and james lynch joins michael jacobson for a look at the u.s. prison system. they will discuss the demographics of prison populations and state and federal legislation affecting prisons. host: good morning, it's friday, may 4, 2012. you are watching "washington journal" on c-span. we will talk about the standoff regarding the chinese dissident. and osama bin laden's letters. and the former comptroller general david walker. that leads into our friday morning as we open up the program for our discussion,

politicians frequently invoked a phrase "the american dream." we want to ask you this morning what does the concept of the american dream mean to you and is it still alive? talk to as this morning about the american dream and what it is like in 2012. here are our phone lines -- you can send us a tweet or an e- mail. we would like to hear what you think about the american dream and its relevance in 2012. good friday morning to you. before get into our discussion about the meaning of the american dream and whether you feel it is still relevant to you and your family, the morning headlines. all our newspapers are dominated by the standoff between the u.s. and china over the dissidents in china, such as the lead in the washington post.

just before we began the program, an associated press story suggests something of a solution perhaps to the standoff. is the story filed from beijing. so that is a possible solution.

jane harman will be with us later in the program. she is now the head of the wilson center. she was the lead democrat in the congress on intelligence issues. will pick up this issue with her about collation ship between the u.s. and china. as for our topic this morning, the american dream. to illustrate how frequently it conversationsog with politicians. here's the president last night in the cinco de mayo observance. let's listen. >> it is worth remembering, america is and always will be a nation of immigrants. are richer because of the men, women, and children who have come to our shores and joined our union. as we mark cinco de mayo on both sides of the border, we pay tribute to our shared heritage and our future partnerships. we honor what brings us together. we are mothers and fathers of the great generation and we will keep making sure our sons and daughters have every opportunity to realize the american dream.

that is what drives me every day if. that is what i know drives a lot of you if. i looked for it to us making future progress together. host: the president just yesterday. one person is thinking about the american dream is veteran political journalist hedrick smith. he has written a book scheduled for publication on september 11,wh 2012, wo stole the american dream?" thanks for being with us. guest: good to be with you. host: where does the concept of the american dream come from? guest: it is something that really took hold in america after world war ii in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's. what people had in mind was the idea of a steady job. if you had good work and then, america would work for you. you would get steadily rising pay over your lifetime, you

would be able to buy a house, have a job with these and health benefits from a secure retirement. and you could hope to send your kids to college or least half of them live a better life than you. it was stability, economic stability, and life slowly getting better. host: so the american dream is economic in its roots rather than philosophical or political? guest: well, in the way it is used, obviously the american dream and the dream of liberty is something americans have talked about since the founding of america. but i think it took root as the context. when ordinary people talk about the american dream and say either we have it or don't or we are going to get it or never going to get it off, people are pessimistic about that, i think what they are talking about his economic well-being and sense of security personally. i think it assumes that the country has liberty expand the rule of law, which is very

important to america as a culture. but for individuals i think it is much more economic. host: you certainly worked with your publisher to choose september 11 as a publication date, so there are connections. guest: i hate to tell you, it is the tuesday that barnes and noble puts new books out all across the country on its tables. /11, i thought:1 that was a bad time to put it out. it really does not have political significance. host: how about that? a question about your own interest in the topic and what you want to explore with it? guest: looking at the situation in america today with roughly 25 million people wanting work. they are either unemployed or working part-time or they have dropped out, 5 million farmers that have been foreclosed out of

their homes. and another thing but struck me in the reporting and doing over the years on health care, jobs, and offshore, that this reality has really seriously shrunk for number of people. through the 1940's and through the 19 seventies it was a time a lot of people felt they were achieving the american dream and the system was working. large agreements between the united auto workers union and general motors in the automobile industry and the steel industry and the rubber industry, atomic electrical workers and so forth, there was a sense that america was working economically for the middle class. you had broadly dispersed prosperity around the country. people were living reasonably well. they did not have cell phone spots or some of the modern inventions we have, but i am talking about for the way people lived at that time, lots of people were doing well. they came out of a very tough for time situation.

people were able to buy their own homes. if the gi bill gave a lot of them veterans the chance to go to college and improve their economic prospects and opportunities. that is critical route. looking at america today, you really see a very divided country. divided politically and in terms of power and in terms of economics. you have 1% of the people in the decade of the 2000's during the growth spurt picking up two thirds of the gains. you saw back in the earlier time i was talking about, the postwar era, as productivity rose over 30 years close to 100%, the average wage of the hourly worker rose about 100%. looking at the last 30 or 40 years, productivity of the average worker has risen 90% expand the hourly rate to as risen 4%. that is completely different from the earlier period. i was interested in trying to

understand what had happened. that's why the title is "who stole the american dream? what happened to this broad prosperity of ours, how did it change, how did ideas about a change, if were the causes political or economic and what can we do about it. host: thanks for getting our discussion started with our audience this morning. i hope you can stay around for the discussion. look for his new book in september. thanks for starting us off this friday. guest: glad to be with you, susan. but by. host: let's begin with a few comments on facebook, then we will get to telephone calls. you can find our facebook page and add your comments to the discussion. chad says --

there's a few facebook of yours on the american dream. let's hear from callers, beginning with steve in alexandria, virginia, independent. good morning. guest: good morning. i cannot agree more with you. the person you spoke with earlier on what he said is purely economics. i to think that in america if you work so hard, you would be rewarded. of course there are other factors we have to consider in terms of how you are taken care of. for the most part, it is a great country. if you continue to work hard tirelessly with some education, you should do well.

that is what the american dream is all about. host: thank you. joseph ramirez tweets -- next is a comment from larry, a democrat in brooklyn. caller: harry truman said if you want to live like a republican, votes like a democrat. but that is over. it is the tower of babel in new york city with all of these different languages speaking at the top of their voices into a cell phone. the american dream is dead. it has become a banana republic. the 1 percent, the rich people, you have won. there's no rule of law. we pay the pensions and retirement for these bureaucrats.

the whole system is falling apart. we live in a tribal nation. that's it. host: larry in brooklyn, ok. and joe is an independent in des moines. welcome to the discussion at. caller: top of the morning to you. the american dream was destroyed by the 1% a. they still have the american dream, but the 99% does not. that is the biggest problem we have right now. the republican american dream is a ponzi scheme. host:rick smith told us the american dream became popular after a world war ii. there's an entry page about the kipedia. dream on wi i just lost the pace. let me go back to calls. lancaster, pennsylvania, john,

an independent. go ahead, please. caller: crest hayes on his weekend show had a great graph showing the american dream and its demise, starting around 1950 where it was enacted where there could not be strikes at the same time outside the industry, where people could not join in. four general in it is a straight 45 degree angle down word. union membership and middle- class income to the present day. that is a good indicator right there that agrees with the original speaker that you had. second, we basically live in a bribery culture. the politicians are bribe by their big donors. they follow through and do whatever the big donors or the special-interest want.

we are going to now bribe the afghans not to kill us. it is a corrupt system. we have the most corrupt system in the world. host: thanks for your comment. politicians on both sides of the aisle invoked the american dream. here is congressman paul ryan talking about it. >> right now we have the 20th century programs that have all the political constituencies and bureaucracy and one-size-fits- all mandates from washington. let's clear that out and have a system that is responsive so when a person is down on their luck in life they have a shot at getting back on their feet, getting an education, getting a career and make something of themselves so they can be proud. most people believe in the american dream. that is hit your potential, make yourself what you want to be, and make your kids better off. if i think that because of this debt crisis -- both parties made

a bunch of empty promises to voters that the government cannot keep, that is where we are. host: next is a republican in georgia republicanpete, welcome to the conversation. pete. caller: good morning. i equate the american dream to liberty. liberty is freedom to do in your life what your abilities allow you to the fullest extent. big government is poison to that. big government hates corporations and profits while not admitting these are the exact things that create jobs. and put people to jobs we will have hundreds of millions of people and you will have some winners and losers. you will have producers and takers. currently the administration have in washington now believes in big government, because they hate corporations and profits.

our president, the only time he gives a public address and speaks to a live audience, it is always in front of a college somewhere where he can manipulate young minds and preaches philosophy to them and they eat it up. they believe in it. you'll never see him speak in front of a group of veterans or farmers or middle-class elderly people. he would be laughed out of the building because of its philosophy is. -- philosophies. the poison to the american dream is taxes and big government and endless laws hurting the economy. , joe goes byter the name american hero. he writes --

next is a caller named john, an independent from maine. good morning. caller: good morning. i will modify my argument based on some of the other callers covering the ground that i was going to. i grew up living the american dream starting with the sputnik going over my house as a school- age kids. did my four years in technology in the military and went on to college. started an electronics business in silicon valley. had a great ride 30 years and built up a retirement fund. had the idea of living happily ever after retired. left the company with the employees and went off to retirement and they spend my retirement money. i was not protected.

i'm still enjoying my life, however, i just paid for many years of private care for my dear mother in a nursing home while others in the same nursing-home were subsidized by medicaid. she was paying almost double. there's something wrong there. host: with your life experience, what does the concept of the american dream mean to you? caller: i think i was shortchanged in the last inning. i am trying to live out the last inning. i am enjoying it, however my expectations were different now than they were about five or six years ago. it has to do with the change and redistribution of what i had saved for my retirement. host: thanks for your story this morning as we talk about the american dream. back to facebook comments --

peter writes -- we will close with this one right now -- we're talking about the concept of the american dream this morning. next is a caller from danville, california, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. the caller that mentioned our president speaking only to colleges, he can talk to be any time. i love this country and i love our president. i am 58. i graduated from high school in

the 1970's. my father, who was born in 1920 and was a blue-collar worker, all he ever said was the american dream is living in america. that is basically what i grew up. it is a wonderful country. i am disabled. i have had a lot of ups and downs in my life, but i would not live anywhere else. the other thing my father taught us was the american dream is about getting a house and everybody pretty much was starting to get an equal chance at buying a home and raising a family if that's what they chose. in the 1970's when prices started going crazy in california with real estate, i remember him shaking his head and saying, the agreed, agreed -- "the greed, the greed, they

keep going for bigger and bigger." we still have so many choices in this country. i love all the mistakes we make and all the progress we make. i think it is living in america is the american dream and it can never die. host: thank you. --e facebook evaluation o facebook valuation ipo $95 million for its stock offering -- $95 billion. the biggest ever for an internet company -- also, this from the washington post --

back to the phone calls as we talk about the american dream. next is ohio, dan, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, susan.

i would like to answer the question personally. for me it was the college. they cheated me out of my job when i became sick. they promised me a position when i returned to work and they simply disregarded the policy and eliminated my position. i don't agree with that and i don't think it's right. this is how our country has become. host: were you not able to apply for other jobs elsewhere? caller: yes, but there were no jobs available to. as far as i was concerned, i could get a job paying $10 an hour, but i cannot find anything that could support myself and my family. that was a problem. host: this occurred during the financial downturn? caller: yes. host: thanks for your call. on twitter --

next is a call from wisconsin, eric, an independent. caller: good morning. i would like to say the american dream is just a tool that the powers to be used to enslave the masses in this country. three things that are wrong with this country is we have removed god from our government, we went global, and convenience. these things have destroyed this country. everything else they are telling you in the mass media and everything is in line. we have all been lied to. host: what you mean by convenience? caller: technology, automation. people don't understand. they are crying for jobs in this country. there will never be jobs in this country any more to the extent they want, because we cannot compete globally. -they. - the power to be want us to work for $75 a month like they

do in china. that is what all the factories are going over there. unless we correct this country by becoming an isolationist nation again and let us be the beacon to the world that we were once before, that's all i have to set. host: ok, thanks. and on twitter -- next is a call from maryland, alex, a republican, good morning. caller: good morning at. i just want to comment, the audio clip that you played a little while ago from mr. paul ryan says what i was going to say anyway. the american dream is based on the pursuit of happiness. i think most people have the opportunity to pursue happiness, not necessarily mean they are

going to get there, but there are options out there, does the matter of how much if you are willing to try. host: thanks. let's hear clip from the other side of the aisle. nancy pelosi, democratic leader, talking about the american dream. >> everybody knows that essential to democracy is the education of our children, investment in the future so that people can reach store own personal self fulfillment and provide for their family, but also so that our country can be competitive in the global economy. it is a very important part of the american dream. democrats believe building ladders of opportunity where people can have opportunities to succeed if they want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility. host: we had an earlier caller who lamented the demise of

religion in american society. yesterday was the national day of prayer. the houston chronicle and notes that on its front page. clutching hands in prayer outside the georgetown federal building for the sixth annual observance of the national day of prayer. next is a call from howard county, maryland, mojna, an independent -- mona. caller: the american dream was always about home ownership the resultst was an of a stable job. in howard county the estate tax is our so exorbitant that you can never feel like you can own your own home. that's in addition to the income taxes on local and state level. how can you ever feel like you can own your own home under those circumstances? host: this is the front page of usa today --

front page of the paper this morning. next is richmond, virginia, deborah, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. the american dream means equality for all people. that is why i don't understand the question on the book that says how do we get back their? we never had it for all people. when the constitution was meant european men. even the white women could not vote. blacks were not even considered as human beings. in the original people of this land, the land was taken away from them. i don't understand when he says how do we get it back, we never had it and it is still going on

today. until we get that straight, you cannot go out and tell other people in other countries how to live when we are doing things so undercover. because of president barack obama, a whole world knows that it is just a joke. just because you do it differently does not mean it is not the same thing. it is a lot of racism out here and people are still not -- like the guy said earlier about opportunity, a lot of people have been living on privileges and who they are and everybody does not have the same opportunity because of the undercover racism that has been going on since we have been in existence. host: many social historians say the concept of the american dream is rooted in the declaration of independence with these words "we hold these truths to be self-evident that

all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain -- we're talking about the concept of the american dream and what it means to you. next is wisconsin, ronald is a republican. good morning. you have to turn the tv volume down. we are getting feedback. ronald, go ahead quickly, please. caller: yes, ma'am. i would like to say that the american dream certainly istill exists. for a lot of people it might not. that would be in my opinion because of the democratic socialist onslaught on our society over the last 20 years. many people now believe they are entitled to everything that they

get and they don't have to work for anything and that they should get everything they want. the american dream is that if you have a home and career is based on hard work and dedication. , dedication. host: thanks for the call. a similar theme in this e-mail --

that is it your named vance. max on twitter -- next is a call from conway, arkansas, terry is a republican. caller: i have been a republican all my life. i am 63. i've always voted republican, but i am ashamed of our party at this time. they have a lot of prejudice in the first place. second, they blocked everything obama has tried to do. i've been watching them. i thought, what are they doing? they have lied and set him aup. i have never voted democratic, but i think i will vote democratic this time.

the american dream would be to me, he is our president, the people elected him. that makes him our president. they should respect that. when he first got in office they called him a liar on the floor of the congress. that is ridiculous. the way they can talk to a president of the united states. he has shown a lot of character in what he has done and i appreciate that from him. they talk about how much money he spends. he spent $5 trillion. we are $16 trillion in debt. when bush took over he was in the clear. that means that he spent $11,000 in eight years. that is 500,000 more -- i mean 500 million more than what obama has spent. where are they going to go with that? i am a republican, but i believe i am going to vote democratic this time. i cannot. go for cannot it is not right. it host: all right.

this weekend is the libertarian party's national convention. c-span will be there throughout the weekend. it's being held in las vegas. you will see the beginning of it tonight at 9:00 eastern and then saturday on this network beginning at noon. and political news, the candidate mitt romney was in richmond, virginia, yesterday and in coverage of his visit, romney said virginia is the key to victory in the fall. he picked up the endorsement of michelle bachmann. there he is with governor bob mcdonnell. and from the boston globe, former home town of romney, --

and one more story abouts the story in the style section of the paper -- a story about the romneys in the style section of the paper. the blouse that ann wore. it is apparently $990, that she wore on a morning talk show on tuesday. says it proves that they are out of touch with the people or merely proves ann is like many other wives in politics, a presentable upper-class person- who bought it because she could afford it it. mr. romney has also talked about

the american dream. let's listen to what he has to say. >> for centuries, the american dream has meant the opportunity to build something new. some of our greatest success stories are people started out with nothing but a good idea and a corner in their garage. today americans look at what it takes to start a business and they don't seem a promise, an opportunity. place the government's standing in the way. they see government standing in the wake. the real cost is the businesses that are never started, the ideas that are never pursued, and the dreams that are never realized. we want to build the interstate highway system and the hoover dam. today we cannot even build a pipeline. host: that is mitt romney speaking before the nra, national rifle association convention last month. next phone call is highland park, illinois, lou, a democrat,

good morning. caller: good morning. i watched the news and read the newspapers all the time. i really believe the american dream could be dreamif two things occurred. number one, take salient points from each party. for example, the democrats, what i think should happen is create massive public works projects around the country. spend as much money as possible. #2, take from the republicans a relaxation of regulation that is strangling business. if those two points could come together, i believe the american dream could become real once again. host: you have a prescription, but what does it mean for you? caller: it means i look around

and i see help wanted signs all over. i travel quite a bit. i'm wondering what are those jobs paying. are they paying $10 an hour? can people make it on that kind of money? no. we need the real jobs to come back. we need the manufacturing jobs. third, i would like to say, america should provide health care to all americans. imagine the money that would save american businesses if every employee had their own health care. the car manufacturers at one time or spending more money on health care per employee than they were spending on steel. the jobless numbers will be coming out around 8:30 eastern time.

now this comment on twitter about the american dream -- next is a call from michigan. . mark is . caller: hello, c-span. -- mark is an independent. hi. caller: hello, c-span. i was always told as long as you , you can accomplish anything. the dream is to go after a goal. i did that and i got epilepsy brought on by onhard. i was kicked to the curb and now i live on $700 a month of social security disability, but i am perfectly healthy. if i can run 100 yards in 12

seconds and 1 mile in 5 minutes. if i can hold a 4.0 grade point average although the federal government has been on disability because they claim i am disabled. my dream was shattered. host: thanks for your personal storage. sheila fox writes on facebook -- just a couple more minutes left in our discussion about the american dream. stella on twitter writes -- and from medford, oregon, liz, a democrat. you are on it. sorry, we have to move along. next is a call from ohio, john,. and independents caller: the american dream is

just a dream. i will tell you, i don't have any rights. they fired me in 2005 and it was not justified. the thing about it, they fired me the next day. i that injured on the job on the 15th and they fired. me the next fired is that? the american that they have not called me that -- they fired me the next day. is that the american dream? host: the national mall is getting a $700 million redesign. a lincoln theatre will be added. the national mall would stretch from the lincoln memorial to the u.s. capitol and will be transformed from trampled grass

to a grand urban park with spectacular gardens, skating rink, and theater. former first lady laura bush, the honorary chairman of the fund-raising campaign said that she often wore sunglasses and a baseball cap for an anonymous early morning stroll through the mall during her white house atrs and they're looking innovative designs for the national mall. our discussion on american dream facebookinue on and on twitter. thanks for your comments this morning. coming up in a few minutes is david walker, and we will talk with him about the american dream and his thoughts for restoring it and his concerns about the economy and the national debt, coming up soon. first we want to tell you about our north carolina tour. it is looked at as a swing state

during the election and is hosting the democratic election. our bus is there for six-day tour leading up to the presidential primary on tuesday and the democratic convention. c-span is parting with a social media platform that allows students and citizens throughout the state to voice their thoughts for the presidential campaign and what issues are important to them. if you can participate by going to tout.com to see what people are saying and learn how to record a video of your own. washington journal will be incorporating tout into our videos. saturday we will be live from the international civil rights center museum in greensboro, north carolina, the former location of the woolworth's lunch counter where the citizens took place in 1916. we will talk with the museum's co-founder. on sunday, mayor of charlotte

anthony foxx about the plans for the convention and the effect on the city. and we will stick with the chairman of the william pope foundation and conservative activist in that state. to learn more about the c-span tour, go to [unintelligible] -- go to c-span.org/bus. first, on sunday, author robert caro. it is the story by david jackson in the paper this morning. caro is working on his history of lyndon johnson and obama and cannot help wonder if there would've been a president obama without lyndon johnson. we are talking to robert caro as

well. that will be on sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific time. here's a clip of that conversation and then we will be right back. >> i don't regard this as just a biography of lyndon johnson. i want each book to examine the kind of political power in america. i am saying this is a kind of political power. seeing what a president can do in a moment of -- in a time of great crisis. how he gathers and what does he do to get legislative action to take command in washington. that is a way of examining power at a time of crisis. i want to do this in full. i suppose that would take 300 pages. so that is why i dusted must examine this -- why i just said let's examine this. >> in your book, lyndon johnson

lies to the public about the number of things, including his relationship with his blind trust and things like that. from what you have seen in this book, how often did johnson lied to the public about anything when he became? became when he became president? the 47 days is a period like none other in lyndon johnson's life. he has all these forces within him. lying is a big part of his entire career up to here. but it is is like he rises to something else. i don't think it is really part, although there are hints of it, when the dust to stop the texas journalist from looking into his fortune. but it is a minor part of what

he does, because he knows he has to be a president, the country needs constcontinuity. a young president has just been struck down. although most of the conspiracy theories are disproved in a couple days, that is not the headlines. >> washington journal continues. meet david walker. he's joining us from pittsburgh. he served as the comptroller general of the u.s. from 98 through 2008 and then founded an organization called the comeback american initiatives. if you want politics on the internet, there's a lot of chatter about of him as a potential independent or third- party candidate for president. we will talk about all that with him this morning. thanks for being with us. guest: good to be with you. host: we have had a robust discussion about the american

dream with the audience this morning. that seems to tie into the organization comeback america. what is your definition of the american dream? guest: susan, i believe the american dream is about individual liberty and unlimited opportunity. in america, people who have a good education, a positive attitude, and strong were affected -- a strong work ethic, and solid moral and ethical values still have unlimited potential. my walker line came to this country in the 1680's. yet to my knowledge i'm only the second person in my direct walker lied to graduate from college. i was the seventh comptroller general of the united states. it is still there. but this country has strayed from a lot of the principles and values that made it great. we do face a number of key sustainability challenges that threaten our future position in the world and our future standard of living and home.

we need to be honest with the american people about that and start to address and solve those challenges if we want our future to be better than our past. host: we will open up the phone lines for our viewers and you can also e-mail us or send us a tweet with comments or questions for david walker as we talk about the state of america, the american economy, and the effect of the debt on our plans for growth in the future in this nation. let me get to the chase on this presidential question period yesterday i opened up "politico" and there was a story on the front page about you. are you considering a possible presidential bid? guest: i am not a candidate. i am precluded from being involved in election activities as head of the comeback america initiative. there is an independent draft that has been formed and it will be difficult for them to qualify

ballot, given thenfor the limited amount of -- given the limited amount of time. i would not want to run. a political run i want to focus on fiscal was possibility, transforming government, and needed political reforms. i believe it's possible to do that without running for political office. that is what i would strongly prefer. that is where things stand. the americans elect process is going to play out in the may- june timeframe. as i understand it, they have to have a ticket by the end of june if they are going to abbott ticket, in order to qualify for all 50 state ballots. host: i promise we will move on after this. you are well aware of the challenges of a third-party or independent candidacy. this is one observation from chris who wrote this week --

guest: it is actually not a very high bar. 20 years ago ross perot ran for president the first time on fiscal responsibility, political this functionality, declining trust in government, declining confidence in the future. we are demonstrably worse off by a large amount in all jeff liu are those areas. 20 years ago, 20% of americans were political independence. today its 41%, like myself. there's a lot of dissatisfaction, a lot of discussed with regard to the state of play today. you can get name recall, that just takes money. but i do agree that it would not be worth anybody thinking about it.

me or anybody else, unless you believe you could qualify for the presidential debates. that only takes 15% public support in five public opinion polls and being eligible to achieve the least 270 electron volts. the americans elect will definitely achieved electoral vote requirements. i think it is very feasible for a credible ticket campaigning on the right issues no matter who it is to be able to qualify for the presidential race. host: speaking of the presidential debates, the committee for responsible federal budget started a petition. the point of this was to dedicate the online petition to dedicate one of this all's pre debate forums specifically to the national debt and how each candidate would address it. do you think that so far the contenders for the presidency and particularly mitt romney and the president, are talking enough about the national debt? guest: not enough with regard to specific solutions.

people are talking about the problem, but they're not giving sensible solutions, nonpartisan solutions that should be able to get bipartisan support. in interest of full and fair disclosure, i am on the board of directors for the committee for responsible federal budget. i fully support the petitions. i called for this a number of months ago. but i think it is important to understand it is not just a decision of the commission that runs the debates. both of the major presidential candidates and if there's a third that qualifies, they have to basically agree not only to make it a subject of one of the debates, they have to agree on a format and a moderator or moderators that can make it meaningful. so it is not just getting the debate. it is having the right format and having the right moderator or moderators in order to be able to make it effective. i think it is critical importance. papers arenational papal l filled with european austerity programs and whether they are

the key to future growth. here's the wall street journal in the world news page, lots of stories -- the first question from twitter -- guest: i think we have to recognize two things. we have a short-term challenge and we have a structural challenges. in the short term, we have weak economic growth, high employment, and higher underemployment. it is worse than the government tells you by the way they keep the score. we cannot cut spending dramatically now or increase taxes dramatically now, because that would undercut economic recovery and efforts to try to get employment going. i do believe it is a corporate to have some investments and

critical infrastructure and other areas, in order to stimulate the economy and help with regard to the employment system, as long as they are properly designed and effectively implemented and coupled with a clear, credible, and forcible plan to deal with the large growing deficits and debt. =-- enforceable plan. we need to take steps to deal with the short-term and take steps to diffuse the ticking time bomb was a city with are escalating deficit and debt. if we don't, whatever progress is made in the short term will not be sustained over a time. the u.s. is not exempt from the laws of prudent finance. a debt crisis can happen here. if it does, it would be a global depression. we must avoid that at all cost. host: this on twitter -- guest: no, we can grow.

but in order to grow, to recognize some of the fundamental challenges we face. we have to have more certainty with regard to tax laws. we need to have a simpler regulatory structure. we need to deal with our problems with it education. we need to make sure we are spending more of our federal resources on investments rather than on consumption. we have to have an energy policy. we have to deal with our immigration policy and make sure it is modernized to help us with our competitive challenges both today and for tomorrow. so there's a number of things we need to do. frankly, we are living on our past reputation. we are not learning from history. you're not learning from other. i believe that the decisions that are made or fail to be made by elected officials in washington the next three years to five years will largely determine whether our future is better than our past.

we are at a critical crossroads in the history of this country. we are approaching a tipping point. i cannot say strongly enough how important i believe this general election is. it needs to be meaningful and substantive and solutions- oriented so that whoever wins, they will have a mandate for action. host: next is marie in minnesota, a democrat. good morning. go ahead, please. caller: hello. the only way we can have an economic future is if we have balance. the thing that bothers me about mitt romney is he tells us how barack obama is taking everything away from us. i want to know how can a republican than has $234 million and has his money in other countries, how can he sit there

and tell us barack obama is the problem when he is the one then has the money and could build businesses? i am sorry. i cannot understand that. we have to have balance. if the republicans and democrats have the money, then they are the ones that have to build the businesses it. they cannot just keep their money hidden in other countries. that's the only way we will have an economic future. host: david walker. guest: what i would say is i think we need comprehensive solutions. i would not use the word balance. balanced tends to mean that it's equal, but have equilibrium. for example, we need to take steps to deal with our short- term challenges and the threats to our future. that is a comprehensive solution. we need to reduce spending and we need to achieve additional revenues, but it is not 50- fifth. our problem is primarily spending, but not solely a spending problem.

we need to come up with a conference a plan that will reduce a spending will reduce3-1 ratio of revenues excluding interest. we will need new revenues. but how you achieve this matter. you have to keep in mind in 1900 the federal government was 3% of the u.s. economy. today it is 24%. it is headed to 37% on autopilot absent a change in course. i am not an anti-government person, but the government is not the engine of growth, innovation, and job creation in this country and it never will be. host:pa pat is watching from pittsburgh. >> good morning, everyone. when you look at the manufactured demise of the united states and you see the democrats and republicans pitted against each other and outside influences from banking cartels and manipulation and occupy wall

street movement that has been ignored by the u.s. government, you can see the trajectory of where this is going. i can assure you, ross perot was correct. i was one of the supporters when he was running. the united states is all but finished. we are on our way towards a manufactured collapse. this has all been designed. this is not some well, it's going to happen with the u.s. spends more money on military defense and all the defense companies around the globe combined, they just passed a massive extension of drone operations. the cost is $35 billion. this is not addressing anything. they do not want to address

anything. we are leaving for a dictatorship. i guarantee this. host: david walker? guest: i do not believe it is too late to keep america great, but i believe we have serious challenges. in the area of defense, we spend as much as the next 15 nations combined, and most of those nations are allies. we must cut and constrained defense spending and we can do so without compromising security. there are clearly ways to do that. secondly, our health-care system, we spend double per person, and get below average results. if there is one thing that can bankrupt the country, it is that. what is the fastest-growing expense for the federal government? interest.

what do you get? nothing. it is not too late, but you need to change course. the 2012 election is absolutely critical. only the chief executive officer can make this happen. the congress is totally dysfunctional. it will be dysfunctional next year no matter who is in charge. they need to be led. host: speaking of interest rates, i saw an opinion piece in "the washington times, called on interest rates. -- times" -- host: can you talk about if interest rates rise, what the effect will be on the economy?

guest: we have historically low interest rates, paying only 2% and 10-year bonds, and 3% on 30- year bonds. that is well below the average. for every one% increase, we have to pay another $150 billion-to- $160 billion. president obama estimates we will pay $800 billion-to-$900 billion a year without a significant increase in interest rates. the truth is, our fiscal policy, taxing and spending, and monetary supply, determined by the federal reserve are high- risk strategy is, helping in the short term with regard to the economy, but risking much higher interest rates over time in a

potential debt crisis in this country and is significant reduction in the value of the dollar. host: on twitter -- guest: first, you cannot build the economy based on financial engineering, and we have tried to do too much with regard to financial engineering. we have to restore our manufacturing base. we have to realize in the united states we can not compete on wages. we do not want to compete on wages. our standard of living would go down. we have to compete on quality, productivity, value-added. that means we have to get back to investment, our education system, modifying our immigration policy, and the number of things that would help us to capitalize on all or it

vintages. no country in the world is as diverse as we are. no country has the human capital talent that we do. we have been living on past success. we have spent too much on consumption, not enough on investment, thinking we are exempt from the laws that apply to everybody else because we are the united states. we are not exempt. host: houston. pat, an independent. caller: good morning. i have a simple question. when we went to war, how did we pay for it when we reduced the amount revenue coming into treasury index what was the reason for reducing -- treasury? what was the reason for reducing taxes? do the math. when your expenditures go up,

why would your revenue go down? i understand this gentleman was in office from 1998 to 2008. i do not understand. they want to balance the budget on the backs of old people, students? i am 63 years old. i've been working 43 years. now, you tell me that social security is going to be reduced to pay for whirrs and corporations are getting tax breaks? it makes no sense. host: mr. walker? guest: let me clarify what my job was. i was comptroller general of the united states and head of the u.s. government accountability office. i was the auditor general. i was not responsible for setting budget policy or administration policy. i worked for the congress and

the american people. the truth is there is not a party of fiscal responsibility. both republicans and democrats are fiscally irresponsible, which is one of the reasons 42% of americans are independent like myself and the other parties are losing market share. three things happened in 2003, and i spoke out at the national press club to blow the whistle that washington was out of touch, out-of-control, and threatening our future. one -- a second round of tax cuts that we could not afford off. secondly, we indicated a sovereign nation without declaring war and without paying for it, and that was iraq, and that was a mistake based on false information. number 3, congress expanded medicare prescription drugs, headed over $8 trillion in new unfunded promises.

clearly imprudent. one party controlled the congress and the white house at that time. so, there is not a party of fiscal responsibility. if somebody tells you you're going to lose social security, they are lying to you. we can reform social security. i was a trustee for five years. -been to 49 states. i lay out a framework that gives -- gets 95% support. you might ask how come we have not done anything? we do not have leadership and special interest groups are running things. host: new york city, frank, a democrat. caller: good morning. the lady from houston hit it on the point. it is simple mathematics. when president clinton left office, he left us with a

surplus that should have been used to build infrastructure and education so we can move forward. instead it was used on wars that were not paid for. president obama is trying to fix a problem that was presented to the entire country without our support. so, now, you want to tell us that in order for us to fix this problem, which the republicans created, we have to do it on the back of the low income, old people, sick people -- that is not morally or financially correct. host: frank, president obama committed troops in afghanistan for another decade. do you agree with that decision? guest: are you asking me? host: i am asking the caller.

caller: i do not agree with financial assistance to any foreign country. i do not see any entire country as a threat. i see individuals as a threat. host: thank you. mr. walker? guest: people need to understand that we clearly need to come out of afghanistan. we have not learned from history. afghanistan, that region of the world, for thousands of years has been a problem and will likely continue to be. no great power has been able to change afghanistan so far. frankly, we should have been out a long time ago. it is clear that we are going to get out, and the only question is how quickly. i am. >> with the comment from the caller -- i am confused with the comment from the caller -- i have not called for slashing the

safety net or hitting the poor. we need to come up with a plan that helps the economy grow, maintains a shall shall safety net, reduces -- social safety net, reduce defense spending, modernizes our tax system so that a simple, fair, and generates more revenue, it will need to separate federal government programs, those that are working, and those that are not. if the united states government has been in existence since 1789, 223 years, and it does not have the three things it takes. it does not have a strategic plan work, -- framework, a budget, and performance metrics. that is called a strike out. host: mr. walker, when a number

of problems have happened there have been criticisms from both sides of solutions that kick the can down the road. december 31, this year, a number of major initiatives are set to expire at one time. here are a few of them. host: major. -- garret says it is not an exaggeration to say the direction of the country will

hinge on decisions taken by this lame duck congress. prepare to be terrified. is this as momentous as described, and is it appropriate for a lame duck congress to make these decisions? guest: this will be the most significant lame duck congress in modern history. the difference between doing nothing, or kicking the can down the road again, and letting everything expire over a 10-year period, is $7-trillion-to-$8- trillion. that is important why the campaign focuses on the tough choices and proposes solutions. realistically, you will not be able to do comprehensive tax reform, social insurance reforms, but she different

agreements it will take to restore fiscal said -- achieved difficult decisions will take to restore financial stability in a lame duck congress session. you could have a change of control in one or both houses of congress. i think what we have to do is recognize we have to make this general election campaign substantive, solutions-oriented. some decisions will be made in a lame duck session, we are likely to get a review -- delayed for another year to accomplish a comprehensive tax reform and social security reforms, and no matter what the supreme court decides on the affordable care act, the bill will be repealed and replaced overtime and the reason is it is not affordable. it will cost $12 trillion more

than the politicians claim. host: next call. landover, maryland. richard, independent. caller: since the repeal of the glass -- the glass-steagall act, bankers, and defense contractors -- it has basically rated the american people of their wealth. there is no even playing field. bankers can blow their money, and come to the american people and sick pay us. they have done it -- and say pay us. they have done it twice. the american people are not benefiting from this debt. the innovations, the american people did not -- innovations, the american people did not benefit from those.

it is story is on top of stories on top of stories to confuse the american people. i have no problem supporting you if you will be truthful to the american people. i think americans have to many lives. that is it. guest: right now we have hyper- partisanship, where some people wear a blue uniform or eight red uniform, if she did not wear their uniform, you are the enemy, where in reality we are red white and blue. i an independent. we have a situation where the vast majority of republicans are far to the right of the country, a significant portion of democrats are far to the left, so the ideological divide has never been greater and they do not want to compromise and we

get nothing done. this is less than a do-nothing congress. a do-nothing congress passed the marshall plan, among other things, which helped revitalize europe and create global trade, if you will. we need to be truthful. we need to have solutions. i think conditions are ripe for a candidate, even one of the major candidates, to speak the truth and talk about the tough choices. i think the american people are starved for that. the biggest steps we have is a leadership deficit, and we had better fill that void quick. host: birmingham, wisconsin. natasha is a republican there. caller: birmingham, michigan. mr. walker, i have watched you when you were the comptroller. i think you speak with

intelligence and common sense. i have heard you say that the defense department and state department rejected their finances, and that might not be the correct word, -- their finances, and that might not be the correct word, are so discombobulated, said they cannot be calculated. secondly, why are banca ceo's getting such huge bonuses -- bank ceo's getting huge bonuses when people are getting minimal interest rates on deposits? my mother gets less than 1%, where as a big bank and borrow money for actively for nothing, -- practically for nothing, yet we, the common americans are made to suffer. congratulations on your job. are you still with the peterson co.?

i will vote for you. thank you. guest: thank you, ma'am. i am the founder and ceo of the comeback america initiative. high have been there for one year and a half. the defense department is still not able to withstand an audit. that is not acceptable and needs to be addressed. let me tell you what i am concerned about when you talk about the recent financial and housing crises. we obviously have a huge financial crisis, and many americans suffered. my daughter lost a job. my son lost a house, and my wife and i lost a significant percentage of our net worth, he into has been held accountable? the insert -- and who has been held accountable? the answer, as far as i can see, is nobody, and that as an

example of how the federal government does not know how to run things. the government had maximum leverage on institutions when provided the providing financial assistance to get it should have required that think -- providing financial assistance. it should've been required that things be done with regard to the executive compensation arrangements at that time, but the fact is it did not, and now you have a situation where people can borrow money from the federal reserve that .25% interest. how can you not make money when you can borrow money at .25%? we have structural problems that have to be dealt with. the government has to end up getting tax and regulatory policies in shape in order to

address these things going forward. host: there has been a big debate about student loan rates and a compromise. with that, on twitter -- guest: first, everyone is not educated to the max. we spent double per person in k- 12 education, and we get below average results for industrial -- industrialized country. we have below average science, math, too many people that can not read after the third grade, a very high dropout rate in high school -- again, even the areas where we do well liked colleges and universities, it is incredibly expensive and is

getting more expensive. not all college degrees are equal. some get a good return on investment. others do not. a lot more people are borrowing money rather than getting student aid. we have to reengineer our education system, recognize that not everyone is bond rebound for college, just like other countries have, like germany -- bound for college, just like other countries have, like germany. some people will have technical educations. some will have more professional educations. so, we need to recognize that reality and change our system accordingly. that is going to take a lot of work. it will end up paying off over time. host: the next call for mr. walker is from pennsylvania. bill is a democrat there. caller: hello.

thank you for c-span. mr. walker, a want to ask directly of view, having followed you for quite awhile, and i appreciate the work you have done to educate the entire nation on our debt and deficit crisis before many people were paying attention to it -- you said today that the ceo of the country, the president, needs to lead the way to a bipartisan solution, and sir, i would like to know how we could convince you to run for president? guest: well, thank you. i would strongly prefer not to run for office because politics is a nasty business. at the same point in time, i know our country is at a critical crossroads and i believe this election is very important. as i said, i am not a candidate at the present time, but this

draft effort is successful in qualifying before the americans elect a ballot, i commit that i will give serious consideration to that possibility, thinking of my family, the organization that i run, whether or not i'd get a top-quality running mate, and, very importantly, whether or not you could qualify for the debates. that is critical. if you qualify for the debates, you can make a difference. ross perot did not get a single electoral vote, but had 19% of the vote, qualified for the debates, and he made a difference for this country. we made great progress from 1993 until 2000, but we have lost all of that progress since 2003, and frankly, we need to do it again because we are in worse shape. host: a lot of stories about gm today.

here is one of the business page of 0: the new york times." -- host: what are your retrospective thoughts on the gm bailout? guest: my view is given the stakes involved with the economy and jobs and that region of the country, it was a program

for the government to do something, but what was done was not appropriate. government should have provided loan guarantees, guarantees for warranties, if necessary, but it should have forced these countries to go through managed bankruptcy reorganization. it should not have intervened to undercut bond holders and basically prop up union contracts that in many cases will not be affordable in sustainable over time, so i do believe government should never done something. this is another example of where government does not learn from history. government intervened in the auto industry before. it was called chrysler. the company was successful the -- and the u.s. government made money on the deal. jobs were saved, but we did loan guarantees on that basis, and did not intervene to try to

cause some people to be hurt, and some people to be helped more than others. we should have done something, of what was done was wrong and it sets a terrible precedent. host: from twitter -- guest: i think we must have tax reform if we want to improve growth and enhance our posture. the way you do it matters. we need to broaden the tax base cannot eliminate a lot of the exemptions and exclusions, which benefit those directly. we need to eliminate the difference betweencl capital gains and ordinary income, so

people that are making money through investments are making -- paying the same tax rate as those that earn through wages. we have to recognize that our corporate tax system is not competitive, and corporations do not have duties of loyalty to countries. they can and will move, so we need to deal with that to make sure they have incentives to stay here, bring overseas profits home to invest in america, and also be able to encourage corporations that of trillions of dollars in excess cash to invest for growth of jobs or distribute that through dividends, and you do get through changing the tax laws, giving corporations a deduction for dividends distributed in order to eliminate double taxation and to provide the incentive i just mentioned. too many people in the country are not paying income tax.

40% of filers do not pay income tax, and that is not appropriate in a democracy because that funds the constitutional roles of the federal government. and the other hand, people like warren buffett to not pay enough of a high -- a high enough effective tax rate. we have to raise those issues and we need to do it in 2013. host: albany n.y. -- albany, new york. tom, a democrat. caller: thank you foresees an. it is a fascinating cross- section of american thought, and it is quite illuminating. i congratulate you and your thoughts and your ideas. i've seen you before, and i totally concur with what you are saying. one of the things that test -- that has come to me because i

have stumbled on the field of internal audits -- i am an internal auditor and a risk manager -- and it seems to me that i -- we would be better served if there was an army of internal officers that were willing to cover all of the branches of government, and internal audit and risk managers that had some teeth in american companies that were able to dissuade a lot of see sweet members from participating in these risky behaviors when they know very well that the outcomes, however not likely they are, they will be disastrous not only for their own companies, but for their shareholders and the economy in general, which would translate to everyone who s to work for a living. so, i guess what i would say is

one of the things i would like to see is the installation of some accountability that was armed with a sufficient number of internal auditors and risk managers that had some authority to change some of the policies and procedures that we now follow, so that if and when we manage to get ourselves out of this whole that we dug ourselves in because of this lack of oversight, that that kind of oversight would prevent this kind of thing from happening again. guest: first, i am a certified public accountant. as you probably know, every major department and agency have something called an inspector general, which is an internal auditor but does more than traditional audit work.

for any system to maximize success, mitigate risk, and insure the stability and success, you need to have three things -- incentives to encourage people to the right thing and discourage them from doing the wrong thing, adequate transparency, and appropriate accountability of to do the wrong thing. frankly, in to many government areas, we are zero-for-three. it is a strikeout. we have internal auditors already. we need to make sure the ones we have are doing a good job before we start having more. host: it is it cut 30 a.m.. but the jobless numbers are out terror at the unemployment rate is down to 8.1% -- the numbers are out. the unemployment rate is down to 8.1%. guest: maya understanding is

that is below expectation, which means these numbers are misleading. we had the low expectations and job growth, but the number went down because people have quit looking for jobs. the way the government keeps score is misleading. our future can be greater than our past, but we need to learn from others and get back to the principles that made us back. 2012 is key. people need to get informed and involved. host: you can continue the conversation with david walker around twitter. -- on twitter. mr. walker, thank you for joining us from pittsburgh this morning. guest: thank you, susan. host: we turn next to jane harman, head of the wilson center and national security

issues. we will be right back. >> spend the weekend in oklahoma city with "booktv" and "american history tv." check-in on literary life including must-read political books, the omaha university president, galileo, copernicus, and others. sunday, oklahoma history and american history tv and c-span 3. koss, a look into african- american life in 1920's oklahoma, and the american art effect. once a month, c-span's local content the heckles explore the literary -- content vehicles explore the literary history of cities across america.

>> sunday on "q&a" -- i do not regard this as just the history of lyndon johnson. i want each book to examine the political power in this country, seeing what a president can do in a time of crisis -- what does he do to get legislation moving, take command in washington? if that is a way of examining power in a time of crisis. i said i want to do this info. i suppose it takes 300 pages. that is why i said let's examine this. >> robert caro on the passage of power, volume for in his biography of lyndon johnson. look for our second hour of conversation sunday, may 20. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: jane harman, head of the wilson center is our guest, and our newspapers are filled with stories about the stand off between the united states and china over the blind dissident. how serious is the issue next guest: it is very serious because he is important and human rights is important. i've served in the white house of jimmy carter who put human rights on the agenda. i was in beijing here in 1995 when hillary clinton on the conference on women's rights said women's rights are a human rights and so forth, so we have had this dissension with china for a long time. now, a blind, self-trained lawyer who has courageously spoken against china," one-child policy and coerced abortions and has a terrible story to tell,

was in our embassy for six days, apparently not asking for asylum, but then changed his mind after words, and there has been a huge effort to find its way forward. i think it is very important. the less i have heard is maybe there will be away for hinson get a visa, study and the united states, and i presume with his wife and -- for him to get a visa, to study in the united states, and i assume with his wife and child. very good people are working on this. host: how was the human rights discussion complicated by this -- guest: the reason hillary clinton and timothy geithner were in beijing, there ride in the middle of this drama, was to pursue what are called strategic

and economic dialogue, which was established by hank paulson in the bush administration. it matters because every six months their face-to-face talks, and i learned from long experience and many battle scars in congress that if you know somebody is much harder to demonize the person, and it is in our strategic interest to have a cooperative in trust -- relationship with china. host: we will put a number of issues on the table with jane harman here, and invite your participation. you can begin dialing in or use twitter if you would like to be part of the discussion. the other part of the story -- the parsing of osama bin laden's documents. what are we learning, and you probably know more, about what those documents reveal?

guest: i have not had a chance to look at them. they were just made available yesterday, but i know a lot about the context. what comes to mind is the "people magazine" page, the stars are just like us. some of the most wanted terrorists in the world had anxieties, he felt he was becoming irrelevant, head partners with senior -- had fights with senior partners, was not sure about the relationship he had with other affiliates, but with all of that kept his eye on the ball, and i think they're absolutely is a good reason -- there absolutely is a good reason to be relieved that this man is gone. host: this week your organization made some news by inviting john brennan to speak. he was left many questions, and one was on the state of al- qaida. i want to play bad for our

audience and get your reaction. many conservatives say the threat is continuing to grow. [video clip] >> al qaeda is losing badly, and bin laden knew it at the time of his death. in documents we seized, he confessed to disaster after disaster, and he urged his readers to go places away from aircraft, photography, and the embarkment. for all of these reasons it is harder than ever for al qaeda to plan and execute potentially catastrophic attacks against our homeland. it is increasingly clear that compared to 9/11, the core of leadership is a shadow of its former self. al qaeda has been left with just a handful of cable operatives, and with continued pressure is on the path to destruction, and for the first time since the fight began we can envision a world in which the al qaeda

court is simply no longer relevant. host: jane harman? guest: let's understand what he said. he was talking about al qaeda core. when they attacked as successfully on 9/11, the attacks were planned and staged by a core group. think of a vertical hierarchy led by osama bin laden. what john brennan is saying is that corps has been decimated, and i agree, by a variety of actions, many of them using u.s. drones, but the takedown of osama bin laden was probably the most important action we took. it does not mean that the new, looser-affiliated structure that is estimated means there are no longer the article, but they are

hor -- vertical, but they are horizontal, and they have some capabilities. i agree with john brennan that the court is decimated, and a chance for a catastrophic terror attack has been substantially reduced by actions we've taken against al qaeda and in the homeland to protect american citizens. host: he made news when he discussed more details about the u.s. use of drones. drone policy is written about, and the headline is "a drone to far?" what should the principle behind the use of drones' be? there is sometimes collateral damage and frayed relationships. what are your thoughts? guest: we should use drones' carefully.

i thought the speech from john boehner and were hit -- john brennan, where he would not reveal locations, was credible, and he explained the situations in which we would use drones, and made it clear the we do not always use drones. there is a backlash in some places, and we have to calibrate carefully when we will use u.s. military policy. -- power. of view he has -- i have, and i think he agrees with that, is ultimately we need to win the argument with the next generation of terrorists, persuading them that strapping on a suicide best is less attractive than joining an economy, hopefully in their country where they can participate in the opportunities the world offers. host: in fairness to the writer,

there is a question mark at the end. he is supportive. guest: good. let me say that debate is important. one of the best things about john brennan coming to the wilson center is that he said there needs to be transparency in these counter-terrorism programs, and i am putting out there what this program is, and how we use it. as a member of the house intelligence committee i saw what we do and how we did it, and my view is that it is done carefully and there is full consultation with congress. host: one last big issue, cyber the security -- there is a new report out from fema and this year and a coat the new york

times -- "the new york times." guest: it is a very complicated subject. most viewers understand how vulnerable we are in our defense space and our government space, but in the .com space, were you and i used. a lot of the damage a cyber attacks could do would be to the private sector, not just communications between corporations and the data on their customers or their competition, but the private sector has a lot to do with running our infrastructure in this country, and that could hurt a lot of people. bottom line, congress hestia act. the collins-lieberman bill has -- is the strongest bill.

i would make it stronger. the alternative bill offered by senator john mccain, and this is my personal view, and some collection of bills the house passed have more attraction. we need to act, and the department of homeland security, is given a stronger mandate, has to be organized to do the mission. host: jane harman is the first female head of the wilson center, spent time in congress as a democrat from california, and became the lead member of the house intelligence committee. let's get some calls. new jersey. an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. welcome, congresswoman. the timeline of this chinese dissident is a little strange. i believe the moment he walked

into the american embassy they got in touch with the state department, and then they created this story. five days later our president goes next to the japanese prime minister and says he just read it in the paper. can you explain what is going on? guest: i did not have information except from reading newspapers and my sense of the players, but my sense is that is not quite right. the embassy personnel, by putting him into an embassy car , helped get him into the embassy, and he spent six days there. the reports i have read say that while in the embassy he was asked whether he wanted asylum, and he said he did not. he changed his mind after he was

escorted to the hospital to be reunited with his family, and then there was the issue about whether he was adequately protected, but one thing we certainly know is he had full access to communications to talk to outside media. if he could be beamed in on cell phone at 4:00 a.m. china time, nobody was blocking his access to communication. i am hopeful that something could be worked out fast that the chinese would agree to, and would be appropriate for him to leave the country and study in safety in the united states with his family. host: kalamazoo, michigan. you are on. caller: how much money is being spent for the department of homeland security and domestic

security, and how much is spent on the spying agencies like the national security administration? i'm reading that we are spending billions and billions of dollars, hiring 1 million government workers, building office space and facilities all across the country for i guess what you would call security apparatus. how many billions and billions of dollars are we spending, and how can we hope to balance the budget when costs are exploding on that spending? guest: you raise an important question. we spend billions of dollars on polls, but more on our overall intelligence -- on both, but more of our overall intelligence dollars on that than we do our homeland security budget.

there is a question about the right balance, and you are correct that we have spawned a huge industry for outside contractors that needs to be more carefully looked at. bottom line, we need to spend the right amount of money to protect our country. that is the point of this activity, and to protect americans traveling abroad and america's strategic interest. i think congress should be doing more to balance the budget. i have personally said for over one year and a half that the some symbols of approach to reaching the simpson bowls approach -- the bowles-simpson approach to cut $4 trillion is the right approach, but i agree that we should be mindful of excessive spending. host: a related question on twitter.

guest: ah, i am glad someone asked me that. i was briefed on the terrace surveillance program in a top- secret way. i was one of the gained of eight, the chairman and ranking members of the intelligence committee, and the minority leadership of the house and senate, that is the other four. there were brief scenes over about two years in the situation room and the vice president's office, dick cheney, at the white house, a top- secret, we could not talk to anyone, and i said when finally a book or a series of articles was published in 0: the new york times" and the president -- "the

new york times" and the president partially declassified some of these materials, i was finally free to talk to people, and that was the first moment i learned that this program was being operated outside of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. i spoke out immediately and consistently, and ultimately, congress amended the foreign intelligence surveillance act, and made certain activities of this nature were fully covered by belloc and subject to oversight by congress -- by the law and subject to oversight by the congress. it was a surprise to me that the bush administration at the time was not complying with the law congress had enacted in the late-1970's. host: fairfax, virginia. steve. republican. caller: i miss you as the

intelligence center at the congress of the united states. that position is empty. since the body count in china is about 86 million people, would it not be easier for people to simply let people that disagree with chinese policy leave the country? g tel good question. i think opening up china -- guest: good question. i think opening up china, the economy, and the government, making process is more transparent and allowing people to freely leave are better policies. i think very slowly, not without bombs and hiccups, china is moving in that budget bumps and hiccups, china is moving in that -- bumps and hiccups, china is moving to that direction.

the process starts in the fall, and will be finalized in february. china-watchers like joe nye predict that in this fifth generation, when it gets there, it will open not -- opened up. there is a fight between traditionalists and technocrats in china, and things like this chen guangcheng problem, and the problem with the former governor who has been exiled and ostracized for activities that are claimed to be corrupt -- those things are exposing some of the big problems in china. our task, though, as the united states, is to find a way to help china change, not to back them in a corner so it will not change, but to help them change,

and to become much more of an allied in ways where china can seriously help us and protect the world against catastrophe like iran and north korea, china's neighbor. i would also hope china could change its policy, which i think is misguided, on syria, and could help us, along with russia, which needs to change the policy, move out the president bush our government, and move to something -- ashar.ent bush ar finally, let me say thank you for your complementarity i love my service on the intelligence committee, and i'm still passionate about the issues. host: you mentioned russia, and it is the lead in "the

washington times." guest: i do not know why, but the first thought that goes through my head is change the subject. wag the dog -- the russian economy is not that great care of it is that nato shield is ever put up, it has -- great. bad nato shield has nothing to do with russia. russia did transfer a lot of technology to iran, syria against my personal wishes and those of many others in congress, like senator john kyl, who pushed back vigorously in

the 1990's. so, somehow this reads like crying wolf, and i hope we will have calm reactions. i do not see that as a threat to russia or to us. host: ben, silver spring, maryland. you are on. caller: hi, i will let ask you about your expertise on the internal workings of china, because you are way out of my leader on that one. i'm sure you are fluent in mandarin. this "exposure of the drone program" at the wilson center, that was very enlightening. the man did not answer anything. he just came out and said this

is a drone program, we are doing it, so now we are transparent. does that make sense to anyone? i do not have any power, i understand that, -- host: what would your question be? guest: i think he is asking why don't public officials tell me the truth? i do not speak mandarin, but i do get the drone program. i think what john brennan was telling you, was we are using the program, but not where we are using the program because we cannot solve bad guys where we will be next. again, why would he tell bad guys who we are going to take

out? he was telling you that this is a program that we use very carefully, and we do understand the downside of violating the rule of law, and he will not do it, so he might not unsatisfied and might not like the program, but what i like -- might not have been satisfied, and might not -- like the program, but he came to talk about the program, and we need to have discussions about this, and you're entitled to discuss your views. host: david and twitter s. -- guest: yes, intel-getting is harder. the