarian assistance and disasters and care at walter reed.

it has a tractor on -- a chapter on pain management, common psychiatric disorders, stress control, etc. you can go to the website, download the chapter for free or purchase the book. i do not get anything for it. i think it is a nice update on the military mental health issues. host: here is section 3 -- combat and operational behavior. this is free online. guest: the pdf files are free. download any or all chapters. host: is there any reason why this sergeant is in a painting? guest: i love your work. to get your work, we went to run the pentagon. -- get the art work, we went around the pentagon. this was one of the paintings. at the beginning of the book, i

love this. this is called "hunting bin laden." i think that is a gorgeous painting. it represents so much about the very difficult conflict. host: "tracking been locked in " pensacola, florida. you are on. go ahead. caller: dr., thank you for what you are doing and what you have done in the past. people do not understand that you see the wreckage. the army nurses in vietnam -- i could not stand the field hospitals. i left as soon as i could. i went back to the unit because i could not stand with the nurses put up with every day.

the stresses are not just specifically to combat. some of -- i was one of those in the field all the time. if a mortar comes in, it is a potluck sort of fading. the way you acted react. -- act and react. this has nothing to do with a survivability when a mortar comes in. the stressors are widely different. i did have a field where soldiers took care of each other. particularly if you have good nco's. changes are the biggest things. any personality changes are the biggest things you watch out for. the stresses people go through that cause that, when you see something that happened -- all

of a sudden, somebody changes. host: we're going to leave that there. guest: i am glad you mentioned the nco's because they are the backbone of any unit. there are a lot of people who would like to have a pen and paper screens for mental health, but i have always said there are -- a good for surjit is the best screening tool. i mentioned the difficulty for the medical personnel. our doctors, nurses, physical therapists, everybody works incredibly hard. we tend to think about the wounded soldiers, but all sorts -- but also care for the local nationals. your hospital may be 90% full of people from iraq or afghanistan and they are taking care of them, too. those people often are difficult. they can be. are they hurt -- they can be very badly hurt.

our doctors and nurses to a heroic job. i am biased because i was one of them. i think they do it wonderful job. they often do not get the appreciation they deserve. host: there was an article on fort lewis mccord -- it says the base has become one is -- one of the most troubled in the u.s.. host: is there any particular reason you the base might be singularly high in those types of issues? guest: for the u.s. has had a lot of bad press. -- fort lewis has had a lot of bad press. i would like to wait to answer that. there have been a number of bases that have had

difficulties. you remember the murder- suicides at fort bragg. there were homicides at fort carson. campbell has been plagued by suicides. if you have in common is that they are high op-temp people are deploying frequently. i would like to let the investigation and answer your question. i think the bases need support, not criticism. host: this every soldier who comes back from iraq and afghanistan at least get a cursory pstd screening? guest: yes. they get a place the -- post deployment health assessment. this has been in place since fairly early in the war. they get it as a coming back from kuwait or wherever they are

coming from. beginning in 2005, the army first and then the other services added another screening call the police department -- called a post deployment health reassessment. the soldiers want to come home. they are not going to check yes. after they have been back three to six months, they may be willing to come forward or that is when their marriage is crumbling and that is the time to ask them again. as i said before, soldiers to the -- soldiers do not like to seek mental health. that only go so far because they do not like to answer questions. this is the importance of the unit of the noncommissioned officers knowing their men and women and early reaching out to them after they have gotten back. host: we have touched on this once -- what about the stigma? the stigma of mental health services? guest: there is a stigma and the

military, law-enforcement, fire, and in civilian world. we have done a lot to reduce the stigma. one thing that helps is the psychiatrists and psychologists is a -- psychologist being out there. many bases will send a therapist into the unit. a soldier is not going to want to comment seamy but if they see me in the miss hall -- mess ha ll, for a while, there is a trust. they are more likely. we rely on our chaplains who are an important part of the mission. soldiers will be willing to go see a chaplain. i mentioned my interest in therapy dogs. we have started to use them. we have started to use them. we have