up next "washington journal" with mike conaway, allyson schwartz, and liza mundy. >> elections are about the choices. today, hundreds of thousands of people in illinois have joined millions of people across the country to join our cause. ♪ >> and mitt romney won about 47% of the vote in illinois yesterday. we want to hear from you as we go to the newspapers about your candid it and why you are supporting him. romney supporters, the number for you to call is 202-737-0002

if you are a ron paul supporter, call 202-628-0184. he can also tell us why you are supporting which can it via electronic e-mail. or you can leave a comment on our twitter page. if you want to continue the conversation there, the facebook.com/cspan. here is the front page of "the chicago sun times" this morning. ," "romneygo tribune

tighten script with easy illinois win." 46.7% while rick santorum took 35%. ron paul came in third with 9.3%. newt gingrich came in fourth with 8%. there were also some congressional races in illinois. jesse jackson had a primary challenge in the democratic primary for south chicago. jesse jackson jr. one. and duckworth will be on the democratic side to run against walsh. here is from politico this morning. romney campaign runs a debt- free. he raised $12 million last month, nearly twice his call from the previous month and

finished the month with $7.3 million in the bank. the report shows a debt-free campaign that has yet to rely on loans that the wealthy-former governor has. it suggests is well-positioned to continue the heavy spending he is used to outmaneuver and sometimes bludgeoned his cash- strapped rivals. while rick santorum had his best fundraising month yet, it was still $2.5 million short of romney's hall -- haul. house bigger newt gingrich raised $2.6 million in february. he spent $2.8 million. he finished with more debt -- $1.55 million -- than cash on hand.

front page of "the washington times" this morning. now, to your calls. they're divided them by candidates. paul supporters, romney supporters.

we began in fort lauderdale, a romney supporter. caller: good morning. i am actually a democrat but i voted for romney. he has wonderful executive experience. as you can see, he knows how to run a campaign, unlike his other opponents. the reason why he is flush with cash is because people believe in him and people give him money because they believe he can win and that he is the best. so the other components who are complaining about being bludgeoned with ads, well, if they had the money, they would be doing the same thing. on that note, congratulations. we are proud of you here in florida. host: " 1144 delegates are needed to clinch the nomination. here is the count.

"usa today" this morning. that is in "usa today" this morning. next call comes from a santorum supporter in carolina. you are on the line. good morning. caller: i had an idea to help the economy. i did it years ago with peanuts.

anyway, you print 100% of your paper money to cover checking and savings account. host: why are you supporting rick santorum? caller: because he is the most supportive -- the most conservative. i wish gingrich would drop out. host: next we have a ron paul supporter from atlanta. caller: i just want to say i voted in georgia. i was watching the election results the night of the georgia primary for ron paul. and the exit polls showed him right up there with gingrich and santorum waged in the weeds. and once the votes were counted, ron paul had like 3%.

they're also not reported any of his victories outside of the mainland in the u.s. that is basically all wanted to say. host: this is from "the wallstreet journal" this morning. that is from "the wallstreet journal." bill is a gingrich supporter. good morning to you.

caller: how are you this morning? i have to say, you guys were first in this. the newspaper you just showed, what was that, but wall street journal? host: yes. caller: they're saying romney is going to face a fight by santorum working bridge. what are we going to do? nominate another john mccain? come on. we know this guy has problems. he is not getting support. we do not like him. the gingrich supporters do not like him. the santorum supporters are just searching for someone. i will tell you what i called on the team ridge line. i have to point this out. i could not see a ron paul. so i needed to find a number to call end.

but i see it c-span falling into that category as well. we want to call and say that we think ron paul is the only one who has any chance of gaining enough support to beat obama. host: i will leave it there. if you would, call in on the line most appropriate to you. we will flash of the lines back on the screen. if you are a romney supporter, 202-737-0001. and ron paul supporters, 628-0 184. dave, good morning. are you with us? please go ahead. caller: i like him, but i watched his speech the other day. all i could hear was ronald

reagan, ronald reagan. i would like him to come up with something of his own. they talk about ronald reagan, but they never talk about the nine times ronald reagan raised taxes. i would like them to talk on that subject. host: thank you for calling in this morning. there were other primaries in illinois. this is from "the chicago sun- times >" he won his republican primary challenge against a fellow congressman. he finished with 56% of the vote. by the way, the former speaker endorsed and eric cantor endorsed adam kinzinger. this is from "the hill the

newspaper." next call comes from a rick santorum supporter. surely it from new castle, pa.. you are on c-span. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i enjoy c-span. i want to say that. what i would like to say is this. i do not understand why so many people are voting for mitt romney. don't ever remember the health- care? he, in fact, helped put that health care into place in his state. they used at health care and the big got -- as the guideline for the obamacare. host: you told us why you are not supporting mitt romney. why are you supported rick

santorum? caller: because rick santorum, first of all, he is a very down- to-earth man. he knows what it is like to live on very little. he has a big family. he knows how to stretch a bought -- a buck. he can relate to people like us to make $30,000 or $40,000 a year. he will do something for the working people here in this country. that is the biggest reason. and he walks his talk. that is the other reason. he does not sway over here or there and change what he says. host: here is the front page of "the washington post." and from let it go. -- and from politico.

that is from politico this morning. our next call is from a romney supporter. good morning. caller: i am an avid romney a fan. ron paul is a good man, but cannot get elected. i like rick santorum, but this idea that mitt romney cannot get elected is because people need

to wise up. leica said. i think rick santorum would make a heck of a canada. i am hoping mitt romney wins the nomination. -- a heck of a candidate. the guy in florida, he has said he is not going to run. i think romney will go for governor bob mcdonnell who is a good man. i think he would much -- he should get santorum to run with him. and this idea that mitt romney is a rich guy, listen. i have known some mormons. i am not a mormon, but they are the hardest working, most honest people you'll ever want to be around. host: samuel, we will leave it there. thank you for calling in. president obama is on his way to

las vegas. this is the local story. front page of "the loss vegas review journal." then he is on his way to roswell, new mexico where he makes a speech. then he glanced tonight in oklahoma city. you probably heard about that trip in oklahoma and heard about that chirpy is making their as well. from a tallahassee democrat this morning is this story about the shooting of the team in florida.

black caucus seeks hearings. next call is from 8 rick santorum supporter. new jersey. why are you supporting rick santorum? caller: i am an avid rick santorum fan because he stands of the least chance of beating

president barack obama in the fall. host: so you are a barack obama supporter? caller: absolutely, but you did not have other or president obama. i assume you'll take calls from people who are not republicans. i'm calling on the santorum line is i would like to see him be the republican nominee. host: why are you a supporter of president obama? caller: i think he has worked hard for this country. i think he has done a great job and foreign policy. i think he has done his best to get people back to work despite the obstruction in the house and the senate. i think he has faced the kind of venomous attacks that no president in my lifetime -- and i'm almost 50 years old -- has faced. he has done it with grace and dignity. i think he has been a great president. host: that is dee in morris

county, new jersey. mitt romney was in -- for his speech. here is what he has to say. [video clip] >> i see america were the prospects for our children is better. where are pursuits will unite us, not divide us. [laughter] -- [applause] with the government finally understands. i see a time where we will have a government that understands it is more for people to pay less in taxes than for a very few to pay a lot more. [applause] i see an america where the values we pass to our children are greater than the debts we leave them. [applause] i see an america where poverty is defeated by opportunity, not

enabled by a government check. host: back to your calls. linda is a new king supporter. caller: good morning. i support newt gingrich but i do not think he will win for three reasons. the first reason is if he gets to washington, everybody, including the republican establishment, will lose their power and they're terrified. on the other end of the scale, everybody was been living on the government's dime will have to start taking responsibility and they are terrified. the main reason i do not think he will win is because if he takes the power away from washington, it has to go back to the people. frankly, i don't think there are enough people left this country willing to take on that challenge. but, i keep hoping. host: let's say mitt romney is the wrong -- the nominee. will you support him? caller: to be honest, i have to

really think about it. if mitt romney gets in, we will continue to go down. only it will be slower. if obama gets in, we will go down a lot quicker. host: mike on our support mitt romney line. you're on "washington journal." caller: good morning. i did support newt gingrich several months back. i like his record and what he did as speaker. he is a smart man, but mitt romney is a very humble man. he is a smart man, he just comes across a little flaky sometimes. but he is not. he is very smart. he can definitely get the presidency this time around. i hope that people will start looking at him in a different light and see that i think he is

the man for the job. thank you. host: tweets in -- on our facebook page -- he goes on to say, i am still supporting the president and vice-president until there is darn good reason not to do so. host: next call, ruth, on our rick santorum line. caller: it seems there are a couple of things that people are not really looking at.

santorum supports main street, usa. mitt romney, i hear he will have at jeb bush come in as a vice president. he was part of the enron fiasco. he supports wall street which is the same thing that obama has inside the white house right now with tim geithner. q. what does have the same thing in the white house with mitt romney only it will be a republican. -- you will have the same thing in the white house with mitt romney only it will be a republican. i would like to see newt gingrich and rick santorum get together. in from michigan. santorum got all of the peninsula except for the lower peninsula which you recall the rich. all right now, the old governor of illinois is in prison because

he tried to sell the senatorial seat. and here you have a man running for president that is buying it. i do not see a difference. a crook is a crook. host: debbie who is also the chair of the democratic national committee, here is her statement from last night after mitt romney's win. pat walker puts on our facebook page, i would much rather see newt gingrich go against obama. i imagine that mitt and an old fashioned a boxer pose saying, put up your dukes, sir, what obama repeatedly slaps him.

a definite win for obama. facebook.com/cspan. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have taken a great interest in this campaign for mitt romney. back in 2008 i did. i'm not ashamed to say, i am of the same fate as mitt romney. i think he stands for the core values of america in that faith. aside from that, he has excellent leadership. the founding principles of our country that free enterprise system we all benefit from. he has lived the legacy that the founding fathers gave us when the station was established. he sees a vision for which, i think, obama and all of his followers and all the people who

loved clinton, the democrats and all of those people, -- mitt can expose obama and all of these floors and what they're doing to our country. host: rick santorum made a speech last night. here is part of what he had to say. [video clip] >> we are going to head to louisiana from here. we're feeling very good about winning louisiana, i might add. [applause] we are heading to louisiana for the rest of the week and then we will be back here in pennsylvania and we're going to pick up a whole boat load of delegates and close this gap and on to victory. thank you very much. host: here is "the washington post." this is about maryland.

and the front page of "the los angeles times." they lead with romney winning illinois. below that, is this story. it's about health care and the supreme court.

that is the front page. inside "usa today" this morning is this article.

they say it could play a critical role in the case.

that is an "usa today" this morning. in pennsylvania, jim is a rick santorum supporter. caller: thank you for taking my call, first of all. i wanted to rescue two questions. first of all, congratulations to senator santorum. if gingrich or ron paul dropped out of the race with their 136 delegates and a 50 delegates, what happens to those delegates? can they automatically name which person they want them to go to? and also, if romney does get 1144, is that a slam dunk in tampa? or could they still to someone else? host: those are really great questions. i would hate to mislead you on

that. but i believe that none of the delegates to anyone is you have to support that candidate. i will shut up now before we ever people telling me how wrong i am. 1144 is the one that puts you over. if you get that many to support you in tampa. i will leave it there and hopefully someone will call and with better information than i am getting. the house next week will consider a short-term extension of transportation funds.

that is m. "of the hill newspaper -- in "the hill newspaper."

this hearing that, by the way, on the eisenhower memorial will be on american history tv this weekend, which is c-span3. larry, you are on "the wallstreet journal." caller: first of all -- host: we've got to get a better from our connection. we will put you on hold. do not hang up just yet. but we cannot hear you. oklahoma, donnie, a rick santorum some porter -- support her. let's try again, one more chance. are you there? ok. we will move on. we will try one more.

this is huntsville, alabama. i guess she is not there as well. "washington journal" this morning. -- "the wallstreet journal" this morning.

that is a little bit of what they had to write this morning in "the wallstreet journal." back to your calls. donnie, let's try again. a rick santorum supporter. caller: well, i was calling about rick santorum because i see a fire like -- in that guy like i do not see in the others. what i see in romney is another obama. he sounds exactly like obama but he is different on some stands, of course. but, both -- if we look back, that money gets elected. obama made promises that he cannot get it all done, but he got most of what he promised done. now look at rick santorum.

the guy is a good, straight guy. he is forward. he knows where he wants to go with this country. i believe that we have another problem just like when ross perot was running. he just took of votes that could have gone to the republican candidate. they might have been able to win the election. now we have newt gingrich and ron paul. those guys ought to just drop out because they are hurting -- host: it sounds like your connection went away. we have a couple of tweets here we want to read as well. this is from kym. and bill tweets in.

from "the wallstreet journal" this morning. banks seek delay on volcker rule. and that is "the wallstreet journal." and from "the hill newspaper"

this morning. as you probably know, they're doing hearings on health care this week. that is a little bit from "the

hill." on c-span, as you probably guessed, you'll be able to watch as much coverage as possible about the health care argument in the supreme court. we will be live. we will have cameras. we will bring you same-day audio recordings of each day's hearings. coverage this weekend leading into it. you'll be able to watch some historical discussions on health care on american history tv. and on book tv. there are several authors who have written books about the health-care law. we will be showing you those as well. next call from our republican supporters this morning, rick santorum supporter, edward, in paris, texas. caller: good morning, sir. i just want to make a brief comment.

i find it very strange and i am very offended by the lack of respect by mr. romney and mr. gingrich in respect to our president who is now our commander-in-chief. they lack respect. i just wonder, why in the world today expect us to respect them if they are elected when they have no respect for the president we now have? i have also noticed that mr. santorum does not lack respect and has never been disrespectful to our commander-in-chief. i think this should be an issue. that is my comment. host: why did you call in on the rick santorum line? you would like rick santorum to be the republican nominee?

caller: well, if he is the nominee, i voted for president obama in the last election. but i think that santorum has a convincing arguments and i would be willing to support him. that is why i called in. host: dorothy, another rick santorum supporter in huntsville, alabama. go ahead. caller: i just think rick santorum is passionate about what he believes and what he is telling the people. i do not you could be -- i do not believe he could be that passionate and the line. for another thing, which does not make a whole lot of difference, is his smile is so -- you can tell it is not fixed. host: all right. thank you for calling in at this morning. here are some more news articles we want to share with you. "the new york times" curbs a free access.

from "the new york times" this morning.

that is "the new york times." in from "the washington post." top senate democrats took aim at the private student loan industry on tuesday, calling for new rules that would allow educational debts to be wiped away during bankruptcy. and from "the financial times," this is a lead story.

lead story in "the financial times." got a couple more we want to share with you before we start our next segment, which is on afghanistan. "the new york times" two nominees make it to a confirmation hearing. they move closer after a routine senate hearing. they held a hearing to test the two candidates. if the committee approves the two candidates, perhaps as early as next week, the senate would have a full roster of governors for the first time in six years. that is from "the new york times." by the way, ben bernanke will be up on the hill today, testifying

at a congressional committee. c-span will be covering that. coming up next, is a discussion on our afghanistan strategy with congressmen mike conaway. but first, general allen was on the hill testified. here he is. [video clip] >> be sure, the last couple of months i have been trying. in the wake of the revelations that american troops have mishandled religious texts to include the karan protests, some of them violent, occurred in several, but only a few regions in afghanistan. 32 afghans lost their lives and more were hurt. just since january, the coalition has lost 60 brave troops in action. 13 of them were killed at the hands of what appeared to be afghan security forces, some of

whom were motivated, but we believe, in part, by the mishandling of religious materials. just as tragic, we are investigating what appears to be the murder of 16 innocent afghan civilians at the end of the u.s. service member. each of these events is at heart wrenching. my thoughts and prayers go out to all affected by those of violence. -- all of those affected by this violence. just two weeks ago. i was visiting with marines and the local afghan commanders. this was in the wake of the koran burning incident when violence was at its peak. a young marine said that he and his unit were told about the demonstrations by his afghan counterparts. the afghan troops told them, let us patrol outside the wire.

we've got this for you. understanding the gravity of the risk, the afghans had assumed for these marines, this particular marine continued, our afghan brothers were trying to protect us. this one statement, spoken by a young marine, conveys the power of this brotherhood in arms that has been forged in battle now over the years. it speaks to the trust we have built with the afghans and to the shock absorbency of this relationship. and yet, we know there is much hard and a deadly work that remains to be done. but the progress is real. and importantly, that progress is sustainable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now joining us is mike conaway. he is a member of the armed

services and intelligence committee. here -- he is here to talk about u.s.-afghanistan's strategy. what did you take away from his testimony? guest: is exactly the people's committee on the house of representatives. john allen is a very competent, outstanding military leader. i met with him first last october. in kabul. i have great confidence in his ability to decide how we move forward and whether or not the plans we are putting in place and putting our kids at risk will be successful at what we are trying to accomplish. host: if you had to put in 20 words or so on your personal view of how we should move forward in afghanistan, what would that be? guest: i think the path in front of us will work. general allan thinks it will work. the president thinks it will work. it calls for the rest of the surge trips to be out of harm's

way by the end of september. at that point time, general after this us that fighting season is accomplished, and received we have accomplished their and with the taliban has not accomplished, he will then be in a better position to advise the president and the people the united states, as was congress, what structure needs to be in place. we have eight lisbon agreement in place that has a plant and a place for turning afghanistan over to the afghanis. it is their country. they need to be running it. it is to be secure. they need to do the heavy lifting. there on the path. a little bit more than 20 words, but stay the course and make this one work. host: would you agree with the current strategy of drawdown? guest: it does not matter whether i agree or not. it is in place.

he is in charge. general allen, someone i have great confidence in, says it will work. his predecessor, it is irrelevant. i am trusting general allen to tell us that if it reaches a point where it will not work, he has a duty. he said this yesterday. he has a duty to ever recommence and this was the american people to advise the president if the strategy will not work. right now he believes it will work and i trust his judgment. host: the numbers are on the screen if you'd like to participate in our conversation with mike conaway. /republicans, democrats, go ahead and thailand. -- divided by republicans, democrats, and independence, go ahead. how would you describe the

relationship between u.s. forces and afghanistan forces? is it working? guest: yes. as horrible and outrageous as these events are, the killing of the afghanis as well as, more important to me, the american soldiers, who one of them was laid to rest on saturday. a specialist from texas was laid to rest saturday afternoon. it is horrible and unacceptable. but we cannot let anecdotes' drive a decision on what we're trying to get done in afghanistan. in my mind, you cannot separate the plant we have in afghanistan from pakistan. you have to look get it as a package. we have to keep it in perspective, as horrible as it is. general allan believes that the relationships between the vast

majority of our troops is good. there is a trust relationship there. would this have to power through this and move forward. host: in your district in texas, is a good fellow air force base. i have to tell you. i have never heard of that. guest: that is ok. we do some very great stuff there. the bulk of the mission is training on intelligence specialists. with the second or third largest facility in the united states to facilitate the training of men and women who lead the military's intelligence efforts. we also have a firefighter school there. it is a joint base. its is one of the jewels of the air force system because of the products that go through there. the very best of the best go through the training for intelligence work.

host: when you look at paul ryan's budget and the president's budget and defense spending, are you satisfied? >> i am still looking through paul ryan's budget. the president's budget calls for a reduction. that is right at the edge of the minimum we should spend. that is the first obligation of the federal government, to defend the country. we ought to spend whatever we need to do that appropriately. but with money left over other things. sequestration, on the other hand, will devastate, in my view, the ability to defend this country in the way most americans wanted. we won't know we have a problem until it happens. as heavy-handed and ham handed way that sequestration works will simply prevent us from

being able to defend ourselves both near-term and a far-term. we have to look at what is going on 20 years from now on. olympus a kind of systems and investments to protect us as well as in the near-term. i am concerned with sequestration. we must not let that happen. the paul ryan budget addresses that with a term. i am concerned about the safety net we have in place. host: mike conaway, a republican of texas is our guest. he is on the armed services committee and the intelligence committee. we're talking about the u.s.- afghanistan strategy. we will begin with a democrat in houston, texas. go-ahead. caller: good morning.

i would like to make it, about our war in afghanistan and my comment is that i think one of the biggest mistakes of our current president made was declaring that afghanistan was the right owar. i do not think afghanistan is a right war. i think any of the decisions have been made, that have increased our military in afghanistan is the wrong way to go. our enemy is not the taliban. our enemy is al qaeda and its various groups around the world. what we have now is a military opinion that the way to fight it is to put in land troops into a country like afghanistan.

i think it is a royal mistake and we continue to make the mistakes. host: all right. we got the point. guest: thank you for your comments. there is no perfect answer and no war is acceptable in a sense. this is a product of some 99 villages across afghanistan or our special forces are going into these communities, living there, working with the village elders, trying to identify those responsible. 25 to 35-year-old men. we train them. wheat that -- we bet them -- we vet them, of course. they take responsibility for these local police conduct.

we put them in uniforms. they began to defend against the caliban -- taliban. i disagree with you. they are our enemy. they're trying to destabilize both governments. you've also got a pakistan- taliban. they are our enemy and we have to fight them in these places that we have decided to fight. the village stability demonstration is working in my view. it is part of that path for the president has put in place. i do appreciate your comment. host: here is a little taste of what she wrote today. "the impossible has happened in the last few weeks."

guest: well, everybody gets their own opinion. this has been a long war, no doubt about it. we invest our men and women to do far more. we owe them a deep debt of gratitude. we also owe them a lifetime of support from those with head injuries and are dealing with issues as a result of what we have asked them to do on behalf of this country. it has been a long time. the fourth quarter of any

struggle is going to be difficult and hard. no doubt about that. i would disagree with her in the sense that we have to finish this. it is hard. we are struggling to make it happen. we are weary. i get that. they have put their faith in us. they need to get to a point where they can take care of their country. we are almost there to make that happen. even though we are tired. host: mark is an independent from new jersey. go ahead. caller: i am a congressional candidate here in the fifth district. you brought up problems with our veterans and everybody else. i think it is time to end these wars. the other part of this is we

have an american hero who snapped under pressure. we should not be holding him in solitary confinement. we should be looking for ways to help them and return him back to his family. guest: the investigation is still going on. in america, our system is you are innocent until proven guilty. we have obviously asked him to do a lot for this country and understanding what happened and why it is important as we move forward. major hassan has killed a number of american citizens in fort hood and his trial has not yet happened. we have a pace for due process, and the sergeant will get the proper due process. what ever is going on, we'll get to the bottom of what happened. host: the next call comes from

texas. good morning. caller: good morning, representative. how are you this morning? guest: how is texas? caller: it is starting to warm up a little bit. i am a vietnam veteran. i realize that we are trying to stand up the afghan government. it seems to me i am not sure that another 12 or 18 months is going to make a difference in the sense that we will have the taliban basically in: -- in control of that country anyway. i am not understanding what we can achieve from now until then in such a short period of time. guest: that is the whole point. we are putting the afghan security forces which includes the army, the national police,

and stability operations of the local police to fight the fight against the taliban. it is their flight at the end of the day. we are giving them the tools and training. they will have to decide whether they are going to stand up to the taliban and prevent them doing what they did in the 1990's. we are going to give them that chance. we are on that the path. you can not back off of it. we need to finish this hard work. it is hard and difficult. these kids are up to the task and will move forward. at the end of the day, it is their country. e are seeing some attentiotensn between the government and bus

and moving through this transitional period. there will be some tension, but it is their country at the end of the day. we are on this path. we think it will work. we are moving forward. i trust general allan to give us a better evaluation in october or november 2012. host: gerald in texas brought up the fact that it rained. what is the drought outlook? what is the status of the drought? guest: it varies across the state. if you are east, they have caught up. they are out of the drought. interstate 35 west up to help pass so, the further west you move, the last rain we have gotten. we are still way behind our

reservoirs which provide most of the water for human consumption. water restrictions are still in place and even more strict ones are going into place april 1. we are going to try to save our trees. it has gotten pretty desperate in a sense spendin. we are going to get access to groundwater that is going to have to get piped in to midland. reliance on surface water that is collected from rainfall is for a growing population and puts us at risk. the folks out there are working hard and looking for solutions. we are not out of the drought. the surface reservoirs still have to catch up.

host: back to your calls. darien on our democrats' line. caller: i would like you to expound on these two points. afghanistan. 90% of the opium distributed in the world comes from afghanistan. there is over a trillion dollars of rare minerals that is in afghanistan. afghanistan is not a poor country. the soldiers that were killed at the airport, those eight soldiers, they were killed because opium was being smuggled out by soldiers. why will you not speak about this? china is already in afghanistan

mining. you are providing protection for the chinese and these large operations. host: i think we got your point. let's get a response. guest: the drug trade in the open production is a big part of the problem. general allen spoke about it yesterday. we have a focus to try to reduce debt and substitute crops for the local farmers. farmers can grow other of the things and then opium. where the real money made it is in the distribution chain. there was a real silo effect between the drug issues and everything else going on in that country. they really did not cross their land. since then, not a great job of taking down this artificial

walls between the organizations and fighting this issue. we have to substitute cash crops for the opium itself. with respect to the minerals that are in afghanistan, yes, it has been a couple of years now since we have been talking about those. there are not enough resources to exploit those. i am aware that the chinese has signed a contract for copper with the afghans. i could be wrong on that. right now there is no real access to the minerals and you cannot solve them if you cannot get them out of the ground. that is a long-term asset for afghanistan to be able to exploit and help to set up a central government. in iraq where they have oil, water, and erodible land, they can build on that.

host: a couple of tweets for you. guest: i agree with the first one, and the second answer is no, they can't. we are spending billions of dollars there. the coalition forces that are in place and the impact it has on the economy. this is the long-term issue. the international community is going to have to step up and decide how much support is there. we are not going to be there forever. the ability to sustain afghan security forces is not something they can do on their own.

what afghanistan looks like past 2015 is a big question. caller: good morning. i agree with many of the callers this morning. in short, our goals in afghanistan are noble and come across as a good, positive thing. but truth be told, we could have those goals and a number of nations across the world. the bottom line is we cannot afford to keep doing it. for example, countries in africa. there is a lot of nation building we could continue to do but we cannot keep doing it. if we were in these and other third world countries, we would

make new enemies. the taliban did not start out as our enemy. once we were there, they became our enemies. we simply cannot keep doing this. guest: again, it is a pakistan- afghanistan issue. pakistan has nuclear weapons. putting those weapons in the hands of folks that should not have them is something akin to iran getting nuclear weapons as well. i put them both together in looking at our process. the taliban is our enemy. they kill american soldiers and that makes them my enemy. a form of government that we saw how oppressive and indecision indecent they were bending

the attacks of 9/11 emanated out of afghanistan. we went in there to stop that. now we are trying to set up a government that is respectful of human rights and can run the country in ways that puts them as a part of the community of nations that they should be. we are there now. we are not going to other places unless we are driven there by certain circumstances. host: here is a little bit of general allan from yesterday's hearing talking about some of the challenges that the u.s. will face. >> we face long-term challenges as well. al qaeda and other extremist networks, the very same networks that kill soldiers every day, still operate across the border in pakistan. the taliban are resilience and a determined enemy and many of them will try to regain their

grounds this spring. we know that iran continues to support the insurgency and feels the flame of violence. we know that corruption still rob's afghan citizens of their face and government, and poor governance often advances these messages. this campaign has been long and difficult and it has been costly. there have been setbacks to be sure and we are experiencing them now. guest: you cut him off before he it said "but." he said we are on the right path to be successful. you have to get the full context of his comments. we are going to move forward and be successful in what we are trying to accomplish. host: roy tweets in --

florida gordon tweets in -- guest: that tweeter -- not sure how you refer to someone as a tweeter -- by a couldn't disagree more. -- i could not disagree more. what the russians did was not try to put a country on its feet and set up a government where the women have the same rights as men. you cannot compare what we are trying to do with russia has failed to do. we do not want to take over the country. we want to get out so we can come home and not be expending this effort in this country.

i disagree with the second tweeter. host: tom, go ahead with your comment. caller: what percentage of the infrastructure and afghanistan has been built in terms of what the military or administration's plan is for schools, bridges, sewage, and things like that? what percentage has been built in these years? the crumbling infrastructure of this country, we cannot afford it. i find it ironic that china is funding a significant portion of our budget and how that all ties in. guest: i do not have a percentage that you are talking about. we have done work there to try

to build schools. these are the schools that i have visited that we built but are not at a standard that you would expect american kids to go to. when we first got there, we were trying to build roads to american standards and they could not be maintained. we are now building roads to afghan standards and they are now maintaining those roads. as respect to the chinese, that is an issue that starts here at home. that is a budget process. it is about how much money we decide to spend across the entire fiscal budget of the united states. one-third of that will be chewed on over the next several days, discretionary spending. two-thirds of the budget is really affected. this budget process will attempt to get after reconciliation. we will have an attempt to do a deal on entitlement spending.

the issue of china is really you have to get back to the fiscal problems of this country and they are huge in hard-. totally unsustainable on any level. we have to be about the hard work in addressing that now. host: don, a democrat from michigan. you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you. this war began with bush and obama. the only sacrifice i have seen is we the people have sacrificed immensely because of these wars. i really do believe that when any representative wants us to go to war, i think they should have family members be sent

first. truly, i would like to know if you have sacrificed yourself personally for this war. this nation is suffering its immensely because of this. guest: the short answer is no. you would not use the word " sacrifice" at all. it has been borne by the the young men and women who serve and borne by their families. they are truly the unsung heroes. they do not get medals. they have to man the home front. they have just been incredibly strong. there have been some individual examples of where some folks have had problems and other things.

taken as a whole, are military families in support of their loved ones is magnificent. the only real sacrifice you can talk about this is what has been borne by the folks in uniform and more important their families. what i have done is not close 2 "sacrifice." host: has the charm services and intelligence committee been updated on the situation? guest: no, we have not. the top two guys on the armed services committee may have been briefed by the intelligence committee -- this is a legal process that will play itself out with respect to the the sergeant. the investigation is going on. as soon as we know that, we will be briefed. the military is handling the

circumstance. host: will you doing prior? guest: i am a cpa. with ane of the few cpa's current license. 30 plus years as a cpa. host: the next call comes from the eastern shore of maryland. good morning. caller: good morning, mr. conaway. i have about a million questions i could ask you, but the one that is most important to me that i would like an honest answer -- prior to 2010, i registered exclusively as an independent. i did not like what i saw after the 2008 elections and the direction our country was headed.

i chose the republican party because it is supposed to be the party of conservative principles. i hear a common theme. we are not happy with our government's foreign-policy. we are not happy. we want our troops brought home. we want them to protect our borders. we want to build our own infrastructure. please explain to me what is conservative about this 10-year war and why has congress never officially declared it? guest: thanks for the call. we do not live in an isolated world. in which we have monster oceans to protect us. we are a global player. we are a blessed nation on every level and a blast people on every level.

with that comes certain responsibilities. we have these fights going on that we have successfully brought to a conclusion in iraq and it soon to be afghanistan. every member of congress want our kids home. i do not know if you can couch any conservative. we believe it is the right thing to do and we are moving forward in that regard. 27 million people in iraq today have a much different outlook. 25 million people in afghanistan, the exact same circumstances. they are on the cusp of being able to take over. it has been difficult. we have some 1800 families from afghanistan and 4700 families in

iraq that have invested in their countries. thousands of others will get up every single day, look in the mirror, and see a missing limb or a scar or burns. reminding them of their sacrifices. they volunteered and when they're on their own. we ask them to fight and they did that. we have those investments as well. we all want them home tomorrow. today, this afternoon. the that is not the responsible thing to do. host: this tweet coming in -- another tweet from gary -- guest: well, the plan is to not

let that happen. in will be up to the afghan people themselves. -- it will be up to the afghan people themselves. it is a building process to get us to this point. could we have done a quicker or better? i am sure we could have. i am looking forward. we have to figure out what to do from this point. as general allen told us yesterday, he believes we are on that path. honoring the agreement and moving this thing forward to 2014 when there is a big change and our presence in afghanistan is the right answer. host: do you agree with your chairman and the "washington post" headline this morning? caller: absolutely. the commander in chief's

responsibility is to build the case over and over. the day of the health care vote, sunday afternoon, i was walking back and forth from my office to the capital and a big crowd of folks asked me if i was offended that president obama was watching the big final four of n.c.a.a. basketball. i said i am offended that the marines have been there for six months in afghanistan and you have not heard the president bragging about what we have done there. our kids listen to these comments. they have c-span on in afghanistan right now listening to these comments and those colors and it has an impact. they need their commander in chief telling the world he believes what they are doing is the right thing. host: about five minutes left with our guest.

don, the independent line, you are on the "washington journal." caller: i would like to ask you a question. i am a vietnam veteran. my dad was in the cv's for 30 years. i would like to know if you on the floor would bring back the draft with one stipulation. the first draft notices that would be sent out to all of the senators and congressmen. if we could get that done, i believe we could stop a lot of these wars. could you pass that on the floor? guest: no. i served in a draft army. thank you, by the way, for your service. i cannot think of a worse way to defend this country to put my

colleagues or those who have never served. i understand the sentiment. but that is not how we are going to defend this country. i think the draft is a wrong answer as well. i served in the draft army. i also got to watch and observe an all-volunteer force. it is without a doubt the greatest fighting force that has it ever defended this country. it is the best military force this world has ever seen because they agreed to do that. instituting the draft is not the right answer. host: colorado, joe on our republican line. caller: yes. i have a statement and then two questions. one, you are on the intelligence committee. back in the 1970's, congress passed an operation.

the drug trade has been a big supplier. have you hired a lawyer for the sergeant? the congress should be responsible and be held accountable in the same court hearing as the sergeant. you all have dropped the ball. he has brothers in arms. host: what is your second question? theler: why is not th sergeant not getting mental health care? guest: i do not know exactly what is happening and what is being administered to him. i have confidence that the army is treating him fairly and he will get the mental health work if he needs.

he is an american and it is innocent and should be treated as an innocent citizen until the charges are brought. he has lawyers. i expect that it was a rhetorical question more than anything else. host: our final call comes from montana. go ahead. caller: i have a question. as a veteran disabled from the forgotten groups like beirut and lebanon where i watched marines get killed and i had to dig out of the bodies, why are you not telling the americans the truth? talking about the sergeant. why are we not demanding that the afghan government apologize

for the murder of our troops after that kuran burning? guest: thank you for your service and dealing with the issues that you have got. i do not know if the government of afghanistan has apologized or not. we are responsible for hugging those families whose young men were killed. almost 1800 have been killed in afghanistan as well. they died doing what we wanted them to do. it is horrible it was done at the hands of the folks we were trying to help. i do not know if the afghan government has apologized or not. it is our responsibility to of these families was a deal with

this tragedy. host: finally, this tweet -- guest: well, we are a nation in debt. $16 trillion. much of it is discretionary spending as well as entitlement spending. the promises have to be renegotiated. we have to renegotiate medicare. we have to put in place in new promise for people below a certain age so we can sustain it for the older generation. what we are trying to do is put in something that will maintain that protection for folks in their senior years bought one that is affordable at the same time. we are going to have to

renegotiate. "reform" is a nice word where everybody wins. we have to renegotiate. for folks under a certain age, they are going to get less than what they thought they were going to get. the harsh reality is they well as a senior pay a higher percentage of their health care costs than their parents or grandparents. there is no way around it. it is just reality. the sooner we face reality, the better we will be able to keep that promise of putting in a new promise for folks 55 and under that is sustainable and responsible for future generations of americans. that is what the fight is about. we have to engage the other side. the president has to engage in this issue.

we in the house have to engage as well. you will see the second round of that argument with the budget put forward yesterday. host: mike conaway is a republican from texas and a member of the armed services and intelligence committee. coming up in just a minute, representative allyson schwartz from pennsylvania will be here to talk about budgetary matters. first, this news update. >> more on the u.s. military this morning. the air force sent -- said an f- 16 crashed but the pilot ejected safely. no word on whether the crashed plane was flying as a training mission in the area. about 28,000 troops are stationed in south korea. from the united nations secretary general speaking earlier to reporters in the

capital of indonesia, the secretary says escalating violence in syria is "extremely dangerous and could have global repercussions." cnn reports that president obama plans to announce his administration will expend the keystone pipeline when he speaks later today in colorado. c-span will be covering that event. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> in march 1979, c-span began televising the u.s. house of representatives. today, our content of politics and public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history is available on tv, radio, and online. >> they know better than that.

we ought to say to them, that's right. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now joining us is representative allyson schwartz, a member of the budget committee and a democrat from pennsylvania. she is also the national chair for recruiting candidates for the dccc. let's begin with the budget. paul ryan has introduced his budget. when you look at it on its face, what is your reaction? guest: it is more of the same from what the budget that the republicans and led by paul ryan

was introduced last year. to me, a budget is about our national priorities and our values. it tells you a lot about what our priorities are. during this challenging time, there are three main goals. i think this budget fails all three of them. reduce the deficit in a fair and balanced way. it does not do that. it ignores the revenue side. it is all about spending cuts. this takes into a much deeper and potentially devastating level. we need to meet our obligations including those to our seniors. it cuts medicare and really ends it as we know it which is pretty devastating to our seniors and future seniors. we have to grow this economy and that means making investments in our future, in education,

infrastructure, new technology, growth industries, and the beginnings of all those. if it does not help the economy, grow jobs, or meet our obligations and reduce the deficit, i've really think is a failed budget. it is a controversial. for democrats, it is not where we would go. host: in "the new york times" this morning, here is the gop proposal and president obama's proposal on the right. the revenue is the gray line. according to the gop proposal, the deficit in 2016, $241 billion. the president obama proposal,

$529 billion. debt accumulated under the paul ryan budget, $3.10 trillion. the obama budget, $6.40 trillion. new revenues, no. new revenues, $1.50 trillion over 10 years. one other charge very quickly before we get a response. in yesterday's "wall street journal," and this was an op-ed, it shows this chart. charting the budgets and sourced by the office of management and budget. the current path would take us according to this chart up to 800%, 900% debt as a share of gdp. the gop plan brings it back down to 0. is the correct path we are on sustainable?

guest: we have to reduce the deficit. yes, we both agree, democrats and republicans, that we have to tackle the deficit. the question is how quickly and how. the democrats have been very clear that we have committed to spending cuts. we believe they have to be in all aspects of the budget. every part of the government should be more efficient. we have to start cutting where we can and where we believe there is less of a priority. we have agreed to spending caps at $1.20 trillion over 10 years and an additional over $1 trillion through a sequester or through other ways. we have already committed to $3 trillion and we would do more.

haspresident's budget talked about cutting the deficit in half in five years. that is pretty significant. we also believe that we have to deal with this in two ways. it cannot be all done by spending cuts. every bi-partisan commission says it cannot be done without some discussion. we believe that is true. republicans do not. they will do any cuts as deep as they can go without responsibly considering revenue. we have had this discussion for the last year. moving the wealthiest 1% of americans -- making the wealthiest 1% of americans pay more taxes. and do it in a way that pretax growth of the middle-class in this country. the other major disagreement is

should we be making the kinds of investments that grow our economic competitiveness in a global marketplace, that grows industries, new technologies, innovative sectors, or do we walk away from that? basic research, talking about the tax policy in this country and corporate america not just with the traditional industries by helping them in new technologies and growth sectors. i do think in places where we agree, we agree we have to tackle the tax policy in this country. host: what do you think about the proposal of 10% and 25% -- guest: the president has already put out a grand scheme on corporate taxes, bringing it down to 28%.

it does so by eliminating special interest tax deductions. there are some tough decisions in all that. bringing it down to 25%, there were no details in the republican budget. even some of the numbers that were proposed are really based on a lot of assumptions with not a lot of detail. i think that is a dangerous way to go. all americans want to see all of their deductions whether for home ownership, paying for their retirement, college. do they want to eliminate all those for the sake of cuts? we agree that lower taxes is a good thing. we want to see lower rates. but we have to do this with some understanding of how this would affect growth in the future. it is a contrast. i would be careful with some of those charts coming out with not

a whole lot of detail. host: we want to take some calls. very quickly, the democrats are coming up with their own budget as opposed to using president obama's -- guest: we will be using the president's budget and we will be doing a few tweaks but we believe it will create a sharp contrast not in the decision about tackling the deficit or whether we can bring down or tackle some of these major issues with tax reform, but to understand that what the republican budget does is does it all through cuts, and medicare as we know it, and fails to make investments in the growing our economy and competitiveness. it does not grow the middle class. that is a huge concern for us. host: the first call comes from

cody, wyoming. caller: good morning. i will try to make my point brief. thank you for being there. representative schwartz, in the last three years, the republican budget plans have always included medicare reform, but it always included this caveat. it would not affect anyone 55 years or older. the democrats are no different. yet the democrats will never mentioned -- schering older people to death that medicare reform would affect them today. obamacare will cut medicare immediately, not in its entirety, but as much as 40% to everyone right now. the democrats, i still say, live

by mission. will you admit that the democrats' proposal on the budget will not affect anyone over 55 years old concerning medicare? i will take your answer off the air. guest: let me take the second part first if i may. that is when you say we would cut medicare. some of the changes that we made in reducing overpayments to insurance companies under medicare advantage for example actually was not a cut to medicare at all and it really did reduce overpayments to insurance companies. the republican budget as the same. -- does the same. that is a good thing, not to be making overpayments to insurance companies. we did strengthen medicare for

current seniors. it is already happening. we are closing that the doughnut hole, prescription coverage, for seniors. we have done a lot to strengthen primary care for seniors. they are pretty pleased about it. the paul ryan plan would repeal the strengthening of medicare. they would take that away. you would no longer close the doughnut hole or have access to primary care. that would happen. what this republican plan does is weak in medicare for current seniors. that is not a question. it would repeal some of the work that we did that is already current law. as far as medicare for future seniors, yes, major changes would take place for future

seniors. once it goes -- should it have been, it would already weakened medicare for current seniors. adsense the goal is to really turn medicare into a voucher plan, should they be more worried about the deficit and a willingness to change medicare for future seniors, it would affect current seniors. this would weaken medicare for current seniors and it certainly would dramatically change by going to a voucher plan for future seniors. third, the cuts to medicaid which most americans think is about poor women and children, but it also pays for nursing- home care in this country. it would cut it in half over a number of years and dramatically

affect care for our current seniors as they h. host: paul ryan writes in the "the wall street journal" -- that is from "the wall street journal." what do you -- do you know yet what the democrats will be proposing for reforms? do you have a specific proposal? guest: we passed specific proposals that are in effect that are moving ahead and could be very significant in transforming medicare in a way that protects guaranteed benefits. one of the significant differences between the republican proposal and where democrats are is republicans would no longer guarantee benefits and coverage for seniors. they would give you a voucher

and say you go buy it in the private insurance system. if you want additional benefit, you have to pay for it as an individual senior. as a senior, you may have pre- existing conditions. insurance companies are not anxious for your business in that regard. it is very risky. what we have done is let deal with the issue of rising cost. it is not comfortable for us to continue to pay the level of increase in costs in health care. we need to deal with the underlying causes of those costs. republicans do not tackle it at all. they say you are on your own and get what you can get. the extra cost is on you. what we do is we say we want to transform the way we pay physicians and hospitals and health institutions to really

demand more value for our dollar to make sure they are providing more coordinated care, the necessary care, reducing errors and we admissions to hospitals. these are not small changes. we are really pushing the health care delivery system in this country which is fragmented in too many places. we need to get the right care to all of us. let's do a better job and improve quality to save lives and dollars. we are talking about billions of dollars in savings. with the republican budget, they would undo all that important work that is happening now to get us to a place where all americans can see cost containment across the health care system.

host: the next call comes from kalamazoo. ralph is a democrat. caller: i just wanted to remind people about the overspending under the bush administration. paul ryan's of votes during the bush administration completely obliterated the surplus. paul ryan voted for the iraq war. he voted for the bush tax cuts. paul ryan voted for the expansion of the medicare part d w hich was unfunded and increased the deficit. and paul ryan voted for tarp in 20008. it boggles my mind that paul ryan is considered a budget expert when he basically blew the deficit and national debt

right out of the room. guest: let me say this. not just paul ryan. it is a republican budget and almost every one of them voted for it. they will vote for it again. the republican budget is going to be voted today in committee and on the floor next week if they can reach agreement. it is a republican budget. it does pretty serious damage in terms of medicare. every republican will be held a counter to our votes. i hope the american people understand as democrats, we believe that production should be done in a balanced way and it strengthens the middle-class. we have to make the kinds of investments that all of us care about for ourselves and for our

families. there are changes that we have to make. we have to reduce the rate in growth across the health care system. we are at a very challenging time in this country. we want to grow this economy. we are going to see it republican budget that will not make our economy the strongest in the world. host: steve, you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you. my question is pertaining to the budget control act that the senate put out last september that was signed in by both houses. basically, -- let's see. paul ryan said it was not the best deal. 60% wind at their way on tribal rules. whatever they wanted. this is the way i am looking at it. the budget control act is in

law. i do not know why paul ryan is coming up with another budget for 2013. this was a two-year budget and was supposed to eliminate any political argument pertaining to going into the election. and another year after that. whoever took office, it would another d and other political issue after whoever did take the presidency. what is this paul ryan budget pertaining to-- what do you call it? the budget control act was signed last year. guest: thank you. let me just say that yes, there was an agreement. the house republican leadership and the white house and the senate. all right. we are going to agree on spending and what the number would be in terms of how much

more we would cut the deficit. the agreement was a little over a trillion dollars. that was agreed to. you are right. we voted on its. what we have to do is appropriation bills for next year. you were right. we would not have that same drop or annexed and the potential shutdown of government. we would agree on those numbers going forward. republicans have already reneged on that agreement. they want to reduce it to 1.02 to reduce it a bit more. i guess passing a law is not good enough. it creates more anxiety and

difficulty in what is already not an easy time to get things done. to grow this economy and create some stability, americans want us to get things done. they want us to find common ground. we have reached an agreement. i think we should not begin to play with reducing those numbers for another $40 billion. that creates a lot of uncertainty and is not good for our economy. host: as allyson schwartz just said, this is "the new york times" lead article this morning --

three very quick tweets that have come in -- face-it says -- finally, matt smith -- next call for allyson schwartz comes from california. the republican line, you are on the "washington journal." valerie? all right. time to move on to sarasota, florida. caller: how are you doing? representative come up my congressperson is a car

salesmen. what is your educational and work experience background to make the comment that you cannot balance the budget by cutting spending? that does not really pull any weight with me. secondly, in one sentence you said the republicans want to seniors benefits to and in the next breath you stated that we cannot sustain the current health spending. which is it? thank you. host: who is your congressman? guest: let me just say that first of all, we have already agreed that we should cut spending. that is not the question. we have agreed. the need to reduce the deficit. but we have to do it in a balanced and responsible way. the same thing about the issue

of healthcare in this country. we start with a promise to our seniors. when we passed medicare, there was a lot of controversy about is then. i believe we start with the promise of medicare to our current seniors and our future seniors which means guaranteed benefits and beneficiaries being able to count on medicare. how we retain the raid, growth, and cost -- that is the question. i want to protect medicare and one to be able to retain that rate of growth so it is sustainable. that is different than what we are hearing from the republican side. it is saying the only way we can make a commitment to medicare is basically walk away from it. the government has to cut spending.

it is on you how sick you are. you are going to have to pick up the difference in terms of the rising rate in growth and cost. that is a problem to me. we need to take that responsibility to push the health care system to help make sure that we can sustain the rate of growth and cost. it starts with host: allyson spent about 15 years in the senate before being elected in this -- before being elected. she has a master's in social. prior to joining politics -- guest: i ran a health center. i was responsible for budgets and payrolls. in figuring out how to make ends meet. states are required to balance their budget. i feel pretty strongly about the need to be fiscally responsible and to be able to make sure that

-- i think we should pay for what he's been in this country. we have come out of a very difficult economy. everyone should understand that. deficits are growing under the previous president. we inherited a tough but -- terrible economy. we want to see eye to grow faster and be strong as an economy. -- it grow faster and be strong as the economy. it is really important to me that we continue to tackle the issue of spending and deficit. every responsible bipartisan commission has said we cannot simply do it by spending cuts. we have already agreed to three trillion dollars in spending cuts. the president's budget has 5 trillion dollars in spending cuts. this is serious business. there are a lot of cuts. people are willing to make some of those tough choices, but also not fair to americans to save taxes -- to say that getting rid

of tax breaks for the oil and gas companies, making a lot of money, are no longer necessary. let us tackle these issues about tax reductions for the special interests and reduced the corporate tax rate. that is important. we really need to do it in a very balanced way. otherwise, what we will do and what the republican budget does, that protect tax rates for the wealthiest americans. host: ohio, might come a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a few questions. why did john boehner walked away from the 4.9 trillion dollar gift that he offered to john boehner -- he walked away from it. he said there was not enough

whatever and that proves that the president is saying that there are not enough things in there to pinpoint what he wants to cut. another thing, i know the republicans are dying to get their hands on the social security. it never liked it. i want to know if they do anything with it and erase the age limit, will they mean test would a person does really leaving? -- for a living? some people have a hard job. i am on my feet all day. i do not think a 70-year-old could do this. even a 65-year-old could do it. will they be critic will there be any kind of a look into -- will there be into a look into what the person does for a guest: living thank you for your call. -- does for a living? guest: thank you for your call.

this is a big deal. the white house reached out and speaker gainer had a lot of discussions building off of a lot -- building off of a balanced approach to get out of the deficit. it was a grand bargain. i was one of 100 members of congress and signed a letter calling on the republican leadership and the white house and the senate to do this bigger bargain and to reduce the deficit through spending cuts and some revenue. do it in a balanced way. that did not happen. the republican leadership walked away because there was not enough support within the republican conference to do that. i think that is unfortunate. one of our biggest challenges is to tackle both immediate issues in and of course long term, as well. we are looking to make sure we get to where we want to in a very balanced way.

that did not happen, but now you are right. we're seeing a budget presented by the republicans that is pretty shortsighted and it really only tackles a very small piece of what we have to do, which is spending cuts we have agreed to. more spending cuts. also, taking away some of the promises and guarantees for seniors in a way that is not what americans want to do. we will get to social security in the next series of discussions. you have to start with an understanding of what this means to working americans and to their retirement. host: district from james -- would you review that? guest: we do believe that we should be containing the rate of

growth. that is what some of this discussion is about. healthcare has been growing over the best -- of the last decade. costs have been growing. double digits every year. you are talking about 8% or 10%. that is doubling. a lot has been done that is already in law. one guarantees medicare benefits for seniors around primary care and prescription drug coverage, which it is pretty expensive for many seniors. we strengthen medicare for seniors. it also says that we are going to reduce the cost to seniors -- to government and to seniors. in a way have affect all health care. medicare is a big player. if hospitals and doctors reduce remissions and patien errors and

were incentivizing physicians through different kind of payment models to not just to a good job when you walk into the office, but say, what is happening in between, when you leave the hospital, do you really know what medications to take? is somebody checking in on you? is somebody checking your wound? if you have a chronic disease like a cardiac problem or diabetes, are you taking their medicine? are you following recommendations? are there ways to do this? can we incentivizes more coordinated care so you do that have duplication? all of this sounds like sitting in a money -- this saves billions of dollars. we need to be transformative. we need to have a bigger scale make sure that american seniors and all americans are getting the right kind of care, keeping people out above er and hospitals.

that can save billions of dollars for medicare and for all americans. i can go on about the other changes here, but this is transform itself. what your viewers should understand is that we are serious about saving dollars under medicare. continuing -- containing the rate of growth so that is more in line with the gdp. i want to make sure that we are not incentivizing those new technologies. the new research that has to happen, i know that happens through nih. that is the only thing that saves money . this is not -- the republicans are saying, you know what, we will save money for government, shift the costs to seniors. that is really just under two seniors and not really going to contain costs over time for all of us. host: as a little bit from "the financial times" this morning.

what was agreed in the deal to raise the debt ceiling last august? mr. wright's interest to protect the pentagon from the automatic cuts due in january. he is instructing his -- six house committees to come up with alternative savings. guest: that is true. that is true. host: we have about seven minutes left with our guests. we have a call from south carolina on our republican line. you are on the air. caller: yes, sir. i have a few comments that i hope to get in. i would like to first address the last democratic -- he was talking about the debt ceiling crisis and blaming john boehner for walking out on the president. as i remember, you can correct me, i am sure you will try to and maybe you are right, as i remember, they had a deal and then the last meeting with the

president, the president wanted to go to the -- through another wrench in there. that is what caused the repression. they did not want to do that anyway spirit that is beside the point. -- anyway. that is beside the point. back to paul ryan, i hope they do not push him off the cliff this time. guest: the comment at the end, instead of going backwards -- what to want to say is, i to take someone willing to work out an agreement. we have gone towards a very rigid we've done toward a willingness -- they're taking us to the point of not even paying our debts as a nation and potentially increasing or interest payments as a nation as well as for individuals.

it at the very end of the year, and ability to on really reach ability to how to extend the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans almost created a crisis. i was on a conference committee that did work out a bipartisan agreement on extending the payroll tax cut. and protect medicare and insuring that we would help the long-term unemployed. one of the things that americans are asking us to do is to find common ground and move forward. not say this is our way or the highway. we have been seeing that for too much on the republican side. i'm sure they might say that otherwise. we have seen, from the president in particular, but from other democrats, we do have a difference of opinion about how we've fix the deficit and how to get to balance and invest in the pitcher -- future. that is a conversation we have to have. we need to find a way forward to keep our government operating to grow this economy, which is a

real difference between how we do this. we believe we are taking a much fairer balanced approach. host: allyson reference a political campaign commercial in 2010 and. paul ryan rights -- we assume there would be some who distort our efforts to preserve programs like medicare -- host: we have a tweet -- guest: let me just say that the bush policies, lower taxes for the very well become a few reinvestments the be our growth areas took us to wait point the economy -- to go to a point where the economy is in a challenging situation.

almost everyone reno across the country was affected. -- everyone we know across the country was affected. the administration made a decision that we need to make investments to keep this government going and some investments b.v. the future. investments in education and highways. this does what we have to do for our country. it does that happen just by itself. it is working. it is important for us to understand what a republic investments are and where we can work with the private sector. there is a role for us to play and to have walked away and said, too bad there is nothing we can do -- we would have gone into depression unlike the great

depression. we are coming out of it. we're seeing job growth for the first time in the last year speer -- last few years. we have seen to a deeper months of consecutive job growth. one to continue that. -- 24 months of consecutive drop growth. we want to continue that. we do not want to go back to the bush administration's polis sees. guest: last call. comes from california. will is a democrat. hello. caller: i think that the conservatives in america are determined to have the smallest number of people and -- have the national -- the most amount of money. for the democrats, i think for the affordable health care, it would have been much better for us to train a good group of medical workers and have a universal health care system,

eliminating the expenses of administrative companies. and you can keep the cost of if you optimize the care and make sure that people are not selling equipment at bogus prices. as far as the oil companies and the prices of gas, if they would look into wall street in doing -- do what they are supposed to do and look at speculation -- if this is for driving trucks and feeling planes and things like that, that is ok. keep it down. they cannot keep prices driven. host: we have your point. guest: quickly on health care piece -- in the health care law that exist today, we have stronger oversight of those insurance companies.

stronger regulation. we are requiring insurance companies to spend more of those premium dollars on health care. less on overhead and administration. it is known that medicare is the least costly in terms of overhead. that is important to make sure that we actually reaching our premium dollars are going to our health care. we need to make sure we need to get the most for our dollars. that is extremely important. i will fight for it. on energy costs, we are all concerned about gas prices. i did it into this and every one of my constituents pay attention. -- i pay attention to this and every one of my constituents pays attention. we're working going forward and we have that much more efficient and we can serve much more. our cars are being built to be more fuel efficient. almost every plant in our homes

are being more efficient, as well. -- every appliance in our homes are being more efficient, as well. me to rely less on oil. i agree with you that the taxpayer dollars are going to support for oil and -- oil industries and their long overdue to be repealed. host: rip alison swards -- rep. allyson schwarts has been our guest. here is the cover story in "time" magazine. liza mundy the author of this article and related book will talk about this. the first -- first, another update. >> update of politics. mitt romney says he is much closer to securing the nomination and taking on president obama. he also pledges to work with

democrats or die trying. xe message to supporters written by the former massachusetts governor last night after winning the illinois primary. ideas his third win in a row. but abc knows, we are tallying up some -- mitt romney has spent $45 million so far. that totals $12.40 per vote. rick santorum and his allies meanwhile have spent $3 per voter. 86% of the advertisements from the romney campaign and his allies have been negative. turning to international economic issues, nigeria's finance minister and a former colombian finance minister are said to be nominated to lead the world bank. both have credentials as economists and diplomats and have the backing of brazil in south africa. the report says his poses a challenge to the u.s., who sold on the top post has never been contested. the deadline for submitting nominations is this friday. the obama administration says it

will make canada by then. more about the international economic situation today when treasury secretary geithner and ben bernanke testified before the house oversight committee. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio and you can on c-span3. >> i need, my friends, a new america where freedom is made for all. without regards for race or economic conditions. [applause] i need a new america which attacks the ancient idea that men console their differences by killing each other. [applause] >> as candidate's 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 to see video. >> the profits of the left continue to offer only one solution to the problems which confront us. they tell us again and again and again that we should spend our way out of troubles and spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> c-span.org/thecontenders/ . "washington journal" continues. >> this is our spotlight on magazines. this wednesday, we are featuring this article here. i tease a cover story for "time "magazine. liza mundy is the author of this

article. she has also got a book by the same name out. "the richer sex." she will be taking your calls. liza mundy, why do you say that women are overtaking and as america's breadwinners? guest: they are overtaking. we know now that almost 40% of working wives out there in their husbands. an all-time high. that figure is from 2007. that percentage has been steadily climbing since the government started keeping track of it in 1987. we have seen steady acceleration. we have seen even more of an acceleration beginning around 2000, 2001. even before the recession. if that percentage continues to rise at a rate that is rising now, working wives will overtake their husbands. a majority of working wives well out earn their husbands by 2013. given the fact that women are almost 60% of university

students, like he does not seem likely that the trend will stop. host: how did this develop and when? by the way, i want to let our viewers know that we have divided our phone lines differently. we will put them up on the screen. liza mundy of the "washington post" is our guest. guest: some of the factors that caused this have to do with the economy. women now outnumber men on college and university campuses. they reach parity in the 1980's and after that, they began overtaking men. that is an acceleration that has not abated. we are seeing changes in our economy. they worry eliminated by the recession, but did not begin

with a recession. we are seeing a hollowing out of our economy. some of the good, working class, middle class jobs, high-paying industrial jobs -- they used to be available to man with a high- school education. those jobs are going away. jobs are moving either towards the high end of the economy or the lower end of the economy. women, by getting a college education, are positioning themselves to take the jobs in the high end. also in sectors of the economy like health care that are expanding. those are traditionally women- led. part of these gains women are making, taking advantage of the opportunities that are available to them and declining discrimination. declining discrimination in the workplace. there is still a general wage gap. a lot of these women are supporting households on wages that are low work than those a man my commands.

a general economic change for women -- the changes foremen are a little troublesome. host: when you talk about wage discrimination, one of the charts in this article is that women out erred men when they work part time, but still lag for all time -- full-time. 81 cents -- women make 81 cents for every dollar a man makes. is this you and a male reporter not being paid guest: the same att is not -- not being paid the same? guest: i att is not. when we talk about a gender wage gap, the government looks at full-time female workers versus full-time male workers. their median salary. if women are still clustered in

lower paying sectors and men are clustered in higher-paying, you will see the gap. that does not mean that a woman lawyer is not earning as much as a male lawyer with exactly the same tenure. she could beat. that is not what that figure is measuring. what is interesting is -- this has been closing. i used to be 62%. now that is 81% -- 81 cents on the dollar. women still do not have parity in politics or in the boardroom. beneath that, there are really interesting changes taking place. there are protections that have slipped from being all mail to all female. veterinary medicine classrooms or virtually all female. the field of psychology has slipped. law and medicine are flooding. host: the trends are 2% -- 60% women taking lawyer jobs and medical jobs guest: in the: those classrooms are having --

taking medical jobs in the future? guest: their classrooms that have flipped. their specialties like pediatrics, ob/gyns, their majority female. there are a lot of reasons for this. in some cases, women are looking strategically at professions that will enable them to continue working even when they have families. veterinary medicine has changed because there is more part-time hours. he did not having much urgency, nighttime unpredictable it worked because there are emergency facilities that take care of that. there is an economist who has done really interesting work looking at strategic decisions to find specialties that will enable them to have reasonable work hours even when they become mothers. host: liza mundy you also give some credit to --

guest: economists have done interesting work. why do women start pouring into college campuses? one reason was because the campuses became available to them. many of them had an all male up until the 1970's. women could not attend. when the pill became available and women knew that they could have a professional career that would not likely be interrupted by an unexpected trent -- pregnancy, they began to invest in their education and graduate education in a whole new way. studies have shown that college women began talking about their futures in a whole new way in the 1970's. they envisioned themselves staying in the workforce in a way that college women had not talked about, even 10 years, eight years before that. there have been interesting study showing that -- 25% of the

daring of the wage gap between men and women can be attributed to the pill. women now, we are seeing an economic payoff to education. they were continuing education and putting them self in a better position for hiding -- higher-paying jobs because it is worth it to do that. host: women are contributing 44% of family incomes for dual earner couples. men, some of the responses from the male side, more men are picking up the slack at home. up to an average of two hours of housework a week. or a day? that is a week. [laughter] 2.7 hours for cleanup and childcare up to 6.4 hours. so what? guest: women find this hard to

believe that men are doing more housework. they are. women are doing a lot less housework. there hours have dropped. men are doing a lot more child care. this means a lot of things. this means that working fathers, for example, a feel more family conflict and working mothers. in my book, i interviewed a lot of families where women are the bread winner. a number of families were men decided to be the stay at home father or the secondary earner in the household. --en, that was because man's workplaces are less forgiving of fathers who want to spend time with their children than they are of mothers. men are experiencing a lot of work-really conflict. in some cases, less acceptable for them to leave early. i interviewed one father who decided to become the stay-at home father in his family because his bosses wanted at

least 60 hours a week and he was not willing to do that with young children. so, we know that men want more time with their children. we know that they are spending more time with their children. we are seeing more men who are happy to be the secondary earner. economists have said john -- have shown that when int -- when women become earners, men have been doing more housework. that gives some bargaining power of your husband's that state -- even has been set stay at home, moms do less housework. liza mundy -- host: liza mundy is our guest. we begin with a call. caller: to use a cliche, you and your magazine are sounding a little 1894. this seems to me a total catastrophe in terms of unhappiness. people living alone. all the surveys on and have been a show that people are more unhappy than ever before.

anti-depressant use is way up. illegal drew's -- drug use is skyrocketing. i notice that you keep putting a positive spin on this. we have a collapse in male wage earners. with a tree trade -- free trade agreements and one decision after another that has destroyed the ability of men to support families and to have a livelihood. "coming apart" last people like me as a sexist bum. when you consider the number of working-class men that are tied up in the criminal justice system that are coming in my case, a chronically depressed, it seems we are creating an explosive situation. host: we have a lot on the table. let us get a response from liza mundy. guest: i would not disagree.

the disappearance of high-paying middle-class working class jobs is really problematic. that is certainly the case that women who have steady jobs, who looked out at the landscaped of potential marriage partners, are deciding that they do not want another dependent. i will raise this child alone. we do have a skyrocketing percentage of single mothers. i do not think that women's earnings are the catastrophe. i certainly would not disagree that the disappearance of this job is a terrible thing. host: are you presenting this in a positive light? guest: i think this is a positive thing. for women being able to earn and maximize your potential, being able to have a steady job and a satisfying job, more bargaining power in your household -- for

many marriages were the woman is a primary earner to have more flexibility to be able to spend time with your children, not to beat yolks to some job you do not want to provide a family, that is a good thing. he even in a working-class -- ok, these jobs are going away. if women did not have access to work and they were dependent on the variable fortunes of husbands the way that women used to become a would that be a better thing? if these jobs are going away and women could not work, would that be better? i do not think so. we need to get more men in college. we need to somehow prepared middle-class man for the knowledge economy. that is a different conversation. host: one of the statistics that liza mundy has in the article, percentage of children born to unmarried mothers. in 1960, 5% during 2010, 41%.

mary tweets -- guest: that is a hard question to answer. we know that 25% of children live with their mother and not their father. some of these -- those are single moms. some might be unemployed so we do not know that they are supporting. most of them probably are. with his 40% of babies born to unmarried mothers, some of them are cohabiting. we do not know who the primary earner is. households are changing so rapidly that the government is having a hard time figuring out who the head of the household is. there is no question that more and more women are becoming the primary earner, either because they earn more or because they are a single mother. host: the next call from baltimore. good morning. caller: good morning.

this is exactly why the gop conservative wing wants to outlaw contraception a hisnd abortion -- and abortion. there's a trend in wyoming where single parenthood is going to be a crime, there for putting women in jail to keep them from going to work because men are now feeling weak. they're not feeling powerful like they need to be so they have to put women down in order to bring themselves back up instead of trying to bring themselves back up -- host: ken tweets -- guest: i think that it is -- yes. i think that the so-called war on women, as democrats are calling it, there are a lot of factors. they're going after insurance coverage of contraception and

that is a way of going after the health-care plan. i do think that there is possibly a backlash against the rising economic power of women and the freedom and independence and influence that comes with it. men feeling -- men have really taken a battering in this recession. i think we are seeing a certain amount of, you know, this .ocation and unhappiness host: another call from baltimore. caller: thank you for c-span. i have not read the magazine article, but i am wondering about specifics and graphics on this. i think this is a great article. in your research, does it uncover how low-income -- if upward mobility is what -- is available to low-income women?

how does this apply to single parent households, you know, a woman without a man? so many scientists come from overseas and come to our universities because we are week on science, does your article take that into account? are the women coming from overseas part of the mix of women succeeding? host: we are going to listen to liza mundy answer those questions. guest: there seems to be less social mobility than there used to beat. i would like to see the studies broken-down male/female because women are attending college in higher numbers in the working class, in the middle class, community colleges, getting degrees. my sense is that there may be more social mobility for women

than men are showing. in terms of marriage, college graduates want to marry other college presidents if they can. we are seeing that happen. we are seeing college graduates mary other college graduates. two income households. they are moving up together. in the lower sectors of the economy, people cannot get married if they cannot provide. we know that. studies have shown that. women, if they are doing okay, will not marry a man if they think he has a poor economic prospects. that is where we are seeing the single parenthood. the dislocation. children growing up without contact with their father. sociologists talk about the diversion of -- a divergence of destiny is for american children. in the lower income sector, that is where this is location is happening. i think children are bearing the brunt of this.

host: here is the front of "time" magazine for march 26. "washington journal" -- "the richer sex." here is the upcoming liza mundy book, "the richer sex." that came out yesterday. if you will see her featured on "book tv in the new -- " in the near future. another call. good morning. caller: good morning. first off, i need to comment that i feel -- host: turn down the volume on your tv. we will put you on hold. do not hang out. we will go to a call from ohio. -- let us read some tweets.

-- guest: you know, that is interesting. i think it would be too soon to tell because the statistics i have for the most recent -- the statistics i have are for 2009. that act was in 2009. we do not know yet what 2010, a 2011 look like in terms of women's earnings versus men's. i think that the lilly ledbetter law would be one in a steady progression of laws to equalize pay in the workplace, to give women a way to address wage discrimination where it continues to exist. we have seen a steady rain 3 -- a steady narrowing of the wage gap. i think the lily ledbetter 0

block contributes to that. host: host: a group of young women in atlanta devised more routes. host: activities that might have been considered how these will be a -- will have a higher status.

sounds a little patronizing. guest: i think there are a whole bunch of things going on. wives are grateful for their husband's cooking when they come home at the end of the day and men are cooking much more than they used to. when women are on the dating market, they have a hard time figuring out how to the sort of wear their affluence. most americans, sing the women -- single women are out during their men. you have a large percentage of them going out and trying to find out how this and the right signals to appear feminine and not quite knowing how to do that. what we know is that studies are showing that men do respect and feel attracted by earnings in a female partner. this is a news flash but when men talk about trades they considered desirable in a potential mate, domestic skills has plummeted. financial profits has risen.

women have not quite gotten the message about this. i was really struck -- by women talking about i do this and sometimes i lie and i do not tell the miami lawyer. i was surprised. host: and illinois. marcus, you are on the line with liza mundy. caller: i think that -- you answered a lot of my questions. a lot of these studies seem to only reflect an elite and white women. there are a lot of black women who are struggling right now because of job losses in corporate america and are there any studies at speak to that? and they are single parents and their husbands are significant -- or significant partners cannot find employment. host: thank you. liza mundy?

guest: the decline of marriage is being felt all over america. half of american adults are married. i t is much more acute in the african-american community. it is because american -- african-american men have seen higher levels of unemployment. we have been talking about the disappearance of higher-paying working-class jobs and that is affecting black men more acutely. we are seeing a market decline of marriage in that community. i spent a lot of money interviewing women in the hispanic community in this country. a pretty traditional culture and yet, one where women are out achieving men in terms of college education and at even higher rates than the nationwide rate. there is a lot of turmoil in communities, especially traditionally minded communities where women have not been there, you know, the dominant earners.

ideas creating exactly come as your caller said, more adjustment is going on in certain sectors of the country. host: what does this mean for public policy? guest: you know, people would think about marriage -- we were talking about this last night. the decline of marriage in this country is really striking. in some cases, it is women having the earnings that enable them to either live alone or get out of unhappy relationships. there is something economists call the independence of fact. when women have earnings of their own, they can leave a marriage or not enter into marriage. we are seeing that. if we think that the majority of american adults should be married, then we are going to have to figure out a way to help men be able to earn productively in this economy and. i think we are not going to

return to the marriage rates of the 1960's in 1970's. i think there will be a portion of americans who choose to cohabitate or live alone. at least for the foreseeable future. host: where did you get the idea for the blood? guest: -- for the book? guest: when i was in college in the 1980's, women were in the minority. i have been wondering what is -- what is like for the women outnumbering the man on the campuses. i was talking to my book editor and we felt like this was a trent that needed to be explored -- a trend that needed to be explored. host: liza mundy went to princeton and the university of virginia. we have a resident of oregon. you are on "washington journal" -- caller: my husband went to college on the gi bill after

vietnam's. he became a cpa. he acquired an mba when that really meant something back in 1970's. basically, he claimed that when women entered business, accounting, and the workplace, it diluted the earning power. he said women would come in in his perspective and take jobs with less pay and they were having children and so forth. i required, as a registered nurse -- retired as a registered nurse and my profession have the opposite effect because we had men entering nursing. i can remember a college in new york city started a program in the 1960's foremen who were retired firefighter and policemen.

they were still young after 20 years. they came into the field and they had good benefits and wages so they really elevated our benefit said. guest: the idea that having men entering the field it raises the wages. having women entering the workforce, the idea that will be bad, is a catch-22. that argument has been used against women. that was used against women in the 1930's in the 1940's. a lot of women lost their jobs in the depression because the economy celtics one member of a household -- felt that if one member of a household was working, that should be the man. for a long time, we had an explicit wages system where women make less than men and everybody thought that was the way that should be. but, then, whenever they tried to infiltrate a man's gutfield, the cry was that they will erode

the ability to fend for their families. that seems like such a catch-22. women were second -- siphoned off into these other fields, the secretaries. they were in office jobs. they could not advance in the 1920's an 1930's. if men were brought in as bookkeepers, they could rise. women are kept at sectors and when they try to move, the cry would go out that you make less and you will bring all the wages down. ok. pay us more. i feel like that is an argument that is being used against women as their reason for why they should not enter the work force when the solution is pretty easy. pay them more. host: what percentage of our population, even in the 50's and a 60's, what percentage of stay at home mothers are there? women have always worked. guest: women have always worked.

i wish i could summon the percentages in my head. now, 70% of women who are in the so-called working ages and do not work. that is an enormous rise. it used to be that you work if you were an immigrant or a widow. if your husband could not provide and you had to supplement. i used to be shameful. women did a lot of piece work in their homes in the early part of the 20th century so that people would not know because that is -- considered a stigma for your husband if you had a working wife. women did work in factories in the early part of the 20 a century, but they often took it work in their homes so that would not be so visible. it was in the postwar years after world war ii that women really started pouring into the work place and the percentage rose. host: next call. liza mundy indiana.

hello, fred. caller: good morning c-span. i think it is time for a woman in the white house. they are hard working and they're very force falland i think it would be a good change for the whole world to see a strong woman in the white house. host: what do you do for a living? caller: i am a retired crane operator. host: from a cat or republican? caller: i am on the fence. i would like to see ron paul. thank you. host: thank you. i wanted to get a demographic on him. any comments? guest: i agree. host: 05 or -- ohio. caller: good morning. god bless c-span. we have come a long way.

when we first moved here, women were being beaten and that was ok. lately, the question should be of the culture choices of why women would want to take the contraception. in other countries, they want them to be prostitutes. we still have quite a ways to go. i agree it woman -- it is sad what has happened to women thinking that is ok to have to have the choice to what? i do that even want to say what that choice would be. this is horrifying. host: liza mundy when it comes to politics, are women on par with men? do they have the same opportunities? guest: we do not see the same percentage of women in politics or in congress. that is easy to see if you watch c-span. [laughter]

politics, business, corporate boards, are read us where we still do have a long way to go. for younger women with children, it is really hard. for a political career, you need a super supportive spouse to have a family. you need is bus was really willing to devote themselves to your political advancement. that still is harder for women. when you look at michelle obama and the amount of support she provided when her family was young. she was the primary earner in the household and her husband was being a politician, but on learning a lot. i mean, you need willing -- men were willing to do that for their wives in order to get women politics. some of the comments you get suggested that the voters are out there. it you need a behind-the-scenes support from one family in order

to -- that is part of what we need to see more women in politics. host: here is a tweet. i presume this woman is a lawyer. she is a regular twitter follow were here at the "washington journal" -- host: that is her tweet. this is from sasha -- guest: you can. what we know is that women who have a college degree is still do not earn as much on average as men have a college degree, but that is narrowing. for women, the returns on a college education, the economic returns have grown more rapidly and the last 30 or 40 years than they have four men. women are closing that gap in terms of education.

it is clear -- we know now that single women under 30 in most american cities out during their male peers. that is a direct result of the fact they are more educated than their male peers. there is an economic payoff to the college degree for women. host: another tweet, liza mundy -- guest: -- host: is this a democratic issue? can you find any trends when you look at the different parties and philosophies? guest: in my book and my article, i have not looked at politics. i looked at economic changes in the country and the impact that has on families. i interviewed -- this is a trend that is taking place all over the country in all demographics.

in traditional communities, in religious communities, they often explicitly teach that the husband should be the house leader and provider. i t is taking place bb the heartland. i interviewed one wonderful family in michigan where that dad had been am engineer, supporting six kids. he did not have a college degree and he worked at incredible amount of overtime. now, the siblings are all grown. they are supporting families. five of them are in female earner households three of them are in marriages where the white house and -- where the female is the primary earner. one sibley is a same-sex household. one is a single mom. one sibling is a traditional marriage or he is the primary earner. these changes have been taking place apart from politics. everybody who is in the situation thinks they are the only people in that situation. people do not realize how

pervasive the trend now is. host: william in an illinois. you are here. liza mundy is our guest. caller: thank you. very interested -- i am going to seek the book out when i can find it. the article should be interesting. my wife and i are near 60. she got into health care. i went into law enforcement. she went further. health care is really booming. i am wondering, sometimes it -- you talk about the religious and socioeconomic issues. sometimes the wife said they should not be. she is saying, you should be making more money.

now we are in the 21st century, this paradigm shift is happening and we cannot stop that. i was wondering if you think that this is affecting marital stress and of course because of the shift. and also, in the future cover of "time" i hope we could shift to foreign policy and the afghan war, also. i do not know if your editors -- couldk into couldo look into that. host: we will leave it there. we got your comments about "the richer sex" and liza mundy. guest: most of my book is that changes in marital dynamics as a result of these are earning changes. i have a whole chapter on women's issues. problems that women have in this situation, expecting their husbands earn and be the

provider saying, i went to marriage with this set of expectations. now, by expectations have not been realized. win can the resentful -- women can be resentful. they feel they are boxed into a situation that they had not anticipated. you know, i think in the long run, it will be a good thing for women to be economically and howard. a good thing for men to have more flexibility but, this can create stress and turmoil. it is in traditionally minded women, but also in progress a feminist women who have been -- we have been saying when men were, they still have to pitch in when they get home. they have to help with housework and change diapers and spent time with the kids. now you have women who are coming home after a hard day's work and they are saying, do i really have to pitch in with the housework? why have to clean up? --