calls and with the weekend elections and what they could mean for the recovery efforts. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--] host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on tuesday, may 8, 2012. in the headlines this morning, the white house gets heat on the gay marriage debate. house budget chairman paul ryan looks at shielding the military from budget cuts. and news reports say those c.i.a. stopped a bomb plot designed to bring down an american plane. but first in the questions segment for the first 45 minutes, we want to talk about a new study put out for the centers of disease control and prevention talking about obesity rates and how they might rise. and we want to get your thoughts

on that. if you want to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are at the bottom of your screen -- dd host: and here's one of several articles that we'll be referring to this morning. this comes from the "washington times" with the headline "americans will get heavier still." c.d.c. report predicts 42% of delults be obese by the year 2030. andre billups writes there's no

sign of a truce of america's continuing battle of the bulge. a report projects that u.s. obesity rates now at 36% of the population will rise to 42% within two decades, bringing with it, a tab of more than half a trillion dollars in health care and related costs. the rise would top off at three times the national obesity rate in 1980. the country could save billons of dollars in health care costs in the coming decades simply by preventing further gains in average weight so we want to talk to you about the numbers being put out by the c.d.c. and the responsibility and who's going to help us out in trying to trim our weight lines. is that strictly on our own or

is that something that the government can and will get involved in? our first caller comes from washington, ohio. cella, you're on the washington redskins. go ahead. caller: yes, i have a comment about it. i think as the middle class becomes lower and lower and lower, our indicts are going to change to what's the cheapest, cheapest you're going to find and that's what you're going to find. and i have another comment i want to make. host: do you think the government should be involved in getting america thin or keeping america thin? caller: i think that there's are many, many problems that are interfering and i think that if people don't have jobs, if they don't have good health care, i think that the oil industry should pay their taxes so that

we can use that money to help seniors keep their medicare doctors and they should be paid a living wage. the doctors need to be helped so that they don't drop medicare patients. i think this is another thing about obesity. host: all right, cella, we're going to leave it there and move on to cleveland, tennessee. steve on our line for republican. talk to us about your thoughts regarding the obesity rates. caller: obesity? host: um-hmm. caller: yes, sir. i want to say the american people please wake up. number one, i have a very strenuous job and a guy told me the reason why i'm so successful with my job is because i'm skinny. well, the reason i'm skinny is because i eat right and i work very hard. i triple this person's numbers. so my personal opinion is they're making excuses.

host: steve, what kind of job do you have? caller: i exchange power meters for the smart grid door to door. host: so you -- so that keeps you walking around a lot? caller: yeah. people are buying all these pit bulls and whatnot. host: how many miles do you figure you put in a day from walking to house to house? caller: i couldn't really gauge but i do. -- approximately 80-90 homes a day and that requires going around the front door, going to their house around the meter and go to my truck. host: what kind of diet do you have and what kind of recommendations do you see the government putting out on like food or that kind of thing? do you pay attention to any of that stuff? caller: well, i pay attention to the government constantly and that's why i want the people to wake up. the government allow these food processors to intervene in all

types of just crap and they're stuffing us full of b.s. and when you go to the store and you see the people that have these whatever kind of cards they use to get their food, the twinkies, the chips, the multiple different types of cereal, i personally use multi-grain, regular real meat, regular real fruits, regular, you know, i try to keep everything -- i try to keep everything at a natural state. host: we move on to ed in ken wick, washington, on our line for independents. good morning, ken -- ed. caller: yeah. i talked about -- you know, the reason why it's called a food and drug administration is because food and drugs basically are one and the same, you know. if you eat healthy foods -- in fact, when you eat junk food,

that's like eating poison. and i think that's all -- that's the way i look at that issue. host: that's ed in ken wick, washington. -- keno wick, washington. there's another article in the "washington times" -- back to the phones.

pam is on our line for democrats. good morning, pam. caller: yes, good morning. this is a very complicated issue. about 10 years ago, i worked at a convenience store in upstate new york. there was no supermarket for 15 miles in either direction. kids and parents would come in with food stamps to buy food. and what they bought was candy and soda and all the junk food that everybody's talking about because we didn't sell broccoli, for example. so it's a complicated situation when poor people who don't have a car can't get to a supermarket. they have food stamps and they need to feed themselves. they're going to buy boxed macaroni and cheese, for example, which is a terrible thing to eat as the previous call said. it's a poison. so it's a really complicated situation. i don't know the answer except i myself would color code food

stamps. i would make green for vegetables and so forth and the food stamps, you could only buy like three or four candy bars. you couldn't buy $150 worth of candy bars. so that would be my solution. everybody deserves a candy bar but not unlimited. so i don't know what the ultimate solution is but obesity is going to continue as long as poor people have no access to actual supermarkets. and thanks so much for listening. host: thanks for your call. judy in missouri, you're next on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: i believe people need to be responsible, but i also believe that our government has completely failed this country. they give us genetically modified food. they do not label the foods. foods are not labeled properly. we have hormones, anti-boisk --

ant bosk and food additives put in all of our food and i'll tell you what. i'll bet you over 90% of the people do not understand and you do have to be responsible for what you eat. and eating healthy. but our government does not label our food and we do not know like so many of these things are bad for us. the hormones are so bad for young girls. and that's what you see in drinking regular milk. host: judy, let me ask you this. you talk about the labeling and whatnot. what would you put on the label and, you know, most people when they're in their grocery shopping, they're looking for beans and the can says beans, they grab the beans. people don't really take the time to stop and read those labels. >> exactly. and our government has failed the american people on this. i do blame people do have to be

responsible, but our government has failed the people because of improper labeling. host: david in cleveland, ohio, on our line for democrats. the c.d.c. says the obesity rate may hit 42% by the year 2030. what's your thoughts? caller: yes, i see that. i've been driving a truck since i got out of vietnam in 1968. the thing is other countries around the world are charging people just about half of their paychecks to have free -- i think obama care is the way to go. because if people really have to spend a lot of money to be healthy on their insurance, they would stop eating so much. i've never seen so many fat people in my life. we are spoiled just like the world think we are. thank you. host: we've got a tweet from don richie. he addresses the obama care issue. he says if obesity costs so much, obama care should offer free liposuction. next up is dwyane in irvin,

texas. dwyane is in our line for democrats. go ahead, dwyane. caller: liposuction. host: dwyane, are you there? caller: yes. host: talk to us about your thoughts regarding the obesity rate hitting 42% by 2030 according to the c.d.c. hey, dwyane, turn down your television. we're getting feedback and that's causing some confusion there in irvin, texas. caller: really? i just called in. host: all right, dwyane, you know we're talking about the obesity rate. -- caller: this isn't dwyane. host: who is this? caller: this is ron. host: hi, ron. how are you? caller: in eagle river, wisconsin. host: nowhere near irving, texas. caller: not a clue. [laughter] host: ok, ron. the c.d.c. released a report yesterday saying that the obesity rate may hit 42% in 2030. what are your thoughts about that?

caller: i think it's a situation where we cause our own problems. we're being fed foods that not necessarily nutritious. our food inspection system is just -- it's a crime that we've allowed our legislatures to let food inspection to go as bad as we have to not even trust what we're eating in the grocery stores anymore. as of the can lope list ya -- cantaloupe and listeria problem that we have, if people can't trust what they're eating, they're going to have to go to another source and that's manufactured foods and then you run into the obesity problems.

host: ron in wisconsin, thanks for the call. here's a chart that goes along with the article from the "washington times" that we've been referring to this morning talking about future obesity. experts predict an increase in the percentage of obese and very obese mernings over the next two decades and you can see the light tan is for obese, the dark tan, severely obese and you can see the numbers rising. according to the predictions in the source here of the american journal of prevention -- preventive medicine, and we get that also from the associate press and you can see the numbers rising for both obese and severely obese. back to the phone, hope, michigan, david on our lines for independents. david, are you there? caller: yes. this is dave in hope. all i want to say is that if you look at the correlation between

corporate profits and the stagnation of wages in the united states, you can put a t in between those two on a line graph and this is just one of the other problems that go along with that. we've got a bunch of dishonest people actually running our country and telling our representatives in d.c. what to do and we have no say in it anymore. so we're getting what we deserve anyway because we're not standing up for our own rights. bye. host: that's david in hope, michigan. this is on the front page of the "u.s.a. today" this morning. "obesity rate may hit 42% and health care costs could take off too." if nothing is done, it is going to hinder health care cost containment according to a research economist with a non-profit organization in north

carolina's research triangle. extra weight takes a significant toll on health. it increases the risks of type ii diabetes, heart disease, stroke, many types of cancer, sleep apnea and other debilitating and chronic illnesses. and we'll get to more of that article on the "u.s.a. today" this morning. our next call comes from john in danville, illinois. john's on our line for democrats. go ahead, john. caller: hello. i just want to say that people with low incomes, they can't afford to eat healthy and all that. i've been taking care of my family for 31 years and we've had to eat macaroni and cheese, hamburgers, you know? it's hard to go out and buy healthy foods with low income. there's nothing you can do about

it. host: john, based on your income and what you pay for food, how much more would it cost for you percentage-wise to eat healthier on a weekly basis? caller: well, you figure a family of four, it costs us about $150 to $175. -- a week to eat and that's with toilet paper and all your other stuff, you know. you figure to eat healthy, you eat the right cuts of meat, to eat lettuce and everything, lettuce is at 100 -- i mean $1.50, $1.59 a head for lettuce. you figure that's only going to give you one meal, maybe two. host: so john, eating healthier would add what? about another $35, $50 to your

food costs per week? caller: right. well, the way it's going right now, my hours have been cutting way down because delays -- you know, i wouldn't blame it on the government but i think it's more than -- what do you want to call them? not the environment, but -- host: all right, john, we're going to leave it there. we've got another tweet. this one is from sam. he writes this is not a problem for the government to worry about. bill in michigan on our line for republicans. bill, you're on the "washington journal." you talked about what fishing sam had to say. is that is problem for the government to worry about or not? caller: definitely not. the government needs to mind its own business. they have enough trouble on the country. what i say is most americans are

responsible for their own way. mind your own business. i'll take care of my family like i have like the people before me did. host: hey, bill, how's the -- bill? caller: yes. host: how'ds the health situation with your family and do you think that would be adjusted up or down? do you think you would be eating better or not? caller: no. i retired from g.m. in 2008. took a job at $10 an hour because i didn't want to stay home. we buy apples, broccoli. you cook it, wash them not -- watch them not eat it. kids get at a certain age, you want to force them, well, you're going to bring in child abuse. i say mind your own business. i will raise my children like i have been and i've got two good men. you guys, good luck with your children. host: jonathan in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. are you there? caller: yes, i am. host: jonathan, your thoughts

about the obesity rate hitting 42% in 2030. caller: i believe it's the direct correlation in the government and that the f.d.a. is doing. you've got pink slime in all your meat and you've got sugar in everything which -- the glucose in that. that's why we're having insulin and diabetes problems and obese problems because there's sugar in everything. the access to good foods is cut in half and the government is the direct correlation of that. we spent the last 40 years eating foods that are all meats have been injected with steroids, the chemistry in the water. everything has been building up for us to gain this weight now that we're overweight, you know, we're starting to complain about it. but this is in direct correlation and the f.d.a. and our government is not doing their job in watching the foods that is being put out to us. host: we're going to take a break from our discussion on

obesity. the obesity rate hitting 4 % from 2030 -- 42% from 20 30. we're going to check in with mary. today is the senate primary race in indiana featuring a race between republican senator dick lugar and charger richard murdoch. he is the state treasurer there. mary beth snyder, welcome to the "washington journal." guest: thanks for having me. host: what time does the polls open and what's it looking for the incumbent senator richard and luger? guest: it opens at 6:00 a.m. some at 7:00 eastern time. and they close at 6:00 p.m. and, you know, it really has changed.

in 2006, he didn't have a democratic opponent. he has never had this kind of primary suns he for it ran and -- since he first ran and the chief decided to run a single candidate, treasurer richard mourdock. he has made an issue out of the votes that luger has cast. he has made bipartisanship which has been one of luger's hallmark. -- lugar's hallmark. and he's 80 years old. that hasn't helped him any. he had been living in washington since 1977 in the home in virginia just outside d.c. that haven't surprised voters

although we've reported that in the past. his voting eligibility got challenged. you name it. dick lugar got hit with it in the past few weeks. host: we pulled up one of your articles on line and the listeners and viewers can find that at indystar.com. the headline reads some indiana democrats may vote in the republican primary. talk to us a little bit about the process there and how much help will senator lugar need from democrats if he's going to hold on to his seat as a republican? guest: well indiana has a somewhat open primary. we do not register by party in this state. you go in at the primary election and ask for either republican or democrat ballot. you can be challenged if somebody says wait a minute, i know that you've always voted democrat in the past or democrat yard signs in your lawn or

something like that and there's really nothing to stop. all you do is well, you've changed your mind. you are seeing the light and now you're going to vote for this other party and sign an affidavit saying you support those candidates in november as well. and there's no way to prove since it's a secret ballot in november whether you did it or not. every election, i hear stories of some people crossing over and it seems to be a very small number. there were people who voted for churchill downs -- hilary clinton in 2008 in order to prolong the democratic primary. i talked to more independents that might take advantage. and he made a specific appeal to those people on friday when the polls show him down 10% points down to mourdock. he made an amazing appeal to all

the groups that he's helped over the years asking them to come out but they are asking the democrats too. i don't think this will be enough. the democrats say that dick lugar has moved to the right. host: is the democratic, is he running unopposed? guest: yes. host: tell us of the "indianapolis star," what would be in your opinion, the issue that defines the separation between richard mourdock and richard lugar? guest: it is the psyche of cooperating or compromising with the other side. lugar has made a name for himself. he worked with sam nun, a democrat from georgia on nuclear proliferation to take control of loose nukes in the old soviet

when you. he has worked in other cases with the democrat. he has always voted for president's choices. but he voted for obama's supreme court pick. he is for earmarks. and he said that's because he thinks that's a conservative choice and that you don't hand over the power of the purse to the executive branch. that didn't help him at all in this climate. so mourdock sees himself as a student conservative standing on bed rock principles and never giving to the other side and he said that he would spend his

first year focused on less than more republicans to the senate so you don't have to ever compromise with democrats. host: this is our last question for mary beth snyder -- excuse me. guest: god bless you. host: so given the rough and tumble primaries that is happening between dick lugar and richard mourdock, will this be an advantage for the democrats in november, both on the senate level and on the presidential level? guest: well, they probably need something. they took a real drubbing in this state like everywhere else in 2010. they do think they've got a better chance against mourdock, but it'll be really hard for obama to win indiana again. and as he did four years ago. and it will also be -- they're going to have a tough road in the governor's race. mitch daniels cannot run for a

third term. he's term limited but he's still fairly popular. he's one of the most popular politicians in this state. and he's being followed by on the republican side, u.s. rep mike tense, very conservative but pretty popular. he will have a strong campaign. i think the republicans feel that they've got pretty much all the cards. but this does give the democrats some hope that richard mourdock will be too much a tea party candidate for voters and their candidate joe golly who is a conservative candidate that he can get if there. host: and that is mary beth snyder of the indianapolis star. she's a political reporter there. you can read her article at indystar.com. and you can follow her on twitter @barrybsnyder. thank you for being on the

"washington journal." we're going to go back to the obesity rate hitting 42% by 2030 from the c.d.c. "the washington post," the headline reflects that. nation's health and economic welfare expected to suffer. they write this view into the future is less ominous than one published four years ago that predicted that 51% of the population would be obese in 2030. nevertheless, the trend for tells a huge drag on the economic and welfare of the united states. we'll get to more on that article in a few minutes. let's go to damane on our line for republican. damane, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning for c-span. i really appreciate how you guys cover the news. i think it's a false premise that to eat healthy costs more. in fact, buying the unpackaged

or foods that you need to prepare are often much healthier and more often less expensive. but the government has conflict of interest because it subsidizes a lot of agriculture industries that foods that aren't necessarily healthy. host: like what? give me an example there. caller: the beef industry or dairy. people should check out the -- [unintelligible] a study called the china study that looks at the health of chinese people over a long period of time, the communist government collected a vast amount of data on their people -- [unintelligible] host: all right, damen, we're having some problems with your

call. we're going to move on to forth washington, maryland. randy for independents. caller: i hear a lot of people complaining that it's the government's fault that people are getting fat. i question, you know, how many people are going to mcdonald's and order a supersize meal or at the gas station and they get the king size candy bar or whatnot? when it comes don to it, it's on the individual. you can't blame the government for you going out and making personal decisions to, you know to eat stuff that you shouldn't. you should understand what's in the foods that you're eating. i spend maybe $180 a week for a family of three. and we buy mostly healthy food. we don't eat that great but

that's my decision, it's not the government's decision to say hey, we want you to buy this crap food that's loaded with preservatives. i mean, i have no doubt that some foods are loaded with preservatives but it's on the individual to find out what foods we're eating. there's a lot of information on the pack of boxes. you just got to understand what you're eating and you can't blame that on the government. host: next up is randy -- sorry, nancy in grand rapids, michigan. nancy is on our line for republicans. nancy, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning, rob. i appeared on the oprah win frye show a while back and i published a book called 703, how i lost a quarter of a ton and gained a life. i was watching your show this morning and i got very exercised because this argument about poverty being one of the causes is just ridiculous. i was obviously at that point on disability. so i wasn't exactly raking in

the big bucks. host: on a person of modest means, how were you able to do that? caller: what i'm referring to here is that i believe that anyone that is overweight and not to be considered obese is eating for emotional reasons. and if you're eating for emotional reasons, nothing is ever enough. in other words, you're trying to fill an emotional hole with food which can never be satisfied. and so i go through in my book what worked for me. everyone's tastes -- case will be different. the weight watch gurus, if they had the answer, we would all be thin. raw, raw, they're pearly tooth grin. they're not getting it done. host: nancy on grand rapids on the republicans line. we have another one who writes school cafeterias have salad

bars now. but what good is that to kids who've never seen a salad? jay in columbia, missouri, on our line for independents. jay, what good is it to have salad bars in calf tear yass if the kids are not eating them? caller: i want to say that if a nation can't take responsibility, personal responsibility for its own eating habits, what will they take responsibility for? it reassures my idea that liberals are crazy and suspend. -- stupid. host: cynthia told a conference that's going on here in washington in general, obesity rates changed little in the 1960's and 1970's, rose steeply in the 1980's and 1990's and have been leveling off for the past decade. the article goes on to say for men, obesity prevalence has doubled but changed little in

the past eight years with no difference between blacks, whites and mexican americans which are the three groups for which there are good data. for white women, the obesity prevalence has not changed in 12 years. it has risen slightly in black women and mexican american women although that increase mostly occurred in that 12-year period. bobby from new orleans. caller: good morning from the city of the fattest state of america. host: what are your thoughts of the obesity rate? caller: that's why i called. this whole thing is a reflection , this obesity crisis epidemic of a far deeper spiritual malady in our society. it's not limited just to obesity and food and fattiness.

look around and everything we see. pornography, s.t.d.'s, divorce, abortion rates. all of these things, just take any one you want. prison population rates, two million incarcerated. these things are all at epidemic proportions and levels that society has never seen before. even the most liberal minded sociologists recognize this. it's a deeper spiritual crisis. you mention the hollowness with our society. bingo. that's it. they've attempted to replace a belief in the transcedent god. host: bobby, we're going to get this train back on the track and go to asheville, north carolina. john on our line for republicans. john, we're talking about the obesity rate hitting 42% according to the c.d.c. in the year 2030. your thoughts. caller: my thoughts are very simple.

you know, i agree with all the people that are saying that it's really none of the government's business to tell people what they can and cannot eat. i fully -- actually at the federal level. many of these same people that don't want the government telling them what they can and cannot eat, if they get sick, when they get diabetes, when they get heart disease, when they get cancer, when they get all these different things, expect the government to come in and take care of their health needs when that happens. let's go with that. if those health needs are going to be higher, the cost of keeping these folks healthy are going to be higher once they get sick -- host: wouldn't the government do well and getting involved now before they get sick? caller: well, let me just put it this way. the government is me. i pay the taxes just like everybody else pays the taxes.

if it's not my responsibility to tell you what you can and cannot eat, it is also not my responsibility to deal with the cost of taking care of you when you get sick. host: that's john in arable, north carolina. -- asheville, north carolina. this one from the hill, one of the campus papers here in washington, d.c.

host: we covered that mark-up on c-span. if you didn't get a chance to see it live yesterday, you can go to our website, c-span.org and pull it up on our video library. back to the phones. albany, new york, john on our line for independents. caller: i'm a substitute teacher and i notice a big problem is in the schools where they for example, they reward children with doing something right, they give them candy and snacks all the time. i remember getting a snack at 10:00 or at 2:00 if they've had a good lunch. it's some of the things that government has taken over here. i noticed when i have to escort the children to the lunchroom that they come out of there and they have fresh food, peaches, apples and they have throw them

away. they have to take the fresh food but they cannot take it out of the cafeteria and the children won't eat it there and then they go back and have a doughnut for a snack and this is ridiculous. i know teachers reward children with cookies and candice all the time. and i think it makes the problem pretty bad. host: what grades are you talking about there in albany? caller: elementary. lower grades. host: so talk to me a little bit about how much recess time or how much p.e. those kids get. caller: they probably get three hours a week. well, they have three sessions a week, probably half an hour to 45 minutes each. but that is another problem. as they get older, their fizz ed drops off. i was a college teacher when i worked and i noticed that high school kids most of them are in bad physical shape.

host: this one from "roll call." expect student loan standoffs. senate democrats are poised to savage their g.o.p. counterpart this week over republicans expected opposition to a bill that would prevent student loan interest rates from doubling this summer. though republicans insist they want to stop the rate hike from going forward. jon kyl from arizona indicated that the conference will filibuster the democratic measure because it propose the offset.

kenneth on the line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: with a do you think about the obesity rate topping 42% by the year 2030? caller: what i think is that they kid themselves in what they eat. they should know exactly what they eat and they should keep the kids -- [unintelligible] host: moving on to mcclain, virginia. susan on our line for republicans. susan, you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: hi. i agree with so much of what the last few callers have been saying and the last gentleman from new york and two or three before that to say that i think this is a multifaceted problem, but when you -- when it really

comes down to it, we can't blame government. we can't blame schools. we really have to blame ourselves, the individual, the families. i grew up in a very poor community in the 1960's in queens, new york. my parents had no money. but we ate properly. and that was just purely i guess a cultural thing from europe but also an individual thing. my parents made sure they spent the time making fresh food even though we didn't have a lot of money, they didn't have a lot of time. and so i think in the end, given all these other factors, it still is an individual responsibility issue in terms of making sure that you cook the right stuff -- put the right stuff in your mouth, you know. host: all right. another article that we're looking at this morning. this is from the "washington times." obama decidings as biden zags on gay marriage. president comfortable with full

legal rights for same-sex couples but doesn't support gay marriage. a spokesman said monday as the administration scrambles to clarify message by joe biden in such -- in support of such unions. "i have no update on the president's personal views." jay carney said in a news conference dominated by questions about whether the president agrees with biden. and we'll be talking a little bit more about that later on in the program. we also want to remind our viewers and listeners about our spotlight on magazine segment. that's a regular segment on wednesdays on the washington "washington journal." tomorrow, we'll be talking about ben austen's article on harp err's magazine. -- "harper's" magazine.

and since rescinding that rule, hud awarded billons of dollars to cities to topple housing projects and build in their place, mixed income developments. read the article, check it out. it's linked on our website and join us tomorrow morning at 9:15 eastern time as we talk with mr. austen and take your calls and questions and comments on public housing as part of our spotlight on magazine series on c-span's "washington journal." our last call regarding the obesity rate comes from hudson, florida. dore on the line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. it's a matter of parents' influence and looking up, you know, giving proper snacks, carrots, celery, things like that. finding things for the children like grapes, you know. and one time when i was in the

hospital for a couple of weeks, my mom had my daughter eating chips and all kinds of things and did everything that i've done, my daughter gained 10 pounds while i was in the hospital. and when i got out, now i'm trying to get her back to exercising five minutes every evening and then working her way up to 10 minutes. host: how is that going? caller: oh, it's working out well. she's a little hesitant. she's giving me a little bit of grievance on it but she's starting to get the idea. host: all right, dore, we'll stay with that exercise program. next on the "washington journal" debate, the debate over same-sex marriage is heating up and we'll hear from deputy director of the gay and lesbian task force darlene nipper. and we'll be talking with howard marlowe, president of the american league of lobbies about the rules of governing lobbying.

first, campaign 2012 north carolina tour wraps up today. we asked students what role they think the youth vote will play in the fall election. here's what they had to say via the new social media platform tout. >> it's going to be a huge deciding factor. a lot of people graduating and a lot of people are fed up with the unemployment issues going on. everyone is ready to vote. all the people want to get out there and get their votes and opinions out. >> yes. i think that the young people would factor in the upcoming election because it will be our first time to vote and the next election will help our job outlook when we graduate. >> young people will always be a factor in every presidential election because they're a large part of the population and they're just getting to vote. >> and i know so many of my friends are voting for the first time. so it's a big deal. >> i do think that this election, young people will be major contributing factor who

will become president. i believe that young people has is a huge portion of the population and we have a voice. >> i think young people will have a affect on this presidential election because there's been a lot of movements on jobs, campuses because of strong support of ron paul and i think ron paul is going to win. >> absolutely. if you take a look at the last may election, just the response to all the young people did come out. social media is going to be key and a great way to spread the word of what people think. >> of course young students and young people are going to play an important role. they are the people that are on the campaigns working for the candidates, going out there talking to other classmates and talking to people in the community. >> yes. young people are going to be a factor in the 2012 election. >> i feel that young people will be a factor, especially where we know so much more about politics

as a young population than we used to and we have so much invested in the future job market. >> i think young people will definitely be a factor since they are such a huge part of the 2008 election. it will be interesting they come out here and get the same support. >> young people will definitely be a factor in this election. every election, younger generations are very influential. get out there and vote and, yes. want our opinions heard. >> "washington journal" continues. host: darlene nipper is deputy executive director of the national gay and lesbian task force and joins us to talk about same-sex marriage and civil unions in america. welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: thank you for coming. there seems to be a little bit of disconnect or confusion

coming from the white house regarding the official administration stance on gay marriage. there was the statement by vice-president joe biden on sunday on "meet virginia" -- "meet the press" and now it's getting walked back. what are your thoughts about that and what it says about the support the administration is or is not offering regarding same-sex marriage in the united states? guest: first of all, i think we need to be thankful and appreciative of joe biden of doing what he seems to do often which is say what he feels and he clearly spoke with clarity and distinct about his comfort with this issue. and -- distinction about his comfort with this issue. it's important for the american people to see. i'm glad about that. i think that's wonderful. i don't know about the stepping back. i also would like to say that this administration has really been probably the most supportive lgbt administration

in the history of our country, in fact, one could say that obama has done better than all other presidents combined on our issue. this is still the administration that has supported us more than any other. host: yesterday, white house press secretary jay carney addressed this during the white house briefing. we're going to show our viewers and listeners what they had to say and we'll get a reaction from you. >> the president was asked this and said his personal views are evolving the president does have significant support in the lgbt community and that's because of his unparalleled regard in support of the rights including the right to repeal successfully don't-ask, don't-tell. it includes signing hate crime legislations that includes lgbt

persons. it includes ensuring hospitals on -- and i could go on. host: what do you take it when jay carney says that the president's views are evolving? guest: well, you know, he's not there yet, obviously. he's not willing to come out and say what i think we all believe his records have demonstrated which is that the supports us but, you know, there's something about this notion of evolving. until we actually hear the words, a lot of us will not be satisfied, frankly. so we'll continue to push the president to come forward and understand that frankly, a lot of people do take a long time to come out and say that they're for same-sex marriage. i think of mild mother and other family members over time has become more and more supportive as they see the humanness of who we are as people and hopefully, the president can come forward

and show leadership and help others like my mother and others around the country who are just regular american people see that it's really ok to stand up and say what you believe in and feel comfortable standing in those shoes. host: we want to show our viewers the numbers from the latest gallup poll with the question should same-sex marriage be legally valid? and it's pretty much a split down the middle. 50% say it should be valid, 48% say it should not be valid. as this discussion moves along, what do you think it's going to take to get the numbers to go up , over 50% being valid? and is that something that really, that the government needs to be involved in? or is that more of a social issue? guest: well, i mean, those are a lot of questions in one, rob. host: sorry. guest: but i do think it's important for our leader to show some leadership and help to move the country forward on this very

important issue. i mean the reality is social issues, economic issues, these things are not very much disconnected in our country. so the reality is that the president saying that he believes strongly in the rights of all people, that he believes in fairness, that he supports our commitment to each other, our love for one another is a very important step in our movement toward building a country where all people are treated fairly. and that's really what we're talking about here. so i do think these things are connected and it's very important for our leadership. it's not so much that we're talking about every single government worker are talking about this issue because that's where i got stuck when you said the government should or should not be. the president has to step up. the president has to be the one to move us forward in a leadership whole role and say listen, our country is full of diversity and that every single person in this country deserves a fair shake. every single person deserves the same fairness as anyone else and

all he is talking about is the fairness and the importance of making sure that lgbt people have the same rights and responsibilities as we've heard the president say before. because people talk about marriage as you're getting a gift, right? but i'm sure many of the viewers know that there are a lot of responsibilities that come along with marriage so it's stepping up to the plate and being a full member of our society and i think he's right to say that. host: our responsibility is to get our viewers and listeners involved and they can do that by calling us. the number is 202-730002 for republicans -- you can also reach us by any one of three electronic social media. our first call for darlene nipper, deputy executive director of the national gay and lesbian task force comes from dellaville, illinois. randall on our line for republicans. randall, you're on the "washington journal."

caller: hi. host: hi. caller: i want to say this. i agree that everybody, you know, that the right to have happiness is our constitution. ok, starting with that. but no special -- no special deals, no, you know, don't, you know, expect to have anything going more out there. is that ok with you? guest: absolutely. i think that the caller makes an important point that these are not -- this is not about people getting anything unique or special. what we're talking about is having a level playing field. so right now, people are not receiving the same opportunities to live their lives fully as other people. so i would agree with the caller on that note that it's important for us all to have a level playing field. host: next up is shirley on our

line for democrats calling from manhattan, new york this morning. go ahead, shirley. caller: yes. i believe in equal rights for everybody. marriage is i believe between a man and a woman. and if you really believe so many blame they're christian, then if you go to the bible, you know, it says man should not lay with man, woman should not lay with woman. it's your choice. do whatever you want. but you cannot multiply and i think you are affecting our children because you are confusing them. live your life -- host: how are they being confused? caller: because they grow up thinking two mommies is right, two daddies is right and it's wrong. so don't say you're a christian, you know, if you cannot go by the bible. i realize this is the 21st century, but come on. don't respect our morals and our

values of this country. host: darlene nipper. guest: i think shirley has some points that are of interest to me because i do believe that the church has the opportunity to continue to teach its -- this is not about that and i do believe that marriage, marriage itself, not civil unions, not domestic partnerships although those are steps in the right direction and we all appreciate those are important, but marriage is about leveling the playing field. it's really about us all being us having the ability to live the full life. people don't understand that there are more than a thousand rights and benefits and responsibilities that come along with marriage that people don't quite understand. so they get stuck on these notions of general concept of

civil union because it's just not marriage. the reality is that these benefits are critically important. this is an important institution in our society and why shouldn't any person in our society who is law-abiding and a full participant have the opportunity to marry like anyone else? host: what is the difference between civil unions and marriage? guest: the difference is that marriage, again, has a full bevy of rights and it's huge. it's more than about the rights. i think what people are alluding to when they talk about a difference is this sense that somehow, the civil union is going to cover just the law. and what people really -- and in some respects, that's true but it's usually a limited version of the law and that's the part that people don't understand. so if you want marriage, you get the whole kid and caboodle. you get the entire breadth of

the -- breadth of the law. there's nothing different and for the earlier caller, nothing special. nothing unique. nothing special. just what everyone has has. host: our next call comes from wallboard, maryland, on airline for independence. >caller: i hope i could do this with the compassion and love this needs to be done with. it is wrong to be a homosexual not because i say so or because the government says so. it is wrong because god says it is wrong. it is not only not common sense as a way to have two men or two women together but it is god saying it is wrong. you need to get back to your bible. need to listen to what god has to say about your life. said earlier this morning, you

cut a gentleman off who was trying to explain that what spiritual effects are and what are physical. you did not want to hear the truth. we need to do what god wants us to do and then there need to jesus christ. that is what our country is in the shape is in now and with compassion i say to you, change, ma'am, because what you do is wrong, thank you. guest: this is something that a lot of people have issues with. i was on a show on sunday and talked about this. the biggest role that i have and other ministers to have in our community is to help people walk in the spiritual life and determine what choices they need to make for their own humanity and recognize what is valid and important to them and there are many, many things in the bible

that the bible clearly states is wrong or sinful and yet somehow this becomes a single point that so many people focus on. i understand that people have their own views and beliefs. i get -- i think they get the opportunity and the right to have those. host: let's get back to the phone calls with florida, good morning. caller: good morning, i have a question -- she says she wants to be equal to everybody. they have been minister is in the military that have been told not to preach against sin or or homosexuality which is a sin according to the bible. there have been preachers and the pulpit and churches that

have been told not to precess. if she wants equal rights to everybody, let's give equal rights to everybody. let the ministers preach the bible. let's let the minister do what is right. host: we will leave it there. guest: a lot of ministers preach exactly what they believe. item think anybody can argue with that. nothing in what we are talking about is in restricting the minister's ability to preach whatever they preach at the pulpit. this is not what marriage equality is about. it has nothing to do with ministers preaching what they want to. that is not with this issue is about. host: let's talk more about the politics and public policy. in north carolina today, it is election day and the polls open

at 6:30 a.m. and one of the things on the ballot is the issue, amendment 1 . it says is a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions. this is big in north carolina. they are also the host of the democratic national convention in the fall. were your thoughts about north carolina? guest: it is unfortunate we have such a far-reaching amendment on the ballot today. the people of north carolina will cast their votes today and we will find out shortly what that will mean. the fact that that measure is an attempt to ban marriage equality and goes as far as to say that even civil unions, really demonstrates a level of concern for us because it is so

far reaching. i look to north carolina to see what happens and how the people vote on these issues but the reality is we continue to get this kind of vitriol from our opponents who just want to say no equality for lgbt people and will go so far as to enact laws -- they don't care of those laws affect other people such as on married heterosexual couples or single mothers. they want to make sure we don't have a level playing field that they don't mind what happens to everyone alelse. we will see what happens in north carolina. i'm hopeful they will vote in favor our rights. host: this a tweet --

guest: president obama has a record that is clear. it cannot be defeated just in debate. mitt romney can say what he will do but we are all clear that the president has a record he can stand on. he has been the president who has done the most for the lgbt community in the history of this country so there is commitment to equality. i don't think it is a special set of rights. these are the issues of our time. this president clearly is committed to equality for lgbt people and for all americans. i think the record is clear.

host: back to the telephones -- we're talking with diane nipper. our next call comes from land on our time from democrats -- on our line from democrats. caller: i have a concern -- i have a problem with the fact that we are mixing up -- i think politics and religion are two separate and i think they are strong and i believe in the separation of church and state and have a problem with people telling people what to believe and how to believe. if same-sex marriage is an issue, i think maybe we need to look at the tax code. based on the previous phone

calls, a lot of this is focused on religion and i don't think religion is the issue here. it is a very private the leg. -- is a very private thing. if you want to convince somebody that maybe they can go to church if they wanted. we have a whole bunch of religions in the world but i don't think that as a factor. we have to accept people the way they are and move forward. i agree with the college. host: let's move on to florida and our line for independence. caller: caller: i am sick of close

religious people saying same-sex marriage is not right. there are so many divorces. they talk about abortion, name me one day a couple that ever had an abortion. thank you very much. guest: thank-you, again, very balance point that the caller is making. these issues are very personal to people. our spiritual beliefs and what we have been taught in our religious institutions are very personal and challenging issues for us in terms of how we want to live. i think both callers make a very valid point which is to step back and look at the level

playing field and ask ourselves - is it ok for people to be treated fairly? is it ok for all americans to be included in the fabric of our society? is it ok for all americans to have the same opportunities to live a full and productive life in our society? that is all we are talking about. i am not talking about changing anyone's spiritual of views or making the church do anything in particular. i am talking about marriage and sometimes people forget that the institution of marriage exists already in our society. we are not creating anything new. government and religion are already together in the institution of marriage. host: we want to show our viewers of this matter. map. it breaks down states according

to things in their constitution defining maris is a union between a man and woman. the very darkest blue states on this map, 28 of them have constitutional provisions defining marriage as between a man and woman. then the lighter blue statutory provisions with that definition. another shade lighter, statutory or judicial recognition of same- sex marriage that has not yet taken effect. there are three states and those three are washington, maryland, and california. then an ecru [laughter] states allowing same-sex marriage and seven of those days including iowa and new york and then there are three states where there is no statutory or constitutional provisions on same-sex marriage and those include new mexico, new jersey,

and rhode island. tell us about the work that your organization, the gay and lesbian task force, is doing within the states in order to get the states to recognize maris as a union between two men and/or two women. guest: we're working in a number of places all over the country. we will be in minnesota this year because we are fighting back a constitutional amendment and minnesota. in maine, we had the first pro- active measure and we will go to the ballot to vote for marriage in maine. that is a very big thing for our community. in maryland, there's a lot of work to be done because maryland and washington state are places where the governors have signed a bill but we are waiting for

ballot -- signatures to come back because it is our expected that our opponents will put us on the ballot if they can get them to do so. until we have a definitive vote in those places, we will not have those bills and acted. there is a lot of activity than our organization is doing on the ground. we're working on the ground to train people to recruit the volunteers that it needed to do a simple thing which is go door- to-door and talk person to person about who we are and to help people understand the very simple nature of what we are asking. we are people and we want to love who we love and we want to live alongside you as your neighbors, friends, and family members and those of the kind of conversations we have all over the country. host: let's continue the

conversation with our audience. we're talking with darlene nipper, deputy executive director of the gay and lesbian task force. caller: good morning, everyone. this thing with marriage equality, this reminds me of so rights. these words are being convoluted and when you think about civil rights, you guys are abusing it. marriage is nothing but an institution. society rewards certain people for certain relationships. homosexuals can marry, they just not -- cannot marry how they like. when you talk about civil rights, they're talking of things like color, sex and things you cannot change. this is something where it is behavior. you cannot control the race that

you are. you can't control the fact you're a female when it comes to your behavior, that is something you can control even though you're born that way. when blacks want to vote, the did not want to vote on wednesday. when a once again to schools, they did not want to get it to schools to be just like everyone else. you guys want to change the institution that has been established for a long time. this is not about religion. host: let's give darlene's nipper a chance to address that. i want to also give you a chance to come back engage in some dialogue. guest: i don't think that i have confused civil-rights at all. in fact, i think i am talking about human rights.

i hear all the issues about being african-american or having other issues that one thinks of as permanent. because sexual orientation and gender identity are behind the service of who people are, people forget that these are actually in eight aspects of who we are and not betting is that we would just choose to do. it is a lot of fun to go out and be a lesbian -- no, my dad to pass in august told me some years ago that i knew you were going to be gay when your age and my jokes that i wish he had told me. i had a lot of struggle. it is hard for people to tell. in some ways, i sympathize with the reality of how difficult it is somebody external to me to

understand how i made my sexual orientation is. we don't actually expect heterosexual people to make this same definitive statement about who they are as a people. we've ever asked questions about their orientation. we are talking about a level playing field. we're not talking about anything beyond the basic human rights of every single individual deserves. host: the state of florida has constitutional provisions that limit marriage. there are, legally, provisions in your state that prevent darlene nipper and your wife if

she were married -- there are issues they could not address as a married couple that you enter what could dress in florida. caller: that's correct. people same-sex are not being denied the right to marry. the state of florida understands that not all relationships are equal. just like you have girlfriends and boyfriends, but is not the same relationship as a fiancee or two people who have children. these are different kinds of relationships. it is just like i dress like a doctor and do things like a doctor and i know some things like a doctor, i should be called a doctor and i should be afforded all rights as a doctor. at the end of the day, marriage

is bestowing rights on certain type of relationship just as we do a certain profession. we want doctors to go to school and go with tradition and when they go through that, we call the doctor. that is where we are doing with relationships. children need a father and mother and home. host: give as an example of something a same-sex couple cannot do or a service that the state of ford's to conventional couples. the very simple example is public employees who had the ability to be able to put their domestic partners on

their health insurance will not be able to do that. this is a very basic thing. because we have doma, we have people who are same-sex couples who cannot but their focus on their insurance and if they do with their partners and their insurance, they have a tax penalty. can you imagine if you are married and because you have your wife and your health insurance, you get a tax penalty? i think every single heterosexual couple would be outraged by that. host: we have another 10 minutes left with our guest at our next call comes from our line for democrats from new york. caller: darlene let me thank you for speaking so eloquently and

clearly about this topic. i think you are really informing many people who may not understand the full breadth of this subject. i have two comments. i am an american-bore muslim and i will be getting married to my male partner next year. when i think about the country i was born and raised in, i think of all the wonderful benefits it has afforded my family and americans. the right of marriage is one in which i feel so strongly is a sacred right. when people want to remove the right of its citizens, they are degrading our nation as a whole.

i feel that such a travesty. guest: a makes me emotional to hear someone talk like that. i think this is the key point i'm trying to make today that this is really, simply about real people, and human beings who want to love and share and a family. they want to give back to the society in which they live and this is very basic. this is why we go out and actually have those direct conversations with people. when you have a direct conversation with people and sit down and talk about who you are an show pictures of your family and showed pictures of your mom and children and all the kind of stuff, is a point of connection. we recognize each other as human beings.

ensuring that our hearts and minds need each other where we do and i think all human beings have the potential to meet each other in a pleasant, humanity around love in commitment and family. host: this is from an e-mail -- guest: i appreciate that comment. that is exactly how i feel. host: mitch on our line for independence. caller: good morning, i want to make a good point to other religious nuts out there that always say i am a christian man had that problem all my life. the teachings of jesus have always tell you that you cannot police backed out of your

brother's eye when you have applied in your on. own. we all send and we always will buy you have to be who you are going to be. if we are truly the country of the pursuit of happiness, who are we to stand in the way of anyone's dreams? host: we will leave it there. would there be more or less -- would there be more debate on the said there were legislators are lawmaker that were either out? guest: i don't know what would happen in terms of whether there would be more or less debate. i think we would move along. we have always come from a

history of coming out and telling our stories and being authentic as ourselves. as a cornerstone of the work i do. when i go to someone at the community level and out doing the work and i am talking as a human being who has lived this experience, i think i can make a better case for why it is relevant and important and make that connection. at think our lawmakers would make the connection but it is not just about coming out and people who are lgbt, it is also for people who support lgbt people. it is not just about marriage. marriage is one aspect of what is going on in our lives.

we still are experiencing discrimination in employment and unfortunate hate and violent crimes in communities simply because of who we are and who we love. i think people need to recognize this is not just about maris, is much poorer than that. host: david on our line republicans calling from arkansas -- caller: good morning. nice talking to you. let me ask you a question and then i would like to follow up. is driving our a question. you said that people who believe in heterosexual marriage ge, you said to people need

to open their minds, is that right? guest: i know that is what i said but i think we can see each other. i can see or respect you or anybody else. i think it is important for all bus to open ourselves to see each other and see who we are. have open yourself up but you are talking about the others, the set -- that heterosexual, the majority of people in the united states and other countries since moses crossed the red sea to go to the promised land. have you ever considered and thought about why is it that

through thousands and thousands of years, there has never in the history of mankind never been as successful civilization that readily accepted the gay lifestyle except for the roman empire at one time and that is what led to the decay. when christ used those seven words that he said were not just regular sends - sir? host: guestare really need to gi am pressed for time. where the seven words? caller:sloth, adultery and homosexuality. because those things delve into the body to such a degree, there is no way that human life can be sustained in a type of

civilization that will lead to the production of children. guest: this goes back to some of the comments that we heard before. people have very strong feelings about their religious beliefs. i honor that and understand that and i recognize it. what i like about what he said is dead he mentioned some of the other issues in the bible which oftentimes people just don't do perry did don't acknowledge there are many things that heterosexual people and all people do that are in the bible and the bible says is wrong. it begins to broaden out the conversation and recognize that all of us have work to do when it comes to meeting spiritual ideals. host: steve on our line for democrats, calling from oklahoma city. what is your comment or question? caller: i will try to be required.

my general comment is this mixture of god and government. religion really doesn't play role in the rights are government of the port. marriage licenses are issued by the government. the constitution says that is equality. there are 7000 references in the bible to helping the poor, where is the one is dopa that says it's for the poor? guest: we could leave it at that, thank you. host: and we will, our guest has been diane nipper from the gay and lesbian task force. you can go to work -- there web site and follow them on twitter. >> thanks for having made. host: coming up, a discussion of the world governing federal lobbying with the president of the federal lobbying later and later in the program, we'll talk

to what is next for u.s. markets after european voters reject austerity plans there. first, campaign 2012 north carolina tour concludes today. students across the state and use the new social media platform to weigh in on issues important to them. >> i would have to say friends and family have been the most influential. these conversations cheverly helped me. >> my parents have been the biggest influence on my political views. we share the same views, i actually went through a phase where we did not. that always occurs may as long as i think they are happy with what ever. >> the president is dealing

with both and a bank young beloved responsibility. >> the more i hear in terms of what people think, the more contradictions i hear. it makes me want to do a lot of research and i'm learning more about the political process. >> i think a crop -- congressman christopher shays was a real moderate. i hope he can win. >> about four years ago, my parents came from a conservative family. after coming to college and spending time with many different stints here, i feel like i brought my horizons to be more well-rounded and intellectual person.

i have to say my liberal opinion is busily employed by my mom. that is where i get most of the information from, listen to them talk about it. >> i think professors and classmates and loans my decision. >> the people in my life that have loved me most and care for me most that identify with my guy is have been my influence for my opinions. that would include my parents, my closest friends, and even my professors. >> "washington journal" continues -- howard marlowe is here to talk about the role of the federal lobbyists. the industry is proposing altering a law that governs

those engaged in lobbying crocker -- congress and senior officials in the executive branch. >> welcome to the program. >> good to be here. >> in an article from " the new york times," you call lobbying tainted. >> transparency and accountability are important to us. people not need to know who we are what we are doing. i'm a register lobbyists and have about 12 was registered lobbyists. i thought of for my law bay and it tells people who i am working for and how much i am being paid. it will hold me accountable. it is there for everybody to see. there are several thousand lobbyists who are not registered. the law has loopholes but nevertheless, to me is important

that folks understand what is we do. >> tell us, what does a lobbyist to do? >> we are advocates. we help people convey messages. everybody does listing as a lobbyist. nonprofits and business people have lobbyists. we spend the spectrum in terms of what we represent in tried to have people get their message across to the right people at the right time in the most effective manner possible so that they and their views can affect policy . host: what is the difference between a lobbyist calling upper on capitol hill and in individual calling up? what will be the devil's between

those two calls. ? >> both calls get taken seriously because of by may rancher and calling my congressman, i am a constituent, i am a boater and therefore that makes me extremely important. if i want somebody following up after i made that call and say here is what rancher x has to say in terms of legislation coming before you, here is what he or she is looking for. that makes a lot of difference. it isn't so much just that member congress. the people making big decisions to may well be somebody other than their member of congress. how you get that message across? host: you talk about registered lobbyists vs. unregistered. guest: transparency and

accountability are important. i want to see all people who are not registered as lobbyists be left there is a new policy law that says striper sense that your time and a calendar quarter that you don't need to register. many people are paid to advocate. i'm a lobbyist with my own business and we are hired, i should be registered. other people, people always focus on the big names, newt gingrich says he was not a lobbyist when he made context. he didn't have to register. the law had a loophole. there are others out there. it isot just the dignity,

the other folks who are common ordinary day-to-day you folks going up to the hill having contacts we have come up with proposals for the american league lobbyist that will change a law that. host: i used in example of cattle but you don't represent any cattle interests? guest: not at all. host: howard marlowe is the president of the league of lobbyists and you can find out more about their website. if you want to get involved and the conversation, our numbers are

our first call comes from fort myers, fla. on our line for republicans. caller: good morning, thank you. i finished the jack abram loft block, one of the lesser of your honorable people. he is suggesting that the lobbying process is perverting the political system. he asked whether or not the campaign contribution is significantly different from a bribe? >> guest: as a critical questionmr. abramoff is a man who says fax don't need to get in the way. members of congress need money to get reelected and campaign

finance an initiative needs to be attacked. lobbyists are using the fax and adults will not listen to. there are issues of money that need to be dealt with but i think that he bribed members of congress he went to jail. it is illegal and that's what would happen to anybody else. if there is another jack abramoff and i hope there isn't, there will find themselves in jail. host: next up is petersburg, va., good morning. caller: good morning, i think that you guys are like money launderers.

taxpayers are footing millions and billions of dollars for their oil companies and then they turn around and spend it back on marketing which goes in the pockets of the congressmen and senators. i think they're right up to get the taxpayers' money back pocket. i think you all are crawls and i'd exit or later that people get strong enough to make lobbying illegal. it is destroying the bulova process and country. guest: lobbyists are getting blamed for what people think about that policy very we're also getting blamed for the fact that there is a dysfunction going on. in congress and people are annoyed about the economy. it is easy to take it out of a lobbyist. we don't have about very your member of congress has the vote. you can either keep? amount of care for a vote or you'll get rid of them. i am not a criminal.

i am doing what anybody's first amendment right is. i am trying to help your first amendment rights to petitioner government. if that is criminal, we are in the wrong country balop we want to show our viewers the list of lobbyist recommendations. the first as lowering the registration threshold. they want to eliminate exemptions and apply restrictions to all citizens rise reporting with regard to lobbyists, people have the impression that lobbyists are these guys that walking with a lot of money to pass around and take the congress and out to lunch or dinner and then there year on a particular issue.

tossell was a little bit about how you work as a lobbyist. is all that true? >> the general tone of it is not true. when i get a client, we sit down and our firm and talk about what their needs are and will let you for a valid need they have. want to do that, we help them set their priorities and their message and have a partnership but it sounds of what it is in terms of taking care of that yard, i'll be on of on doing e- mail. most of the time we get is with staff people, i will bring in mike fact sheet and i will tell them what is important and following that, they will hear from my client and one way or another.

it is very open. we cannot carry money or do bribing. giving money to a member of congress is very little. those are things that are just not involved. we have things to do which are basically sitting there across the table -- table from folks like you and saying here is what we're looking for here is what we need and why we needed and if there are any disadvantages to doing that for a member, we have to tell them what those advances are. you can walk along with me and see what i am doing. the you will find out it is one that involves work. people hire me or other lobbyists for knowledge of the process and people.

if we don't have a good reputation, we are out of business. host: president of the american league of lobbyists and marlowe and co. he has over 30 years of experience. back to the telephones, lionel on our line for democrats. you this morning? i want to tell you how biased lobbyists are. they are still in taxpayers' money and the mother is a - hawaii.t's move on to [dialtone] we lost barbara. next, set on our land for independence. caller: i want to make one comment.

i fill lobbyists are the problem with the process. host: why is that? caller: the problem is that we have lobbyists are skewing the actual numbers in favor of whatever process they are trying to promote. that is the problem with the political process. they skew the numbers of something i am against that i have no way for anybody to lobby for may. me. we don't need lobbyists and that is my comment. host: stay with me for a second -- can you give me a specific example or issue of something you feel has been skewed by a lobbyist for the you were not able to get across to your

member of congress? guest: yes, the oil pipeline. host: the keystone pipeline? guest: yes. host: how did lobbyists keep you from getting your point across to your congressman and north carolina? caller: the pipeline flows through some and a shared the tables and things that environmentally protected. i have not seen any person or anyone vote for that who was not from an oil-producing state -- texas, wyoming, california, what

ever. guest is it conceivable there host: is it conceivable there are lobbyists on both sides of this issue? guest: there are very affected organizations who are very effective at lobbying and a lot of grassroots lobbying and they are able to get their point across. this sort of an easy issue, it would be noncontroversial because it has no effect of lobbying going on both sides of the issue. we're trying to do what we think are the facts. host: next up is john from michigan on airline for democrats. caller: i have a question for the lobbyists.

. he probably knows more of -- bears a gallup poll about marijuana legalization at 52%. we have a medical marijuana law in michigan. can you gauge the support in congress? why is there such a disconnect between what the american people want for legalization of marijuana and that 52%, you would expect to see more representatives introducing this legislation. guest: there is a lot of reasons for this but people tend to think that the system is broken when, in fact, they have not

used it. your voice is extremely important. the people who signed that petition, people reflected in whatever poll was taken, those people need to take their responsibility and lobby for the utilization of marijuana. you can help them out of that is your position by making sure that you express your voice to the members of congress that represent you. it sounds like you learned in school and you have forgotten it. folks have to remember that they have to exercise their rights. it is our responsibility to do that. it sounds preachy, it is not. it is a case of you got to make sure that you are speaking out. lobbyists are not affecting that issue. that is a hot-button issue but you have legalized medical marijuana and a pecan happen in

ohio, it can happen anywhere. host: are there issues that people bring to your office that you say this is too hot and you don't want to get involved? guest: am i going to work on something i don't believe them? my approach to n iso, i will not do that. i need to tell a prospective client if something is not going to be doable. i need to tell on them that. i will not earn money for coming up with them to result. folks hire lobbyists based on our reputation and what results

we have. want to mislead them and say spend your time, spend your money, hire me and then a year from now come back and do it again. i have to give them the realistic prospects for what can happen. we're talking about the role of federal lobbyists with howard marlowe, the president of the federal league of lobbyists and our next call is from mike:, an airline for republicans. caller: thank-you, it is a brave of you to walk into this area and take questions. you made the specific comment that you will not take people's money if i don't believe in it. the problem is, you take money from the american taxpayer because your the person in between us and politicians. you stand in between boss and

justice. you have to be the voice but only if we have enough money to put in your pocket. you cannot tell you don't put money in politicians pockets. you hire these people is as they cannot of office and put them to work and work for you and go back to washington and do the same thing you do every day. andre standing between us resolution and result in anything that we would like to accomplish. stand anddon't between anything. i stand there to give a letter goes to -- a louder voice to give opinions. you raise the issue of the revolving door. there are already laws that limit for two years, members of congress cannot, after their former mayors of congress, they cannot go and lobby their former

colleagues. i would like to see that issue tackled more. it is something the needs to be done in terms of congressional staff. on the other hand, we are not standing in between anyone. i'm there to help you whenever interests need a louder voice. it is not something any more than extra staff. that's our look at a well- planned things. web -- we have a non problem in california and the two programs for children who need after- school tutoring to events themselves. i am there to make sure that they will know that program well but to make sure that other members of congress know how effective the kind of program is and try to see if we get more money put them not just that

program but to that kind of after-school tutoring. i don't see how that stems and aware of anybody. host: apparently, many folks think that being a lobbyist can be very profitable. don us and t as thisweet -- guest: when they see this program, they may not think that. there are some who do. when i was here in the last century, i was the exception to the role. i stayed in washington and most folks went home. it is now come to the point where the folks from the hill use lobbying as their next stepping stone. the issue is if they are qualified. i don't hire anybody because

they came from the hill. i don't hire them because they just work for somebody who is particularly important. i hire them because they know and have the ability to know issues. they have expertise. it is an issue of how you treat folks and different lobbyists treat them in different ways. host: we have an article here"from roll call"

what is the status of this bill? guest: it has one co-sponsor and has been sitting there but i find it is a good bill to look at. i don't agree with all the things that are in their own what i do agree with is the fact that we need to have more transparency. he wants to get rid of the 20% loophole answer to why. -- and so do i.. he wants to make sure there is a shorter time. , currently is 45 days in the time we are hired and we have to register and i would like to be shorter than that and our proposals have a down to a matter of two weeks, 10 days. we are in the same place and have had a lot of discussions. we may find a lot of common ground with that.

host: with regard to the lobbying disclosure act, it says $2,500 or more or compensation for three months for lobbying makes more than one lobbying contacts. talk to me a little bit about making more than one lobbying contacts, what is that all about? guest: i disagree with that. we are lobbyists and if i am hired to make a contact regardless of the amount of money in there for the quarter, i should be registered right away. we would like to go further than he goes. i think it is important to realize that in the interest of transparency, lobbyist should be known. we have re0% tolerance.

the not say anything in our proposal about how much time is spent. it is not 5%, 10%, or 20%. it is the issue if i am hired to lobby. after that, i am registered. host: back to the telephones and our discussion about lobbyists. next up is joseph online for independence from kentucky. caller: hello, mr. marlowe, since you are a lobbyist, you are pretty much as i see it. you are kind of like the voice of a certain group of people. you're like it public defendants of that group's beliefs and goals and agendas.

if a client comes to you, are they always large groups or are there smaller groups like an advocacy group that does not have a lot of money? do you do you still represent them on the hill/ guest: we do. lobbyists do pro bono work. some people cannot afford the kind of fees that are firm charges, which are kind of low. what is important -- you will see that there are small cities and towns and small nonprofits. other people represent other clients that are bigger.

lobbyists represent a variety of interests. nonprofits, charitable organizations. they do a good job and they do not represent the large interest whatsoever. host: what has been the effect on lobby groups by social media. you can plug your senators and congressmen with e-mail and tweets and social and electronic media and it does not cost them that much money to do that. guest: having started lobbying in the last century, used to flood offices with postcards. that worked. then it looked at the message

and found the message was identical. then we stopped doing that. then we would do telephone calls. usually they would call you up. "we want you to call your congressman about this issue. we will connect you right now." that does not work either. send it by e-mail. make sure it is your message and your words. host: rosy from silver spring, maryland. caller: i think the impression is that congress passes laws or policies and put a public face to that. it is the lobbyists and the

special interest behind closed doors creates these policies or the laws. a lot of times they do not seem to represent or are in the best interest of the people as a whole. i think that is one of the issues. then you have the transparency issue. there is a lack of transparency. i think that should change and should be more disclosure of what is going on behind closed doors. it is not good for the country. host: mr. marlowe? guest: thank you for your question. if a member of congress does something not in the interest of his constituents, he is going to lose. you cannot blame a lobbyist for

a congressperson to vote one way or the other. they have to do what they feel is in the best interests of their constituents. you cannot blame lobbyist at all. we have a role in the process. much happensoo behind closed doors. the meetings are out in the open. that was not the case when i came here in the 1970's. you can watch c-span. so much is here now. even the social media. people are reporting back to their group is on what is happening. the view there is a lot happening behind closed doors and therefore that's the problem is not well placed.

for you and other people to be speaking up and you will be just as effective with your lobbyist. you have a lobbyist. you just have to be able to connect with that organization that represents you. host: you have 30 years of experience as a lobbyist. what is the difference in the game plan in going in and lobbying a member of congress as opposed to a member of the executive branch? guest: in the executive branch, we're dealing with career government employees. they have a lot of experience. they have a lot of knowledge. we're working with them to try to fashion policies or regulations and we are either bringing information to them them-- "what you have in mind is

not going to work. at yowe think."wil i know a lot about water resources. let's say the core of engineers -- they know that i know what i'm talking about. host: eugene from new york, you are on with howard marlowe. caller: good morning. with all the obstructionism now in washington and through the whole president's term, it seems the disconnect across the nation that if you are at a big

corporation, part of the 1% and laying down a lot of money, it is not going to have an impact anyway. guest: what is going on is not good for the economy and it is not good for the public interest. we have a lot of dysfunction going on. you can see that every day, again watching c-span or listening to the news. it doesn't help the lobbying profession eater. business is down because congress is not doing much. perhaps on election day the voters will send a message about that. it is not in anybody's interest to see congress not doing anything. it means they are not attending to our needs. host: a call from michigan, edwin.

caller: i was in washington, d.c., about two years ago. what amazed me was the number of lobbyists going up and down the halls. nobody from michigan newt was in the bill -- new what was in the bill. we will be out there next week on the beltway run. like i keep telling my representatives in lansing, we will never go away. there are a lot of lobbyists running around. guest: what you just said it is key -- you'll be back. people come to washington and

are either happy or unhappy with congress and then they go away and they never come back. we council our client to be here not only once or twice a year but to come back the next year to be here when they need something and when they simply want to explain to their own elected officials and to those on committees, committee members who have jurisdiction on their issues. you have to be exercising your rights. host: debbie from houston, texas. caller: good morning. the fact that people paying you to represent them -- you are telling us that do not have money or you get in touch with a lobbyist -- might representative is a congressman and senator.

you guys are coming in and trying to be the medium. you are stopping the process by being in the middle. be in touch with your lobbyist. no. our e-mails get cycled and are selected by random. you guys have direct access to these offices. you have direct access to our representatives. if they know you have the money to back up their campaign, they will not listen to us. you need to get out of the way. just like the pharmaceutical companies. they spiraled down way. you are interfering with the process. get out of the way. host: debbie from houston,

texas. we have a tweet from tony. talk to us about the process. guest: nea represents teachers. there's not enough money from their point of view going into education and they would like to get more in. i do not understand that tweet. host: it sounds like money that could be spent on education is spent on lobbying. guest: the two do not connect with each other. the federal government spends money on education. thene nea would like to have moe spent. it is not lobbying that stops

it. people are saying we're getting in the way. that person on the motorcycle parade that they have, they have a loud voice. i want them to continue to have that. i want the other caller, i want her to be speaking out. they do not need to hire -- when people do need somebody with experience, somebody who knows the process, they can hire a lobbyist who will make their voice more effective. host: donna, from baltimore, maryland. caller: i agree with your previous caller. why should we have to agree with you or hire you? he should not be involved in the process.

you donate to both candidates, or both parties. you actually cover yourself. so either way, you can still get in the door where regular people cannot. why should write to the people go after you or talk to you at all? who are you? you're not an elected official. guest: i am not an elected official and we did not say people have to go through may. lobbyists are there to help them if they want to make their voice more effective. campaign finance is an issue that needs to be addressed. we mention that in a strong statement of concern. we believe there is so much money going around in the political process that there is a blurring of lines between what

people give to members of congress and the policy that comes out of that. there is a view by the callers that there's so much money going on that basically what they feel is that somehow something is being bought, that members of congress are being blockought. 0 a were a concern - king group on lobbying reform and campaign finance reform. this took us 15 months to come up with what i think our current proposals. we're now going to go back and tackle campaign finance. host: our last call from joshed from harrisburg, pennsylvania --

josh. caller: good morning. i know that there are a lot different types of lobbyists who work for a lot of different causes. i heard about one in a remote area, like a hospital or cell phone towers that they needed. some lobbyists to work for good. i cannot call you a criminal and i cannot talk about your mother. host: josh. howard marlowe, you get the last word. guest: it is important that we're part of the process. if there are problems, we recognize we are part of the problems and we come up with solutions to deal with those problems. members of congress share that

responsibility. we're going up on the hill this afternoon to talk to members of congress and i get paid nothing. i will be up there talking about how important it is for them to support us and our desire to improve the process. we would like to work with them on that. there is some things going on that darkness understood. i understand that the callers are going to take it out on us. lobbying is a valuable profession that has gone on for hundreds of years. we are one percentage point ahead of members of congress and help people view us. so at least we can say that. host: howard marlowe, thank you for being on the "washington journal."

up next, a discussion of the outcomes of the elections in france and greece with domenico lombardi. c-span is wrapping up its campaign 2012 north carolina tour. we asked students what issues are most important to them heading into the fall campaign. [video clip] >> the most important thing is jobs. if president obama had the right congress to work with would be excellent in creating jobs in its next term. >> the most important issue is economics. the person running for president needs to be concerned about jobs and i won a job. >> maintaining the low interest rates on student loans.

many people have graduated and do not have jobs. >> the most important issue for make has to be the economy. the new jobs -- we do have more for the recovery. >> my most important issue for the upcoming election is afghanistan. we have to figure out what our plan is. >> i think the most important issue will be finding a way to invest in america. we have to invest in research and development. >> electing the next supreme court justice and health care and making sure everybody -- >> insuring the implementation

-- >> the most important issue is women's health and women's respective issues. the health of the nation of women is the health of the nation. . >> the student loans -- there has been talked about for giving student loans and that continues to be a subject. >> women's rights. there has been so much prominence in the news about whether or not we are allowed to do certain things. that is important to me. >> i think the most important issue will be jobs. job quality -- >> the most important issue to me is the budget. i am concerned with which

candidate will propose the best budget to sustain this country for years to come. >> "washington journal" continues. domenico lombardi is a senior fellow with the brookings institution and is here to talk about the global economy. we will talk about what happens next and the impact on the global economy as well as the u.s. economy. welcome to the program. we have a headline this morning from "the wall street journal." host: talk to us about what happened over the weekend in france and greece and what we can expect to see in europe and then here in the u.s.

guest: we're entering a new chapter of the european crisis. this is about the economic crisis that is affecting the political spherfear. the result of the election -- supported the rescue program. the center-right party on paper won the election but failed to secure a majority of the seats in parliament. the leader of the democracy party resigned and has managed to form a cabinet into the hands of the president of the republic. this is once again -- greece is once again in turmoil. the mandate to form a new

cabinet is offer to another political leader from the leftist party. this is expected to fail. then increase will face a new round of political elections possibly as early as next month. host: what was the economic situation that brought on this crisis in greece? tell us about this rescue plan. guest: the history of the is complex. greece was ready to join the monetary union. to take full advantage of the monetary union. mistakes were also made over the fight over the other european countries in accepting too much

rigor from greece. the new economy is in free-fall. there's no way we can achieve the ambitious targets that the troika set before the greek policy makers. this continues to weigh, targets that have been missed and so on and so forth. so we need to move out forward and start a new page for greece. this new page and chapter should be about growth measures and focusing on what needs to be done for greece to come out of this. the standard stabilization program that greece was offered

in the first instance. greece faces issues, structural problems. the relief can be long term. one has to recognize that to start. host: france also had an election. headline in "the wall street journal." talk to us about the french election and how that situation is parallel to or different from the situation in greece. guest: there are analogies and there are differences. france is a key systemic economy. so far it has been relatively untouched by the crisis. this is sort of authorized the french to be in a state of denial. whether you see -- italy and

spain have gone forward in facing the crisis. we see the french are lagging behind in a way since the onset of the international crisis. their debt has increased by 1/3. left to the new government that will be appointed by presidents hollande. there is frustration and fear a long french people about the likely consequences of this crisis that still threatens to unravel the area and half a

century long process of european integration. host: you mentioned president elect francois hollande. it says he plans to meet with the german chancellor after the inauguration on may 15 to hash out opposing visions for the eurozone. why is it the french and germans seem to be on opposing ends of this discussion? guest: france has always played the role of the middleman in europe trying to mediate between the vision but for by the germans and the vision put forward by some other european countries. under sarkozy, france has shifted gears. i think we will see at least the

expectation and the hope is that there will more emphasis under francois hollande. you can enhance budgetary discipline -- this is a much- needed step. without growth, there is no way out. president-elect hollande is expected to put more emphasis. it is a chance as soon as he is inaugurated as president, he'll be flying to berlin and a few days later he will be coming to the united states to attend the g-8 summit hosted by president obama at camp david. there will be important international that presidents francois hollande will be facing very soon in his presidency.

host: we're speaking with domenico lombardi, a global economy senior fellow at brookings. you can call us to get involved. the numbers are 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-628-0205 for independents. outside the united states, 202- 628-0184. as always, we will be taking your tweets and looking after e- mails and the conversation continues on facebook. our first call is married from spokane, washington -- mary. go ahead. caller: here in the united states we have the same issues you're having over there. your country has always seems on

the ball to listen to the people. i was wondering -- i have suggested the united states this something-- how come you guys have not gone to the people and ask their opinions? there's a lot of people in the it devastates our intelligent but cannot physically work. but they of product or business ideas that could make the country money. if we had a competition with the people to come up with ideas to promote new business, a new- product in the country, then we're along people with a certain amount of say in the country so they don't feel so lost. it will make a hero out of the people the presidente will be

able to make himself or herself look good by listening to the people and what they suggest. host: domenico lombardi. guest: this is a real issue. there might be problems here in the united states. this is nothing compared to what is going on in europe. one out of three young workers is unemployed in italy. 25% unemployment in spain. you cannot have these long term prospects when you have such high unemployment rate. the challenge -- how you can ensure a decent future to this young workforce while some many are out of a job. this is a structural issue.

once the younger workers are outside the workforce, this is going to have an effect on their long-term earnings potential. the u.s. faces similar problems but on a much lower scale. host: michele in woodbury, new jersey. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have two comments and i would like to ask a question. they are not accountable to the public of the united states. there's a move with the global list to make america, canada, and mexico one region.

tell us what the situation with the central bank is in europe and are they accountable? serving then's people of europe. guest: this is really about financial globalization. right now the caller -- the financial flow provides opportunity. european banks may well have stakes in u.s. banks but it is true that u.s. banks have a very international reach and therefore the u.s. banks -- regardless of whether it is european bank having a stake in a u.s. bank, the u.s. banks is

subject to u.s. laws and is subject to u.s. record tory authorities -- regulatory authorityies. the same is true in europe for european banks that are -- that have among their shareholders u.s. banks. host: what message was the voters trying to send to the government? guest: the biggest frustration this weekend is really -- president sarkozy promise to -- very little was achieved under

his presidency. it is to the presidency was hijacked by the european crisis. there was a recessionary environment. the need for france to move forward sarkozy did not pick up on that. the president-elect francois hollande was more successful run the project where it was not just about budget austerity. will observed some budget austerity in france, of course. it will be about reforms and growth and not just reacting to what the french government is being told. host: with regard to austerity,

what lessons can be learned by the u.s. government and the obama administration regarding spending matters in the united states and the ramifications of some kind of austerity plan further down the road for the united states? guest: i think the european crisis would be a lesson. among advanced economies, we have been used to observe it crises elsewhere -- in emerging economies, line america, in asia -- but not in countries or regions that issue reserve currencies, such as the euro. countries that do issue reserve currencies are being refused access to financial markets. that is what is driving up the

yields in europe. ere is lessons for the united states. if we look at the -- the u.s. fiscal situation is more your worrisome. the best fit to gdp ratio is very modest. debt to gdp ratio is also very modest. the lesson is if you are an advanced economy, vibrant economy, with a strong currency, you have to be careful because crises nowadays can strike anywhere.

host: we're talking with domenico lombardi of brookings. he is an expert on the g-8 and the g-20 summits and global currency. his current prize 6 focus on the international crisis and the ongoing european crisis as well as reform of the imf and the world bank. birmingham, alabama, gordon. gordon? caller: the basis of this whole thing -- there is a massive entitlement program in greece and italy. they spending way too much money. we have not been spending enough. they want to get their money from. the only people with money is the germans.

if i am a german taxpayer, there is no way i would give my tax money to greece, italy, spain. why should a german taxpayers want to give their money away, in my opinion? guest: i think the caller raises a good point. like germany should support thiese countries of europe -- wy germany should support these countries? germany does benefit. germany is more and less in line with china. most of the german experts go to the rest of the euro area. big export markets for germany.

germany has benefited from the single currency. it is an average of the currency's and is much more competitive and lower than if the germans was still of the still had the deutche mark. fect condition, conditi the rest of the area would be pursuing its own self national interest. host: betty from california. caller: good morning. host: your question or comment? caller: i read about the

election and reaction from wall street. i was wondering what the average person would want to do. i know we're living in uncertain times and that some people are stocking up on things. eire people are eyeing thtei gun racks. what would they have us do/ ? host: that was betty from california. there is an article from "usa today." in it they write -- host: your thoughts. guest: there is no doubt the

euro area would go through a protracted period of light contraction, especially in italy and spain. italy and spain this year are forecast to contract by about 2%. it is under the best scenario, a scenario which rules out any unravelling or break down of the euro area. europe will not contribute to global growth. hopefully it will not detract from that and the u.s. economy will be able to reinvigorate on economic growth. it is expected to grow at a rate of 2% this year. there will be contracting by t2%.

maybe to 0.5% next year -- maybe 2.5% next year. if things were to unravel, the u.s. economy would be hit by linkages. this is a scenario that the administration is actively working not and trying to avoid. this will be the major theme of the forthcoming g-8 summit that the white house will be hosting in two weeks. host: joe from covington, georgia. caller: are you in building getting very old? if we move it from here to france, with a tapeke it?

given like a new name and a revamping -- give it a new name and a revamping. there is the hague and the kremlin. host: would there be any sort of an advantage to a shift in focus away from the u.n. to organizations in europe? has the global economy worked in a kind of direction? isst: what we're seeing there is a major push toward strengthening international organizations. what we have seen is that the imf, located here in washington, was deemed almost to be relevant until a few years ago. -- was deemed to be almost

irrelevant. it regained prominence things to support from the critical shareholders in the united states. the imf is that the cornerstone of the international monetary system. they have their own rescue fund. they have made clear they are unable to fight the crisis with their resources alone. they want the international community and the one the advice of the imf along the way. towardsre's a trend building regional organizations, but these regional organizations are in competition with international ones. they are trying not to work as a team towards fighting issues that are a global threat to.

host: what kind of changes do you expect in the conversations that will take place at the g-8 summit based on the outcomes of the elections this weekend in greece and france? guest: the outcome of the french election and the election of president francois hollande, that is created uncertainty in france. francois hollande has never held any ministerial position or any elected office apart from some roles -- the visible roles in france so far -- municipal roles. we are focusing on hollande's first steps. this will be an opportunity from

the nation's to also get in a personal acquaintance and get to know this head of state better. right now people in washington know what is reported by the press about him. host: joshua in jacksonville, florida. you're on the "washington journal" with domenico lombardi. caller: thank you for taking my call. what exactly is the socialist party platform in france and how does it differ from the socialist party for democratic party in the u.s.? guest: we could say that hollande comes from the socialist party but he is really a socialist democrat. kind of a centrist.

he also tried to please the left-wing groups of his own electorate. what we can expect is that hollande will be moving more towards the center as he gets power. it will still be a continental european, a vision for relatively stronger role of the state. this will have to be some out amended in light of the current events. this is where the difference with the u.s. democrats lie. the democrats are more for markets and this has to be a fair market. host: ann from colorado, good

morning. caller: i think what is missing from the discussion is the financial sector in europe participated in creating the problem of debt in europe. i worked for a large financial institution. i know what their derivative activity was. also in europe how goldman sacks cooked the books to hide the debt. i think a discussion largely is omitting what problem is in the financial institution that drerw kind of crisis to the people that have to shoulder the burden. even when the greek debt was

forgiven, investors were made whole. it is so lopsided, even the discussion and i would appreciate your comments. guest: this burden sharing brings me to the point that one of the previous callers was making. they were being financed by a number of financial institutions located in germany and france. there is the issue that the french and german banks should have been disciplined in a much more effective way than they have been. the debt forgiveness and the private sector involvement -- this is the defining jargon.

this came late in the game. a number of financial institutions sold off. the need to try to get a fair market sharing and will we see is that workers in greece and other economies of europe are taking most of the hit. host: damian from texas on new line for a democrats. caller: the previous caller said -- alluded to the financial institutions as being a large part of the cause for the crisis in europe. i guess the question i would like to ask is -- in developed

countries, there is a big difference between africa versus southern europe. you have high unemployment in africa. in developed countries where you have high unemployment, are the social safety nets that are much more liberal in europe, are they in any way responsible for the higher unemployment rate? is the safety net making it easier for people not to work? thank you. guest: it is not the issue of social safety nets per se, but more how they are framed in europe. the structure of safety nets, the restrictions on hiring and firing -- we observed the

relatively high unemployment rates that we were talking before. the challenges, how we will reform the safety nets in a way that they provide an incentive for this unemployed workforce to be able to find a job. in this context of uncertain times, a businessman will think twice and even 10 times whether to hire a worker if he or she is not sure he can dismiss the worker should the economic conditions require that. the economic reality is what it is. one has to think hard in terms

of forgoing some of the benefit and the privileges just to get it wider share of the population to work. host: we're talking about europe's challenge to austerity with domenico lombardi and we have another eight minutes in this edition of "washington journal." they write -- "that will make european imports cheaper." host: your thoughts about that. guest: it might be certainly a

bidding factor for europe to get out of the crisis. this partly reflects -- this is an average currency. for some countries, it is too high. say, for italy and spain. better growth otherwise, the cannot maneuver on monetary policy because monetary policy has been delegated to the european central banks. . they have very low role in terms of fiscal policy because

there will have to consolidate. what kind of growth policy they will introduce on top of a much- needed -- it may provide a much- needed boost for the economy. host: jay from missouri. caller: i lives over there for a while, in germany. when the wall went down -- people used to say, "why don't we have money like you have in america?" to do not work -- you do not work. they depend on the government for everything. if you do not want to raise your child, there will put money

in the child pocket so they're not bothering the german mother. it is ridiculous. you know how it is happening? through the imf and it has to stop. host: we will leave it there. too much dependence on the government? is that the problem? guest: they provide a spectrum of services. let's think about education. .et's think about health care there are some drawbacks. the europeans may be exceedingly reliance on the state.

clearly, the government will have less resources to fund their services. this is the crux of the matter and the first challenge that president hollande will have to face early on in his presidency. it is clear that the fiscal consolidation -- they will have to prioritize what to fund and what not to fund. for a generational people that have benefited from high quality services, this is going to be a tough choice. host: define between the incoming president and president obama and how that relationship might be different than the relationship between president

obama and sarkozy. guest: it is a bit difficult because francois hollande does not have a track record. it is difficult to predict what kind of choices he will make on certain issues. they do face a fiscal consolidation challenge. president obama has decided to pursue fiscal conservative asian -- consolidation. you want to be realistic about implementing your fiscal austerity plan. that does not serve anyone if in the and people are not going to spend. this will set the economic on a deflationary trend.

perhaps they have gone too much into austerity mode. we will need to pursue it. it implies that you still need to spend up to a point where your economy is able to pay off your debt. host: last call, michael from houston, texas. go ahead. bonjourno.j only 2% of gross national product is exported to europe. why should the u.s. or about what is happening in europe? if you have any ties to our