"washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. here are your headlines. jpmorgan chief of investments is stepping down after the $2 billion trading loss. in washington, d.c., lawmakers called for a criminal investigation regarding the recent plot to take down an airplane using and underwear bomb. president obama and newly stated

report over gay marriage. do you think after the jpmorgan shake-up there is a need for further regulation in the banking industry? the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. you can also catch up with us on all your favorite social media platforms, printer, facebook, and on e-mail, journal@c- span.org. i want to take it to the story of "the new york times" this morning.

here is a picture of her here. and in "the wallstreet journal" there is a larger picture you can see. after the $2 billion trading loss, from of bloomberg this morning. lots of a fallout from this $2 billion loss. the headline is, regulators-1, jamie dimon, 0.

what to ticket to a clip of jamie dimon himself talking

about the fallout. [video clip] >> we know there was bad judgment. we know we were sloppy. regulators should look. that is their job. there will come to their own conclusions. we will be a better company when it is done. host: that was jamie dimon on the show yesterday. we want to hear your thoughts. was this something they can fix and that they do not need more regulation for. give us a call. start calling now. first, we want to take you to niels lesniewski. are you there? guest: in here. good to be with you this morning. host: what is going on in the senate this week? guest: the senate is going to

start with a procedural vote this evening on the reauthorization of the export/import bank. you may remember the house passed the this agreement last week which had been negotiated by eric cantor. that agreement would agree authorized the bank and raise the lending cap up to $140 billion by 2014. on that bill, there is one doesn't senate republicans who have supported it. so long as there is an agreement reached on an -- on a reasonable amendment process for debate on the bill. host: take us to the big news in the house that is going on. guest: the house will be primarily dealing with two

matters this week. the first is the authorization of the violence against women act. the senate passed a version of that not long ago. democrats contend that the house bill would limit the ability of undocumented women to apply for special visas in order to stay in the united states if they have been the victims of domestic violence. that will be the issue there. and again expected the house to spend much of the week on a six of $42 billion defense program bill. that was -- six of $42 billion. -- $642 billion defense program bell.

host: will they finish that this week or will it -- or will that lead to the next couple of weeks? guest: it looks like there will be coming back to tuesday and working till friday. they should be able to get the defense authorization bill done. the rules committee usually restricts the number of amendments that can be offered to that bill. unlike last week with that signs of preparation bill, there is a tighter cap on the number of amendments that may be offered. host: niels lesniewski, thank you for joining us with that update on what is going on with the hill this week. we showed you a clip of jamie dimon from jpmorgan on the sunday shows yesterday. want to take to some of the critics of the banking industry. barney frank appeared to discuss

the $2 billion error. [video clip] >> the volcker rule was still being formulated. part of the problem is, republicans, while the have plenty of money to spend that have worked out well, have reduced the funding that we have asked for from the agency that is supposed to regulate derivatives. we are talking about an additional $100 billion. we spent billions in afghanistan. the fact is that the cftc has been slow to do that. there are other factors in the world that are going forward. years ago, what happened was entities like jpmorgan chase made bets on derivatives and could not pay for it. we now have rules that say you cannot give yourself in that position.

host: he also appeared with the congresswoman from tennessee. here's what she said. [video clip] >> there is a lot more that will come out, i think. i look forward to getting that information. i think the volcker rule issue riley said, there will pinpoint whether it was violated or not. they have already had 400 rule- making sessions. this is where you have so much government regulation coming and that you cannot see the forest through the trees. i think that is what we want to do. it is not nonsense, barney. we want to make certain as we look at this that we do not enshrine too big to fail. host: she is talking about the volcker rule. it has been an issue.

this is the role that would bar executive trading on bank deposits. this past weekend, and "the washington post." -- in "the washington post."

host: that, again, from this weekend's "the washington post." we will start in new hampshire with catherine on the independent line. caller: good morning. i think we need more regulation. i have a suggestion. big banks like j.p. morgan, companies like our u.s. auto companies, some government agencies, the following words -- nationalizing -- rationalizing their failures. many american workers jobs have been outsourced to foreign countries where the workers are paid less and there are no regulations, such as safety standards.

if one follows this logic of using foreign workers, then why not in at-source confident executives from foreign countries to run our banks? companies, government agencies, at a much lower rate of pay? make 400+ times than the average worker. if american executives thought their jobs might be replaced by foreign competent executives, maybe they would be more responsible and accept regulation. host: thank you for the call. we will go to the democratic line. good morning. caller: the morning. listening to marcia blackburn, i understand why she is the first woman from tennessee to get elected to congress.

my concern is not jamie dimon or jpmorgan. they seem to be transparent anyway. i thought the idea of the volcker rule and the subsequent stuff behind its are for those companies that are not as transparent. you gotta remember. jpmorgan was the only one to come out 2008 with a profit. the rest of them, aig, they went down and we, the american public, had to pay for that. i do not want to go through that again. get ridasking anyone to of incentive. i am not asking banks to take a loss. i am asking, as a taxpayer, take reasonable risk. accept reasonable regulation.

i am tired of paying for banks. i think the average american is, too. have a good day. host: there is a column in today's "the new york times." the headline is -- why we regulate.

-- that,n is to the's again, it is today's "the new york times." we have richard on the republican line. caller: i do not believe too much of what paul krugman says, but i think he is right on this issue. they should get rid of the derivatives and go back to the class steele act. the paul volcker rule does this, then i'm for it. i am a republican. the republicans are totally wrong on this issue. i think i will look for another party if they don't straighten out. thank you very much. host: thank you. on twitter --

want to read you one more editorial on the subject from "the wallstreet journal" today.

we will go to the democratic line. good morning. caller: the real problem is obama, the republicans, whoever it is, to not make sense. they took money -- both parties did. the reality is if you want to get the banks attention, the volcker rule is a stupid substitute. if you just want to go back to that act, fine. if you want to take the risk,

you fail. taxpayers do not have to take the risk. until we get democrats and republicans to do that, we need to go all out. including obama. romney did worse than bush. he earned all his money on wall street. if we went further and ended the speculation of energy futures, gas prices would go back. speculation is running up the market. host: thank you. on twitter -- want to tell you a little bit more about what actually happened in that $2 billion loss and how they lost that money. this is from "the new york times" front-page story.

a bit more explanation as to what happened. josh, on the republican line from michigan. do you think this $2 billion loss means more regulation? caller: i really think that is probably the way is is going to go. that article you read earlier,

they are ironic when obama is getting money from goldman sachs, jpmorgan, citigroup. the core issue is there is no substantive difference anymore. these regulations will only be a facade. as long as we have a system and the federal reserve that continues to print money for congress, they will spend its, bailing out the same bankers. -- spend it, bailing out the same bankers. host: thank you so much. caller: good morning. i'm calling about the stuff with the banks. it's like when they came out

with the stuff about the home loans. they did not do anything about the home loans. we bailed them out. i have a loan with them. when my husband passed, they told me i had to refinance my house, which was untrue. i had that damages to my house from hurricane ike. they did not even force the insurance to pay me. the attorney general is saying now they have taken over. that is not true. i filed a complaint with the texas attorney general's office and they have done nothing to assist me. the need to get jamie dimon out of there and re-staff them. that with the people who have loans, they can stop mistreating them. there is nobody in america that helps homeowners. the have all these people that are supposed to regulate these

banks. they do absolutely nothing. the people who are supposed to be regulating these homes -- somebody from the top, obama or someone on his staff, needs to do something to regulate them. all they are doing is taking taxpayer money and wasting it. people are suffering in america. host: elaine from texas, arguing that jamie dimon should go. programming note for you today. president obama will be delivering the commencement address at barnard college in new york city. it will happen at about 10:00 p.m. while in new york, he will also make an appearance on "the view ."

the taped appearance will be airing on tuesday morning. in other financial news for you this morning, we will stay on this question of regulation as you call an. we wanted to let you know the other financial news. the yahoo chief quit over resonate. a large picture of scott thompson. he quit 10 days after it was revealed he did not have one of the academic qualifications claimed on his personal resonate. he became the center of a storm. he only had a degree in accounting and not in computer science that had been claimed. that is from "at the financial times"-- "the financial times" this morning.

here are the five people who have run it since 1995. that is an "the wallstreet journal" if you want to read that. back to the question about jpmorgan and the $2 billion loss. democratic line. caller: thank you. i am not highly knowledgeable about this topic. i have watched a documentary called "inside job." i highly recommend it for folks to watch. all morning, the republicans and independents and democrats alike, most americans are on the same page about this. most of us are not millionaires or multi-millionaires. we want to see the same accountability that is applied it to the middle class like these wall street folks.

i also listened to a professor, william black who was the head litigator in the savings and loan scandal. you can go google that and watch him at boss angeles. -- los angeles. he talks about that scandal which we had seen in the subprime loan fraud. there were 10,000 prosecutorial deferrals. over 1000 people prosecuted. out there, we see people prosecuted for the crimes committed. we are not seeing it, even with the obama administration. host: let me ask about the government getting involved in banks. do you think $2 billion is an amount the government to get involved in? what is the cut off? what if it is $100 million? $10 million?

what level should the government get involved? caller: again, i am clearly not a close expert or know a whole lot about this issue. i have learned more since the 2008 fraud. that would be something determined -- our congressman, clearly, are brought out by some of these same individuals. where they come up with a number like that, i would not know. i know the volcker rule, which i believe, is similar to the role with a separate the different types of loans. from what i've heard, this is not a lot of money for jpmorgan. when it impedes or threatens the u.s. economy in a serious ways as what happened with wall street, there needs to be an intervention and more transparency.

independence. dems, -- independents, dems, and republicans are on the same page on this. host: thank you. odis writes in twitter -- some other financial news from "usa today."

the paper also includes a chart on the states with the top average debt. new hampshire topping out with $38,000 -- $31,048. new york is the 10th at $26,271. back to the phones on this issue of regulation and the banks. darrell is waiting from detroit, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. at jpmorgan is the tip of the iceberg. the only reason we heard about it is they failed, were caught,

and could not trade out of it. every day, billions of dollars of consumer deposits are traded in a so-called hedges. the only work in a normal market conditions. what this country must do is give back to the requirements of the separation of commercial deposits. if that does not occur, our children and our grandchildren will pay for us overlooking this situation. host: this from the "the new york times."

you can read more about that story in today's "washington times." on the republican line. caller: i agree with the

previous caller. i go one step further and say the whole financial system is rotten to the court. they do with they do because the federal reserve bails them out every single time. the financial terrorists are sitting up on wall street. nobody understands how this market works. it is a gambling casino. how can our regular -- how can our regulators regulate a market they do not understand? $35 trillion -- who are they gonna put on the hook for that one? our government had the chance to do that for years ago and they did not. they failed miserably. it needs to happen. i am sick and tired of bailing out these banks.

if they are so stupid that they gamble away their money, let them fail. host: well i have you, do you think the regulators have a chance to get their hands around this? caller: i think the problem is the congress. it is the republicans. it is my party that makes sure big business is protected. my attitude is, you know, we should vote them all out of office. the system is so rough. they know it. sooner or later -- this business, it is already failing. the jpmorgan is a good example of that. do we know what is behind closed doors? what is going on? when you have the federal reserve printing, creating money out of nothing, and then we, the taxpayers, are being held accountable for that. they are privatizing of the

gains and socializing a losses. i am tired of this. i will not vote for republicans. it is time for all of us to stand up -- to wake up. host: thank you for the call. a free lancer on twitter agrees with you. she says, we need a series of anti-trust lawsuits and debt banks. it will help the people. while we have you in the 10 or 15 minutes left of this first segment, obama's more modest pitch is the headline of "the wallstreet journal" today.

"the wallstreet journal" has a graphic that shows president obama's current agenda. things he has been emphasizing on the campaign trail. smaller goals -- budget, immigration, energy, education, manufacturing, infrastructure. next headline, romney advances with evangelicals.

those are some headlines from "the wallstreet journal." regulating banks in the wake of the jpmorgan $2 billion loss. good morning. caller: before the financial crisis, jpmorgan and goldman sachs sold credit default swaps. people did not know what they're buying. after the financial crisis, greece when trepang 5% on their loans, it went up to 16%. my husband was a forensic accountant. when he saw problems like we are seeing with jpmorgan. he started digging. that is what forensic accountants do. after the panic of 1907, credit default swaps were outlawed because they realized over a 30-

year period that every eight years, we had a panic or a depression due to the credit default swaps. there were made illegal in 1907. thank you. host: thank you for the call. we will keep on the subjects with south dakota. good morning. caller: you can write all the laws you want to. it will not make a difference because the cftc, the ftc, they're all in bed with the big banks. these tests, they let the banks get away with that. if a company would do that, the rocket to prison for life. for instance, gold is down another $20. this is how they do it. they allow the jpmorgan and some of these big banks -- is is

completely illegal. there will not do anything about it. just like the madoff case. they knew for 10 years what he was doing but his buddies would not prosecute him. nothing is going to change as long as they are all in bed together. i do not see anything coming out of this. you can run all the regulations you want. it will only control the smaller banks, is what they want. they're not going to control or do anything with the big banks. they have their man in the regulatory agencies. host: thank you for the call. another subject we are talking about is the campaigns of openly gay candidates in state legislatures and congress. especially after the issue of last week, the announcement by the president that he supports gay marriage. in "usa today" there is a new

poll out that 51% back the pres. that is from "usa today" this morning. we will go to the independent line, good morning. caller: i wanted to speak about what happened with the banks.

the first thing, are they too big to fail? that was addressed with barney frank's legislation for structured bankruptcy's of the larger banks. i do agree with the idea that the banks were ready to take all of the games. -- all of the gains. the legislation was to address that issue. i think, in itself, my understanding was to hedge the credit risk. you look at these large banks. the largest risk is counter- party risk. it sounds like that was done

wrong way, right? it resulted in a $2 billion loss. not necessarily speculation, etc. it was more of a strategy they did incorrectly. it was not a strategy, right? that risk, in itself, is not something that would result in a bailout. the legislation that was passed was to stop having taxpayers' bailout of banks. the accountability of that is to their shareholders. first of all, jamie dimon himself came out when he did not have to to speak about the $2 billion loss. i think when we talk about accountability of the banks -- host: they showed accountability

last week? caller: yeah. he came out and was a straightforward about this issue. host: and the resignations happening today, you see banks being accountable to themselves? caller: yeah. i do not know how much these particular executives may have been involved in this situation. they are in charge of this group that lacked the popular -- the proper oversight. host: thank you for the call. on facebook -- the conversations are going on on twitter. one other hand free this morning, this is from "the washington post."

we will be looking forward to that hearing when it happens on capitol hill on may 3. we have pat on the democratic line, you have the last call. caller: thank you for talking to me. everybody is expecting the government to do something about this. the guy hit it right on the nose.

this is made up of a bunch of self-serving know-it-alls. they feed their own egos and enriched themselves which they right to fail -- to help themselves. they are co-conspirators. in some places, preserving the order of things. the government is keeping order in society. they favor the rich, the powerful, the military listed. is is a basic model throughout history worldwide. the names have changed, but the salt remains the same period host: -- remained at the same.

host: his take. up next, chuck wolfe. and later, arthur brooks joins us to talk about his new book, "of the road to freedom -- "the road to freedome." we will be right back. >> saturday's this month. c-span radio is hearing more from the nixon tapes. secretly-recorded phone conversations from 1971 to 1973. hear conversations between nixon

and chuck colson who passed away last month as the talk about the democratic presidential nominee. >> you do not think so? >> no. >> he realizes he is on the verge of an impending disaster. everything he has done has gone wrong. >> listen 90.1 fm. >> over the past year, c-span's local content vehicles to work has taken it on the road. last month, in oklahoma city. june 2 and 1/3, watched from wichita, kansas.

"washington journal" continues. host: with gay marriage front and center, we turn to chuck wolfe for a discussion of openly gay candidates running for office. first, tell us the role of the victory fund, the institute, and what you do. guest: we work to prepare day, lesbian, and transgendered individuals to serve public life. host: you are set to endorse a record number of candidates this year. what is the number? guest: we think we will endorse about 200 members running. host: where do you have the most running backs guest: -- running?

host: right now we have endorsed about eight -- guest: right now we have endorsed about eight. host: talk to us about the impact of the president's announcement last week. how has it impacted your strategy going into an election year? guest: i am not sure we know the impact. we need a couple of weeks of this being digested, watching what people are saying and feeling about it. and then we will know that the strategy. the most recent polls show that 60% of people not changing their opinion one way or another. even with time, i think that number will grow. if that is true, will probably not see too many shifts and strategy. host: has it affected fundraising and your part? guest: i think people are more

engaged. host: about how much money does the victory fund raise per cycle? what did you do in 2010? guest: this year, i think would do $6 million in the calendar year. it will make $11 million for the cycle. the previous cycle was about the same period host: -- about the same. host: how far back does your group go? guest: there has been more explosive growth in the last 12 years. in the last nine years, when our budget has gone from about $1 million to $6 million. host: it has already become an issue on the campaign trail. mitt romney talks about the issue of gay marriage. want to show you a little bit of

that now. [video clip] >> what you believe, how you live, what you value, matters. as fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate from time to time. so it is, the enduring institution of marriage. marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. host: along with mitt romney, reince priebus was also on "meet the press." he called it one of the defining issues. [video clip] >> i am not sure if it will be a defining issue, but for those people in america where gay marriage is their number-one issue, we clearly have two different candidates with two different views. we have barack obama who, i guess, is going to promote this

issue. and we have mitt romney, who is been consistent, and in-line with most americans which is that marriage ought to be defined between one man and one woman. so for people that this is their issue, this -- have a clear choice. but, i happen to believe that the end of the day this election will be about the economy and the promises this president made and whether he felt the them, which he didn't. people, whether straight or gay, deserve dignity or respect. however, that does not mean it carries on to marriage. i think that most americans agree that in this country there is a legal, historical, and religious union and marriage has to have the definition between one man and one woman. host: your reaction to some of those comments from the presumed republican nominee and the head the republican national committee.

guest: they worked to secure a base. that is what that speech is about. when you hear the chair of the republican party talk about that he does not think this will be a defining issue, needed to any of the polls or the electorate. they talk about it is at the bottom of 20 issues they would care about an election. it really will be more about an economy, jobs, that type of thing. those people who are still hanging on to the social issues and thinking there will be defining moments in the election, i think there are saying that continue to fade. host: again, we're talking with chuck wolfe. give us a call. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. when you are picking your candidate, how you choose which

ones you are going to back? guest: the victory fund works through a full endorsement. they have to apply. the have to be a viable candidate. choosing the right race at the right time and be the right candidate. -of experience, gone through training, understand how to raise the money. the have to have a good campaign plan. host: what do you tell them about using their sexuality? does that defined their campaign? guest: that is a good question. talk to the electorate about all the issues. the outcome of that, we teach people to talk about their sexual orientation in an open and honest way, but not spend a lot of time on it.

often times it is used as an attack question. we trained the candidates have to answer that question by being up front. if you not let it affect you, that it will not affect the electorate. if a reporter said, decanted it might respond by saying, if you're asking about me and my partner, with a wonderful life and two children who are in public school at the district. we'll be talking of the issues that all families care about. host: let's get to some calls. caller: i don't think what the

president said and came out with is of any new information or can help. what he basically said is that it is up to the states. most do not support gay marriage. i just have a philosophical question. i am not gay. i have no idea what that life style looks like. it is not a civil right in my opinion. you cannot choose to be gay. you have a choice to be what you are. it is not that you're born a certain way by how you look. you're not discriminated on that basis. what do you think about kids growing up in a homosexual environment? is it child abuse? host: let me give you a chance

to respond. guest: obviously there are a growing number of young people who have parents of the same sex. they're growing up very healthy. they're going to school, doing very well. being in a household with loving parents is the key to having a nice and secure childhood. it does not matter whether they are gay or straight. the insinuation that you choose your sexual orientation has been debunked a fairly easily when they asked straight people when they chose to be straight. that is the simplest question for the caller to answer. if that caller asked himself if he is going to be straight today, he would probably understand that people -- gay people do not ask themselves that question either. we are born this way. our sexual orientation is part of who we are. host: talk more about the

president's comments last week's firing of conservatives from a commentary piece in "the washington times" today he writes that obama -- host: tough words. guest: i do not think it will hold up over time. i think he will be embarrassed by those words. host: can you give any sort of numbers of job that you have seen? guest: we have seen a growing

interest in our work. i do not think it is a huge spike in the overall fund- raising of this campaign. this election is going to be significantly more expensive than any we have seen in the past. i think we will see continued growth in that fundraising for election day. certainly as it becomes clearer and the distinctions are more clear in a donor's mines. i think it will make their voices heard. i think that will continue to grow. i am not sure how much more interested will generate. there was already support for the president on the progress of issue. i'm not sure that will change too much. host: again, we're talking with chuck wolfe from the victory fund.

we will go to james on the democrat line from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. for me, gays, we go back to 1965. washington, d.c. demonstrations. what happened is sad. i was supposed to get married. can accept in marriage. president obama except sit, lie of workforce since 2007. at the same time, i am wondering how much the should go to the schools, saying that dick and harry is an acceptable couple. how much will this affect our children?

i am still kind of appalled to that. i do not oppose a marriage, but i cannot go with dick and harry priest and this. guest: i appreciate the callers sentiment and obvious evolution on the question. i think the concept the kids are already learning about their friends' parents and when their friends' parents are of the same sex, you need to be able to talk about that in school. the idea that my nieces and nephews are going to school and meeting friends who have parents of the same sex means that someone should be addressing that. whether it is addressed in the home or school, kids should be taught about it because they are facing it every day. i do not know if it is about facing one lifestyle or another, it is just making kids aware that there are more than one kind of family in their

community. host: i understand you also have a program to help members running for different positions come out to be openly gay candidates. caller coat -- guest: we do. it is interesting, we have been listening to the president talking about his evolving position on marriage. there are gay office holders that are not open and honest about who their partners are. we work with them on how to come out. it is interesting, we find the same question of evolving attitudes around community. if they are in office and not out, how do they of all to the point of being out. it is something that all americans have to address. they will spend time with those elected officials to help them understand the process, to have that conversation with their electorate and constituents in a

way that is respectful and honest of who they are. host: we will show you the currently four members of congress who are openly gay, danny baldwin, barney frank, david cicilline, and jared polis. back to the phones, drexel, north carolina, republican line. good morning. caller: do you think that it is fair to children, who have not had a chance to grow up, and church is definitely a part of the situation. is it fair for children who really have not had a chance to make an opinion, you know, because choice will be called up in the situation. we are a nation of people who have values and moral

appointments that have constituted our strengths as america. this choice that comes along, i know that some say they were buoyant -- they were born that way, but this case -- but this is obviously a choice. what about a children adopted into families who do not have a chance to say that maybe they do not choose that. just as you spoke and people said they choose to be straight. what about a child that was -- that had not chose to be straight. what about the child that doesn't get that chance? would that not just be a turning of the tide? guest: i appreciate the callers position. i am not lucky enough to be a parent yet. but i will say that i love being an uncle to my nieces and

nephews. the idea that their sexual orientation will be dictated by their uncle or their parents and who they are, that is not a very honest position. those children will grow up to be who they are meant to be. these parents want their kids to be happy, whoever they are. the time spentt could be -- i think that the time spent could be spent on a lot of different issues. that is where we should be focusing our attention. host: that marriage amendment just passed last week in north carolina. how many more amendments on ballots coming up? guest: a number of states are collecting signatures. we are not sure how many we will face.

it includes maine, maryland, washington, and minnesota. washington is an interesting state because those legislators have each passed marriage and, given some period of time, seeing if signatures are collected and whether there will be a ballot initiative. the north carolina is very initiative. there is one out member there and in his district, where he ran as an out member of the legislature for his first reelection, the marriage amendment failed. in that particular district, where they had gotten to know an african-american state legislator, they learned that having an out person in office was fine and he was a good legislator for them. they defeated the amendment. we believe that having more people in office will help to change people's opinions about what our lives are like.

guest: there has been questioned about whether the debate in north carolina helped to spark the president's comments last week. here is talking about the political ramifications come in november. >> up -- [video clip] >> he talked over with his wife and his children. i have spoken to him over the years and it is a difficult issue. i will challenge the issue, but i think he came down on the right side. and there was the 1967 supreme court position that said the virginia law banning interracial marriage was a violation of the quality of law under due process and it comes down to the same principle and whether we will have marriage equality in this country.

>> could it hurt him in these swing states? >> i do not think that he has lost anyone that he would not have already lost. i do not think that evangelicals were leaning towards president obama. host: these of the states that currently allow gay marriage. guest: we have a number of states where the legislature has passed it. then we have states where the court has ruled. mostly in new england. most recently, maryland and washington, as i mentioned earlier, and new york last year, were the big wins. maine is where we might have a palette of -- ballot initiative next year. host: cheryl, green cove springs. caller: i do not understand why

we cannot concentrate -- it is a shame that we cannot concentrate on finding a good candidate rather than someone who is black, white, homosexual, or straight. i also want to point out that people are natural born liars, but that does not mean it is a good way to follow. i think that we just need to look at the bigger picture. guest: i agree that we need to look at a bigger picture. the victory fund tries to get people to not use the issue of sexual orientation as an issue in an election. we believe that out people in this country should be able to serve regardless of sexual orientation. it is now allowed in the military and we think it should be the same way from public service. it will be a great day in the country when we are no longer making election decisions based on someone's sexual orientation. but we are not there yet.

host: when are you advising people on the language of the campaign trail? partner? boyfriend? are there strategies you have developed? guest: a great question, actually, and it varies by jurisdiction. there are still differences, culturally, between how you talk about families in the south and in the west. but what we have really ask is for them to be authentic. talk about your wife, your husband, your spouse if you are married. if you live in a jurisdiction for partnerships are part of daily life, talk about them as partners. and if it is someone you have just met and you are ready to bring them on the campaign trail, you are free to talk about them as boyfriend and girlfriend, though we do not really recommend that for most relationships.

caller: my question is -- what do you see as baldwin's biggest obstacle? what can someone like myself to to support her campaign? guest: obviously tammy baldwin, that is a huge one for our community. there has never been an out member of the u.s. senate. they see themselves as the most exclusive of world political clubs. i think having an out member of the senate will make a big difference. obviously, a united states senator has a significant impact and it will definitely affect the debate. we are spending a lot of time and energy on her race. we think that she is a perfect candidate for wisconsin and wisconsin families. i think the people around the country can be supportive of any candidate like that. you can learn more about her campaign to the victory fund. host: how much money do you think it will rate -- think you will raise?

guest: hopefully gobs of millions. host: how much so far? guest: i think we have just under a million dollars. our target is $15 million. we keep talking about our race to folks around the country. people meet her and see her as a true wisconsin senator, someone who can truly leave and serve wisconsin families. she's very authentic. just a great person. getting that match of people in politics, a great human being, is a wonderful thing. host: what are your other high- profile target this summer? guest: we have several races. there isn't out senator in massachusetts. host: which district? guest: i do not remember the number. congressman tierney. in that district, which could be a swing district, it is an

interesting question for the electorate. would they vote for an out republican in that district? running for his first reelection in providence rhode island, davis, that will be a big race. congressman polis is doing well. barney frank, of course, is retiring. in addition, in madison, and in riverside, california, there is a race where mark is running for congress after having served in elected life for 20 years in a newly created district that has democratic leanings. we think that he will be their first out member of congress. host: brian, independent line, from roseburg, oregon. caller: first of all, i am a

straight christian man who is 54 years old. this whole discussion, i think about what it was like in my father's time. people discussing whether black people should be allowed to run or not. i have known a number of gay men and lesbian women in my life. it is very obvious that there is no choice in this issue. they have as much choice as to their feelings to another people as i do towards women. thank you for remaining cool and calm, because some of these very bigoted remarks have got me very shaky. the bottom line is, you should not make any difference at all as to whether a person is gay or straight, it depends on the issues that they back up. host: jim, on twitter, agrees with that.

host: your response? guest: we agreed. issues are what the electorate should make a decision on. we are battling against people fighting us because of our sexual orientation. people who would attack someone entering public service because of their sexual orientation. there are still members of the senate will block an appointee because of their sexual orientation while this president has appointed more lgbt -- lgbt than everto office becaus before, they are still alive by the senate. there are still roadblocks for people to enter public service based on their sexual orientation and we are all about trying to eliminate those roadblocks. host: what is an example of someone who was blocked? guest: i will not name them because i do not want to hurt their future political careers,

but there are those who do not -- there are those who say they do not feel comfortable with someone's sexual orientation. it feels -- it still comes up between private conversations. people want to be made comfortable about it. there are still people who think that if you talk about your sexual orientation, it means you are being an advocate. we are still in the position in this country where we have to explain ourselves, just because we are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans gender. host: john, good morning. caller: this is my thing. i have no problem of people being elected straight, gay, to represent our fine country here. it is all about your policy. the only thing that really bothers me is when you are

trying to parse your issues. like you cannot say this, that, you cannot say the g word. it seems to me like they throw it in their face. i have an uncle who is gay, i love him to death. his partner, too. but when you throw it willingly in my face, you are going to get me these rights -- no, i am not. it takes time. united states is a christian country. a lot of people see that if i give you this right, they would think that we were going back to sodom and gomorrah. we talked about this all weekend. i have friends who are gay and they are like -- john, what do you think? i was like, it does not matter, but when you try to push your issues on to people to get

elected -- look, gay people are not going to get elected down south. southern states have their standards and they are not going to do it. columbus, ohio, we have a huge community here. i have no problem there. but when year issue is about you all giving us these rights, it will take a little bit of time. host: we take a point. let's have chuck answer. guest: what you pointed out is interesting. the president's conversation last week, it has led to more conversation on this, which may have been the best thing the president could have done. having more of these conversations all weekend is a healthy thing for the country. it is definitely moving us forward. i would take exception to the idea that people in the south will not elect out people.

i just mentioned the north -- the south carolina house, the georgia house, i think they are both serving with distinction. their sexual orientation did not get in a way of them getting elected. adam evans in virginia, the first out legislator in the state. the concept that the south will not elect lgbt people is the ball -- debunked. just because we are talking about it does not mean we are forcing anything. once we are elected to office, we do not lobby those people, we do not follow up and ask them to vote certain ways on the issue. we believe that just by being there, they are having a conversation with their colleagues in changing the nature of their debate. we think that that is important in a representative democracy.

it should be true representative of everyone in the country. i am sorry that you feel that having a conversation feels like it is being forced, but i think it is a good thing to have a conversation. host: twitter, toni writes -- guest: well, marriage has always been decided in the states. until the united states supreme court wants to weigh in, as they did i and loving vs. virginia, i am confident that we will get to a position of the same policy throughout the country. host: we have 10 minutes left over -- with chuck wolf -- chuck wolfe, of the victory fund. we will go to angela, democratic line, jacksonville, florida.

caller: i admire elected officials who have the courage and honesty of barney frank. i am proud of president obama. he not only to a stand for gay- rights, he also took a stand for those who have family members who are gay. in doing so, he took a stand against the bullying and violence that has been perpetrated against gays for as long as i can remember. and i am 68. a caller yesterday said that homosexuality was a perversion. i have -- i find violence and jokes against gays, especially children, a perversion. guest: obviously, i would agree with you. the question about public service and whether the president did a great thing for people is an interesting one. the idea of having the courage, people coming out, finding the courage in their own lives to talk about sexual orientation,

that is a great thing. the more the people are aware of that, the easier it is for this country to evolve. host: do you have different strategies when you talk about helping the candidates? different strategies arrest helping republicans or democrats? guest: we have different strategies for each candidate, regardless of political party. we are truly non-partisan and are helping them win in their district. sometimes there will be an independent candidate. it will be a non-partisan race. or it will be a partisan primary. in those cases they have to develop a game plan to bring them to victory. host: how many republicans have you got elected over the years? guest: it is fascinating. in the 1990's we had a significant number out republicans in office, then the trend reversed itself, primarily

because sexual orientation was seen as a smart wedge issue, primarily around ballot initiatives on the question of marriages, so you have fewer out republicans running for office, primarily because the white house was pushing this question of gay marriage through ballot measures. that was meant as a turnout machine, meaning it was harder for gay republicans to step up and run in their own party. since then, we have seen more out people. as richard said in massachusetts, a great example, it continues to increase will we see as the leading political indicator in office for gay- rights. the precursor to that, for us, was how many came to the training programs. we have seen more out republicans willing to go to candidate school and learn how to beat a good candidate. that bodes well for the future.

saying that they do not think this will be an issue for the future. host: mike is next on the washington journal. pensacola, good morning. caller: my question is -- i noticed that you're trying to get gay and lesbian candidates elected. quite often we see this evolving message from that core point of view, rights and everything else, with tremendous support from the bisexual community. does that mean that eventually you will support bisexual marriage? as soon as you can marry bill and angela, or vice versa, bill can marry susie or edward, or someone else? those kinds of things -- where do we go from here? it seems to me to be a slip-on

-- slippery slope for various rights. guest: let's take your question on marriage. you are describing polygamy, which is of course in legal in this country. that is now we are talking about here. the victory fund does not have a position on marriage. we do not take positions on these issues, because we do not lobby. " we are saying is that having out people in public service changes the nature of the debate. -- what we are saying is that having out people in public service changes the nature of the debate. we think they should all be equal in the eyes of the law in the united states. but the idea that there are people trying to affect the issue of marriage from within their elected position is true regardless of their orientation. we would not see any case for gay marriage without great legislators doing it, but it is not a question of one side or

the other. host: talk about some of the other efforts that you do. theinstitute's -- guest of institute helps out people in public service. we also published a report twice per week, to help them see the news. we run a program of harvard university where we help them better their game, so they go to a state and local training program and in that effort they learn how to be better public officials. then there is the annual conference that we hold for people from around world who are out and in office and help them to be better public servants. guest: -- host: you talked about the political changes over the years for out republican candidates. what about electing members from the gay and lesbian community from 1990, which is when you started.

guest: the biggest change is the discussion of family. we have seen more and more gay parents talking about their families while running for office. that is the biggest change. the people that we elected to the highest office in the land are parents. we elect people with families. now that lgbt people have families, they are being accepted into that discussion. i think that that has been the biggest change in the last 20 years. host: bob, republican line, woodbridge. you are on with mr. wolfe. caller: i have a few comments to make. i have nothing against people being gay, it is just a choice of who you sleep with, basically. i have an issue with the gay movement, so to speak. you confuse everyone all the

time. i just turned on the radio half an hour ago to go to work. now it is out people. why are we not saying gay as opposed to our people. is the a not the correct term? no. 2, when you are raising money for a specific candidate simply because they are gay, that is what you're doing, getting money for someone to run for office because they are gay, not because of their issues. instead of raising money to probe the issue of " for the right person, not because they are gay or not. the last thing i might say is that -- first off, i do not understand a different degree lesbian and gay, if your day, you're gay, lesbian just happens to be the female aspect of day, unless i am ignorant and you can

explain that to me. i have a heart problem with the trans gender part. you are born gay. that is it. you are born in a male body and you believed to be female, whatever the case, but transgendered goes beyond that and now you are getting an operation to turn from a male into a female and the public is supposed to of it -- except the fact you are now a female is an extremely difficult pill to swallow. host: a lot of questions and possibly some explanation for bob. guest: let's focus on the question of issues. the idea is that having out people in office changes the nature of the debate. just by being there, their colleagues and peers see them as fellow americans with the same amount of power that they have in elective office. that is why we are not supporting people based on issues. we are simply supporting them because we think it is fair to

level the playing field when people attack folks for being open and honest about their sexual orientation. so, our candidates very on their support of issues all over the map. i mentioned that some of them are republicans, some of them are democrats, but even within the two parties you see different levels of support for the war, transportation issues, economic stimulus. in all of these cases we think that just by being there that one of them can deal with roads issues in a local city council or legislature. it is just their position on an issue that we do not take exception with. we do not support or hinder. we believe that just by being there, but being a fellow elected official, they change the debate. in terms of what they might use as a term, when they ask is a question, that we cannot control. the idea is that people of the

same sex want to be in a relationship, or if you are attracted to the same sex, there should be no hindrance to your serving in public office. host: chuck wolfe, thank you for joining us. host: my pleasure. -- guest: my pleasure. host: next we will have arthur brooks on his new book, "the road to freedom." we will be right back. ♪ >> over the past year, the local

content vehicle c-span city tour has taken book tv and history tv on the road. last month, we were in oklahoma city. we have visited cities with fine heritage and life. watch for our new stops in wichita, kan.. >> it would be foolish if all the be relied on was the auctioning spectrum. >> it is important to have neutrality to make sure that everyone is contributing on a level playing field. >> learn more about the two newest fcc commissioners, tonight, on "the communicators," on c-span 2. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: joining me now is arthur brooks, president of the policy think tank, the american enterprise institute, and the author to the new book, "the road to freedom." something you cite in your book is a 2010 poll that shows that 86% of americans had a positive image of free enterprise. by that measure, are you not always -- not already winning the fight than the guest: you think. i would wish that that were true. the truth is, we are not. between 70% and 90% of americans express a real interest in the free enterprise system, culturally, but a large majority also want policies that do harm to the free enterprise system. 75% of americans say it is the first -- permissible to change social security.

64% think that the government should give people free health care. i understand the sentiment, but we are asking for policies that do not work with a free enterprise system. host: you seem to spend a lot of time in your book talking about the morality of the free enterprise system. why do you think there is a moral case that needs to be made? guest: for the paradox to you just outlined. people say that the love free enterprise, but are willing to compromise with a lot. the situation on the left is that they do not love of free enterprise. conservatives say that that is not true, we have not rammed down their gullets enough to give them the idea, but the truth of the matter is that we have made an insufficiently compelling moral case for the system. we hear a moral case all the time against free enterprise, and it is time to hear from

those who think it is about lifting everyone up, not just making a few of us rich. host: if you want to join us in this conversation about the free enterprise system, markets, everything we have been discussing this morning, give us a call. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. mr. brooks, are you anti- government? is this the anti-government party in this book? guest: absolutely not. anyone who has studied economics at all and who loves free enterprise knows it will need a functioning state. that is exactly the problem that we have today. once they get around providing a minimum basic safety net for the poor, once it gets above these levels it starts to do real harm to the free enterprise system.

and it also starts to do something really insidious and i think the conservatives need to spend more time paying attention to this, calling out corporate cronyism. this sentiment that large companies and corporations get bailouts and carve out from the tax code. things that people watching us today, landscaping companies or hardware stores, deals that they just do not get. we really need to spend a lot of time talking about the legitimate role of a legitimate government that does not award powerful people in the way we are seeing today that is creating some much discontent. host: we have been talking about the $2 billion losses in the papers today. put it in terms of the banking industry, as well as the role of the government. many called in this morning calling for more regulation after what happened with the

banks last week. guest: we do not know exactly what happened with the banks last week, so we have a lot to find out before we can render judgment, which is an important thing for all of us to do, to say that there was a problem in the banking industry, they got public -- punish in the marketplace. there is over-regulation, for that matter. so far, one of the most encouraging things is that the private market has figured out something that is going on internally and has punished it. the question we are talking about, the 9% hit in stock price, that was because price vector's did that. maybe we need more regulation or different regulation, we just do not know yet. seems to me that the market seems to be working pretty well. host: the important use of the banks in question is part of the self regulation they see going on? guest: we do not know if it is

the best or the right self regulation going on, but it is certainly part of it. it is an amazing thing when boards or stockholders, certainly in this economy, start to take it out on organizations that they do not think have a good corporate governance. you saw the stockholders of citigroup saying that the ceo was taking too much money. this was not congress saying you had to lower their salary. the hubris of the anointed, who have the conceit of saying, as regulators or politicians, that they can do these things better, it is belied by the things going on now. they tend to make things worse, as pointed out in my book. leading not only just to the 1%, as they like to be called -- or as people on the other side, the political left, like to call them, not them getting richer, but the people who get hurt and

manipulated, over-regulated, again and again, just look across the atlantic. i spent a lot of time in spain. the people who are most under the gun, people getting hurt the worst are the people being left without a safety net, which is exactly what will happen in the united states as we careen forward on the basis of really bad public policy, which is basically immoral. host: paul krugman had an interesting article in "the new york times," this morning. can we get a response? guest: sure. [video that] >> suppose we go to an america where tax rates are much higher than they are now and where the minimum wage was way higher than it is now relative to the

average earnings with unions being much more powerful, one- third of the workforce. lots of people said that that would be a disaster. i just described america in the 1950's. they had higher taxes at the top, much stronger protections for workers than we have now. they also experienced the best generation of economic growth than we have ever had in this country. what people think of as the problem is just a prejudice that has been carefully cultivated by propaganda campaigns. none of the things you're hearing about what it takes to make this country prosper are true. we actually had the demonstration that said that we really needed was a good education, a good infrastructure. that is what leads to a successful economy. host: mr. brooks? guest: there is a lot to agree

with. we need is a good education system. the reason is that what is holding down mobility in this country is the bottom 20% of the income distribution has fewer opportunities to get ahead, but it is not because the top 1% is stealing their stuff. this is a class warfare argument that is counterproductive for meeting social goals and not a moral thing to do. we should bridal against it morally. if we want to look at the morality of it, which i think paul wants to do, he is plenty smart, so do i, we have to think about what we are going to do to help them up. the answer is not simply more complaining about income inequality and more distribution. it starts with a system that works for kids and grown-ups, opening up the tools of entrepreneurship across income distribution, dealing with cultural issues in the bottom 20%.

"coming apart," i would recommend that to those listening today. they talk about what is holding the poor down today. it is not that they're being insufficiently taxed. he talked about the 1950's and how great they were when we had more regulation and high tax rates. in point of fact, we have higher growth rates then then we do now, but think about how high it would have been then and much more prosperous they could have been today if we had not had such a head wind up in front of american entrepreneurship in the 1950's. we could have been like china today, 8% growth, if we had not had counterproductive regulatory tax policies. host: we are talking to arthur brooks, author of the new book, "the road to freedom."

harry, independent line, little rock, arkansas. good morning. harry, are you there? well, we will go straight to memphis, tennessee. carol -- carl is waiting. democratic line. well, having trouble with the phones. in your book you talk about how you did not grow up committed to the free enterprise system. talk to me about your background. guest: we grew up in poor family. we were basically liberal democrats. not really political, but none of us had free enterprise or business backgrounds. became from a family largely of artists and teachers. i literally do not -- did not know anyone who had voted for ronald reagan when i was a kid. maybe one of coal, and we thought there was something wrong with them. as a matter of fact, i did not even go to college.

i went in my late 1920's and spent many years as a musician. in my 19 -- in my 20s, i was looking at evidence of what lifted people up around the world and what held back the progress of poor issues -- people. it was the best tool, economics, for understanding how to get things done. i think we are all commanded to serve others and i think the best solution i found was setting people free to create an opportunity society. that is not cheap. that does not mean no government. it does not mean that we all have to do nothing but go to our own jobs and go to work. we have to think about our social projects, give more to charity, expect government not to waste our money, passing on

the burden of debt and deficits to our kids, with crazy entitlement programs. that stuff turned out to be pretty hard. host: we will try the phones again. carl, memphis, tennessee. caller: how are you doing this morning? b mr. brooks stated i -- as mr. brooks stated, the top 1% of people, they're going overseas instead of staying home. what they do about that, will government stepped in to put jobs down to bring the poor and less fortunate people up? the money that we need is here,

but in these corporations they say the jobs are elsewhere. guest: that is a good point and something that we need to think about very seriously. it is not good enough to say that no one is hurting, because some people are prospering, but in point of fact the reason that those jobs are growing -- going overseas is because the structure of the economy is changing. there is not some conspiracy amongst the rich to do that. and i know the caller understands that, but what do we do? the first thing that we do is start planning for the next 20 years to create an education system that prepares people to function in a modern economy, systematically marginalizing the bottom purse -- bottom 20%. some people say that they should spend more on education, but it is not getting the job done.

looking at systems all over the country, they are not functioning very well or they have a tendency to be rigid in their institutions. the truth is that they are not sufficiently local for people to be involved. the work that we are doing at the american enterprise institute, you will find lots and lots of ways that we are dealing with this. more immediately, we have to talk about the people who have been displaced, structurally. our chief economist is doing work right now on what to do with people who are displaced. we are trying to innovate and talk about real solutions to these problems. our caller, as much as he talks about this issue. host: talking about these rights on twitter --

guest: the way that it does -- let's back up for a second. the problem have with medical care in this country, and in point of fact we need serious health care reform. we have known this for a long time. republicans knew it and did not do anything about it. democrats used it as a pretext as opposed to moving towards what we really need, which is insurance reform, such that people are covered. we do not have a big uninsured problem, where people who lose jobs or change jobs do not have to worry about losing coverage. that is what we need to do. that does not mean we need single payer, which would be massive, unwieldy, and lead to worse care and worse coverage for more people. there are free-market solutions for this. aei has a visiting fellow who has a fantastic seven.

plan on how to do this. we have the solutions. the key thing is to remember that we have an insurance reform issue in this country. not that we need to go to single payer, which is basically flushing the system we already have in the united states, which has led to arguably the best medical care in the world, to make it look like the european system that people do not like very much. host: republican line, good morning. caller: there are only two ways that you can redistribute wealth, marriage and divorce. in a good example is that the poor get $6 per day from the government in redistribution when they should be getting $50, and the american worker is getting $1 per day because of these ridiculous tax cuts, instead of getting $20 per day based on the amount of money being spent since this

administration took office. they are putting in so much money, the dollar is worth only half as much as it did when obama came into office. gas prices have not gone up, the american dollar -- gas prices have gone up, the american dollar has gone down. how does that help these poor? guest: there is a lot in there, what you're talking about. to begin with, the concept of redistribution in my thinking is very misplaced. we are hearing a lot from politicians, including the president, who talk about fairness and that what that means is we need -- we need more redistribution because it tears at the fabric of the nation. that is only true if this is not an opportunity society. many americans think that true fairness means creating

opportunity and rewarding quality. think about why your ancestors came to this country. it was not to get a fairer system of forced income distribution, it was about being rewarded for hard work and merit. meaning we need to have a true opportunity society, which is a tough thing in a distributive environment. almost 70% of americans are taking more out of the system than there are paying into it today. -- than they are paying into it today. a lot of people have a stake and they will be open to this argument that fairness can be falsely defined as redistributing and socking it to the rich. a real problem that will lead us away from the country that most of us want. host: a former labor secretary wrote and editorial in "the

baltimore sun," if you want to read the other side of that argument. that was from the april 18 edition of "the baltimore sun," if you want to read more about that. stan, independent line, oregon. caller: my question is -- i noticed that when i graduated from high school this started lowering taxes on the rich. they continued to do that over and over again until now. they keep saying that it will help the poor, but it does not, not one single bit. wages has -- wages have stagnated for those same numbers of years. do you know what the word patriot means? thank you. guest: taxes on the rich, let's look at that. in 1980, when i was in high school, the top 5% of earners paid 35% in federal income

taxes. today they pay 59%. if you look at the marginal tax rates, it is going to look like it has not changed or has gone down, but if you look at how much they are paying, it has gone up. is it enough? i am arguing that that is how much the rich pay and how much is redistributed does not lead to more fairness. the definition of fairness, you just talked about that article that talked about fairness being essential to economic growth, which is right, but in my book i talk about true fairness. this is the argument that conservatives and free enterprise activists have to get their minds around. host of this is the cookie argument? guest of the arguments in the book, -- host: this is the cookie argument? guest: yes, the argument in the book, they fight all the time

like children over cookies. one says that they helped make them, the other says that they have had equal amounts already. most americans believe that if we have an opportunity society, we should award merit. that a society like that does not award redistribution, perce. that is the one that gets the best economic growth and creates the most jobs. what the right needs to do today, and i say this as trying to get into the playbook of the right, they need to get behind the advocates of redistribution who say that they want a truly fair society. what they are doing today by stealing from kids and grandkids is on a fair by implementing a system where they can make more than their private-sector counterparts in the public sector, where we have corporate

cronyism and tax breaks for connected people, that is not fair. we demand the truth fairness that builds opportunity for everyone. host: duane, republican line, good morning. caller: i just want to say that it is a breath of fresh air to hear someone bring out the politics involved in what is fair and unfair. you know, redistribution of wealth, we are a country that was founded by people who came here to work hard, with the idea that the harder you work, the more you can make, more education. it is really just not fair, you want to talk about their, to tell someone 15 years ago they started breaking their back and they put themselves through school to get a good education for themselves and then start telling them well, because you have done that, we will start taxing you more than the other americans.

to me that is not fair. i hope when i can, and i am not one of the rich -- i help one i can, and i am not one of the rich people. sure, thank you for working hard and going to school, now we are going to tax you. rich people do pay more taxes, if you look at how much a rich person pays compared to someone who makes $30,000 per year, they pay a lot more, which is fair. they make more, they pay more. host: thank you for the call. we will go right to silver spring, jeff, democratic line. caller: part of my point is that it seems like you are presenting a false choice. that it is only fair, only morally correct to have

competition and fairness for people at the top, rather than providing a minimum standard of a working safety net for people at the bottom. seems like it should be possible to accomplish both of those things, but it is just a matter of where you land in the spectrum. guest: the truth of the matter is that if you read the work of [unintelligible] probably one of the most revered economists amongst conservatives in the 20th century, he said one of the basic functions of government is to provide the minimum amount of safety for the poor. paul ryan calls it a safety .elmehammock three times as much social security? that is not fair. rewarding political winners and designating losers within the system? that is deeply unfair, which is

what we do with a safety net, not to mention the fact we are taking the risk out of life and dealing openly with a problem of income inequality. let's _ the fact that jeff on the democratic line is correct, we should be able to celebrate opportunity and merit, we should be able to be proud of this success and want people to get rich by saying that even though society is strong, in point of fact when we look at people in countries around the world, where they are social democratic economics, these are the ones on their covenants with the poor. it is exactly the wrong decision if you want to be a society that is truly charitable. host: what was the most famous

book of the economist? guest: "the road to [unintelligible] i am no [unintelligible] but i do not -- but i do think that we can make the case for living in a free and strong country in national security terms, and the only way that we are going to be able to do that is to say that this is not just about the money. this is not about being simply a more prosperous society, it is about leading a society that is free, strong, and just, that people risk everything to come here for. host: independent line, phoenix, arizona. caller: it is interesting to hear people talk about fairness, being a black man in this country. i remember a time when we did not have to -- when we did not have the right to vote in this country.

we did pretty good, sticking together and working with each other. i think staying separate but equal would have been more beneficial to the black people in those black communities. an example of what i mean, everywhere i have gone in my country, if you have black care products, and you buy buying ite caribbean. when we talk about fairness, let's talk about it from the standpoint of, for example, the nba. if they were fair, during those lockouts, those men should have said, listen, since they want to play that way, let's go ahead and start our own league. i am all for fairness, but let's be fair across the board. i believe black people in particular need to just walk away, separate from this community of americans, and start their own independent league. we cannot do that because of the

culture that exists today that relies on an education that dumbs down all of americans, and you marginalize the contributions made by americans and against yourself -- that be -- and give yourself -- that being white people -- the glory of what your fathers did. the reality is your father's camera here, discovered a country already existed, -- came over here, discovered a country that already existed. i hate to hear what people say that white people did when they got here. you literally enslaved african people to build this country. host: eric talking about the issue of his experience in phoenix, arizona. guest: i hope that folks like eric do not walk away from the system because i believe integration is good for people in the united states. it has enriched my life, and i believe we can make a lot more progress. host: carol, on the republican

line. -- harold on the republican line. caller: i would like to respond to paul krugman. he has been on. he has been put on tv over and over again, and he makes the same point that we should go back and to the 1950's and we would rule the world. the reason we did so was not -- had not think to do with high taxes. all the industrialized countries were literally wiped out during world war ii. they could not produce anything during or after the war. when we started manufacturing in the late 1940's and early 1950's for the civilian market, we had no competition. everything we sold was picked up everywhere. we sold all the cars in the world, everything. everybody loved american products. that is why we did so well in the 1950's.

by the 1970's when we had competition, we had to change with reagan in the 80's lowering taxes just to keep going. we cannot go back to high taxes and unionization. that only happens when you have a monopoly, which is what we had. right now the only place that works is if you are in a government union. if you do it with the corporate system, you did not have that monopoly, that economic situation after a war where you can rule the world. it is crazy to listen to paul krugman bring up that point over and over again, and it is exactly wrong. host: a question from joseph on twitter -- guest: a completely unregulated economy leads to problems, and not just to -- and its

officially protected nation that does not have enough national- security. certain markets fail, and that is one of the fundamental functions of government. nobody in his right mind can argue for zero regulation or zero government. host: charles is waiting on the democratic line from texarkana, arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. our guest today is on the right page, i would say, in terms of a few things, but i take issue with a couple of points as far as -- there is a campaign of wage spread where we are forced to compete with third world countries, a virtual slave labor in some instances. people benefit from our system and regress in our system. you will see these disparities in our tax code, whereas the

rich will in effect pay more in taxes. that is my point. thank you. guest: thanks for that point. -- it is not a conspiracy of wage depression. let's go over the great things first. 80% of the worst poverty in the world, people living on $1 a day or less, have been obliterated since 1980. the reason for that is not the united nations, because of the u.s. global aid. it is because of the globalization of free trade, free enterprise, and the boom of global entrepreneurship. that is a great thing. with of the poor not just in the united states but around the world, we have been doing the right thing. because of trade in the outside world, 70% of the property has been reduced to one country, in

china. once again, of course, there is pain when you have a global laws and our men and you see people with relatively low skills in america at seeing their -- we could charlie -- we could simply take more from the rich and redistribute it to the poor in terms of tax benefits and government programs. that leads to dependency and greater misery, and we have lots of evidence on this. this is not just a conservative assertion. we could create a fortress america where we do not trade with the outside world. that does not work either because trade stimulates incentive for people to go outside the system. what we need is a way to recognize the fact that certain people have pain and that is what we should bring our resources toward them a better system and one that brings people to worker retraining. host: michael, on independent line, with arthur brooks of the

american enterprise institute. are you there? caller: your idea is really great, about as great as me getting on a private jet and going to play golf with warren buffett tomorrow. we are so free and we are so great, can we live in a country with zero military bases, that every year americans would have to defend itself? we would have zero basis anywhere in any country, including this country and any country overseas. i am not in that rich class right now. that is how it is. that is america. we focus on slum housing. that is how it was built. goodbye. thank you. host: michael asked about overseas military spending during your thoughts? guest: it is a very important

point, how much we should be spending on defense. reasonable people disagree on this issue, but my strong view is that a free society in america and around the world requires a very strong national security presence from the united states. in my view, they are unambiguous. it is the american free enterprise system that has been a blessing to americans and our gift to the world, but that means a strong military here and abroad. we are not spending enough on defense, our defense is becoming antiquated and we should be doing a lot more in that regard. it's not good enough to say cut government in every way. we need to cut lots of government. we could spend a lot less. at the same time, we could be spending more on defense more intelligently so we would continue to be the blessing of the world we have been for half a century. host: richard on the republican line from some fennville, new york. caller: good morning.

some of your views sound pretty good, almost like ron paul. he is the only one talking about really saving america. he is not a global list group member. you try to destroy the world to bring everybody down, no, we have got to save america first. this country founded on the principles where ron paul just won. i will take your views on that. thank you. guest: thanks for that. ron paul is an incredibly important messenger for a lot of different things. he has done hugely crucial messaging on economic freedom. he is as good as anybody right now on making economic freedom and -- a moral good, and that is something we need to do. i take issue with his notion of national security, the idea that we in point of fact to save

america and largely take care of ourselves. the world cannot take care of itself and we cannot sit america unless we live in a free and prosperous world. we are a highly interconnected society. it is the right thing to do for us to say that the moral case for freedom is not good enough for us but there are societies throughout the world who can and should require our assistance as well. people are around the world that deserve freedom as well. i realize not everyone is going to agree, and i'm sure ron paul would not agree with me. but get back to the great virtues. he is making a moral case for economic freedom and openness. if we can i join him in that, it is a big mistake. host: talk about mitt romney's economic views and his campaign. guest: he had five months or so of a long primary that you get when you are running for the

nomination, and that require the kind of conversation he probably would not have had campenni in certain states. that said, -- he had campaigning in certain states. the system that he likes and that i believe in, that a lot of americans believing, is one that is fully revolving around the free enterprise system. he is not conceding the fairness debate to president obama, who said in the state of the union speech, talked about fairness nine times, and in every case used it in a redistribution of cents. mitt romney is saying you are defining fairness wrong mr. president. we should be getting in front of that with a majoritarian definition, the optimistic definition of fairness is the right way to go. he is making a smart decision and that. host: 10 is on the democratic

line from indiana. good morning, tim. caller: my question is, my sun is in -- my son is in south korea and defending us. how does free enterprise and capitalism work when, unfortunately, we gorge our military for its wants and needs, and the rich, and yet we gouge our poor people? it is not working. also, on the point of marijuana , the industries that will open up on the medical side -- wouldn't that help our economy? guest: defense vs. the poor -- this is something we need to pay attention to, the fact that our defense budget, including the war spending, comes to a little

under 5% of gdp. whether or not that is too much or too little depends on your point of view. starkly if you look at the numbers, it is not high. ly, if you look at the numbers, it is not high. but we're spending almost two- thirds of our gdp on entitlement programs. about, we doalking not spend enough on the truly poor and we do not try to help the truly poor. we have a tendency to give welfare to the middle class, and that is not the objective and that is not right. that is pure redistribution for the sake of and we need to get away from that and create opportunities for the middle class to rise, create a society for the poor and everybody else. it is a way of misguided principles and objectives along these lines.

the last thing i would say to tim is, god bless your son. host: last call for arthur brooks. good morning. caller: in your own commentary, you're talking about your background and how you were a musician and went to college late, and you commented on people's lives and what you need to do to make a free society. but you yourself have been talking in only ideals and concepts, whether it be job creation, whether it be medical care. you are talking about things you have not expressed that you have done yourself. and you talk about national defense and how you need to do this and that. i am an army veteran, and you have not express whether you have been in the military. one of the problems i have with conservative values is they do not seem to leave the things they want to -- to live the things they want to impose on other people. can you explain further about

your background and what you're prepared to do to contributed to this free enterprise society other than writing books? guest: the free enterprise society requires that leaders and people from all walks of life speak up about their ideals. i am the privilege -- i am privileged to be the budget executive of one of the more and important cpolicy institutes of the united states. the book goes through specifics about public policy. do this, do not do that. spend this, do not spend that. we talk about the message in the case for free enterprise. we have a system in which we have a professionalized military that is unbelievably skillful, in which we have career military people who are keeping this country safe, and at the

same time, more than half of americans believe we should have a strong military. you cannot have that much overlap between the two. if one of my children were in the military, i would be incredibly proud of that. host: if you want to read more about the specifics, the book is "the road to freedom," by arthur brooks. thank you so much for joining us. up next, we have the weekly " your money" segments, and this week we're looking at the armed forces missile program with marcus weisgerber of the "defense news." we will be right back. >> saturdays this month, c-span

radio is airing more recordings of "the nixon tapes," and this saturday from 6:00 p.m. eastern, here conversations between president nixon and white house special counsel and the advisor chuck colson, who passed away last month, as they talk about the democratic presidential nominee george mcgovern. >> i think he realizes he is on the verge of a pending -- everything he has done is wrong. and bank listen at 90.1 fm. nationwide we are streaming at c-span.org. over the past year, c-span's local content vehicle city's tort has taken "booktv" and history tv" on the road, visiting places that

define a city heritage and literary life. june 2 and june 3, watch for special programming from wichita, kansas. "washington journal" continues. host: the last segment of "washington journal closed on mondays, we talk about money. this week we will focus on the armed forces missile program with marcus weisgerber of the defense news. mr. weisgerber, tell us about the missile defense program. about $10.2 billion in requests for a minute -- missiles and munitions. we're not talking about the nuclear arsenal, correct? guest: we are talking the stuff you're seeing today being used in places like afghanistan, the weapons that are carried on an aircraft, on the bottom of its wings, or in a weapons bay. there are taxes systems that

are gps guided called smart bombs. is nuclear tactical nuclear weapons or missile defense, the type of patriot system that would intercept a weapon shot up by someone else. those are separate from that. host: so when we talk about $10.2 billion for this request, where is the money going if you can give us an overview? guest: a lot of it is going for the actual purchasing of the systems, contract with raytheon martin, boeing. these are the systems being used today in conflict in afghanistan. host: talk about the small diameter bomb here. one of the systems that is funded for about how much for the small-diameter bomb?

guest: over $100 million for this carrot year. the system is actually -- for this current year. the system is actually smaller. it has wings and it can glide. a certain number of miles. gravity takes it to the ground, and that is a good the one. there is a difference between a missile and a bomb. a missile is powered, guided. these types of bombs are also guided, through gps or lasers. however, they are not powered. so gravity brings them to the ground. host: if you want to talk with somebody who knows missiles and bombs really well, call us at -- host: what is the current work

force of our munitions menu that we have out there for the armed forces. guest: one of the most popular ones right now is the jdam. but that is is a standard bomb. if you recall back in world war ii, you see newsreels of planes opening up their bellies and just dozens and dozens of bombs falling out. those were not guided bombs, those were just going straight down to the ground. the jdam is a kit built by boeing, the tail on that model, gps guided, and it comes in different sizes. starts route 500 pounds and goes as high as 3,000 pounds, depending on the size of the target and the robustness of it. about who usesk these different munitions.

what branch of the military uses the most munitions for this part of the funding budget? guest: mostly the air force and navy. the air force is the bulk of it, and the navy as well. they're providing what is called close air support. they're flying around above soldiers on the ground, and should the soldiers need assistance from above, these guys have, in their plans, cameras and a very high-powered that they can see and get awareness of what is going on on the ground. they would be the ones to release them. host: the house armed services committee recently approved of a $642 billion defense bill that will be going to the floor. what is the missile and munitions debate in that bill? guest: there is not much debate over these types of systems. host: everybody like them? guest: yes, one.

and two, they have proven themselves as time has gone on. there really is not any heavy debate on any of this. host: so we will not see them change in that $12.2 billion request from the pentagon? guest: probably not, go. good morning. you are on with marcus weisgerber. caller: the former military, iningwe were in basic tradin 31 years ago, there were certain munitions we could not use because of the cost. we went through the cold war and thought everything was calm by law -- law kumbaya, and now you have rogue nations like

north korea and iran, iran, things like that. -- itdn't even think would be a slam-dunk to protect our country and keep -- actually renew all of our missiles, ballistic missiles across the country, and fixed all the old silos and update them. a lot of people say we knew not have the money. you will not have a country if you do not defended. not just wasting everything on money in the end, but update us and make us truly secure. if they do not have missile defenses, they will come in our right regretted our backyard. guest: you mentioned some of the potential future threats that are out there. the military is investing in systems that are designed for the future threats. a lot of the weapons now, some of the weapons being built, have exceptionally long range, and

stealth characteristics. that means they cannot be detected by radar, so they can essentially fly in undetected and hit their target. typically in instances like the caller was describing, in the surface-to-air missile sites that would pose threats to aircraft. host: what part of the budget due missiles and munitions fall under? the market -- the new monetization part -- the modernization part, the contingency operation? host: both. it is in the contingency operations system as well because there are systems being used in the current conflict. also research and development. there is work going on for systems like the one i just described for next-generation and the future of weapons. host: if you want to talk about bombs, munitions, and missiles coming give us a call.

jimmy is waiting on the independent line. caller: and morning, gentlemen. kind of leading on that line in the future, what does it look like? what are they looking at? in development and research, what do they think the future will look like as far as warfare? guest: the future is long-range, as i mentioned earlier, and stuff. that is pretty much the two things. we have been talking about weapons that can only go from air to ground, so from a plane to the ground. there is also development programs under way, although funding has come down or flat and, i should say. some of that funding has been polished off. there are weapons that can

strike a target in the air or on the ground. you mentioned earlier -- or i mentioned earlier the -- there is a weapon called the joint air to surface standoff weapon, brown 500 miles per they did not disclose the exact point. stealthy weapons that are envisioned to penetrate air defenses as the old strike or their radar acquisitions. host: we have a list of the few weapons they're spending money on. which of those are long-range still the ones? we're talking about the raytheon medium-range air-to-air missiles, lockheed joint air to surface standoff missiles. guest: the advanced medium range air-to-air, goes by amran,

developed by raytheon. it's a long-range missile, a type of system that is mounted on the wing of a plane, like people have seen in the movie "top gun." it is the missile firing from the wing. the movie version is not the amran, but it is designed to hit another plane that is very far away. pilot, i am seeing the potential threat of another aircraft on my radar and i could walk on to that with my radar and send information. that missile takes a little bit to get there, but you can go on doing other things in the interim. and it will very well hit its target. host: is waiting on the democratic line from bolling, pennsylvania. caller: good morning to you.

i'm sorry i turned in to this conversation. it is making me sick. you know, i've got a fear of these missiles coming, reading the "new yorker" about the drones, and i also read about the climate change about how these g zero engineers are trying to design these things that will suck the co2 out of the air. you guys are really scary to me. this is burning money, for one thing. netman under obama was a cia agent. we are funding both sides of this stuff. we have a long-range, wealthy thinkbthat i do not what hit me because i do not think i am a target. are we doing this? i am not going to invest in raytheon and boeing and the other one. host: marcus weisgerber, tell us what the perceived threats are

that the military is defending against when it comes to munitions and missiles from other countries. guest: the specific threats are weapons being developed by the chinese and russians. there is a chinese one making the pentagon work overtime a little bit, and that is one of the perceived threats of this. to talk about the color's of a point -- one of the things of the military has invested heavily in over the past 10 years of conflict has been a way to lower the collateral damage and make them less deadly in the sense of they will get their target. they will not get somebody perhaps in the house next door. the precision strike.

warheads are typically made of metal, and when the weapons explode, there is shrapnel. with a composite warhead, you do not have the fragmentation you would have from a standard warhead. you and i could be sitting here, a missile could be coming through the window and one of us is hit. the other person could be injured, but there's certainly lessen the risk of damaging were hitting somebody in an adjacent building. host: the caller brings up the issue of drones. that has become the work force of u.s. intelligence and military in recent years. what is the main mission that we use on drones? guest: there are three actually. there's something called the hellfire and something called the jdam flight, and that i believe is a larger, 2,000 pound

model right there. some are 500 pounds or less come as something our -- some things are called the pave way. they're called laser-guided weapons. the gate -- the benefit is that you can hit a moving target. if you see the notes, is black. that is a simulation of the laser seeker. there is a device in there that you can hone in on, something like a vehicle or a bicycle. it can be targeted by somebody in a plane firing a laser at that target, just holding it on it, or also by somebody on the ground. you could have a soldier with a device, and he is pointing it at a moving vehicle. the weapon, when released, and as a signal coming out of that laser and communicating with the weapon itself.

it is a target. host: jim wright's on twitter -- post co darrell is on the independent line. caller: good morning. i want to talk about sophisticated drones, and essentially making a strike against iran if it comes down to it. guest: israel, bringing up an interesting topic, does have a number of the systems that we, the u.s. government, have in its inventory. it has also developed similar systems of its own, so a lot of

these systems are quite capable. only time will tell whether it will be successful or not, whether it is a good system. host: lawrence is on the republican line from winchester, illinois. good morning. lawrence, did we lose you? caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: is this c-span? host: you want to talk bombs and munitions, go ahead. caller: my question is, how much damage we have done by moving that helicopter with the shields and the drums -- and the drones? host: not sure what lawrence is referring to. guest: he may be referring to

the helicopter lost on the osama bin laden raid. it is difficult to tell with the level of technology. there was a very small piece of that helicopter that was recovered, eventually the tape. -- eventually the tail. the rest of it appeared from pictures, that it had been destroyed. i would not suspect that there was not too much technology. yet it is still some of the most coveted u.s. technology and was lost. host: what is the cost when we're talking about missiles and bombs -- with testing, they're blowing up the final product. but there has been a push to do more modeling and computer testing rather than launching missiles themselves. talk about that. guest: it's like everything in dod. they're trying to more to move to computer sibilant -- computer simulation and models that show what might happen, and they save

significant money. they're doing it with pilot training for the newest aircraft. the f-22, the as-35, very high sophisticated systems. they replicate very closely real-world type technology. host: back to the phones. larry is on the democratic line from in this, tennessee. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment that there is no use or need for all these missiles and bombs because we do not have any real enemies. the only and is that we have are the ones we fabricate and create. i want to make a comment about missile defense. i think republicans want to build a missile defense shield on the west coast. every expert in every field says it will never work.

in the department of reagan, they called it star wars. we spent $300 million on this, and we spent all this money. the only enemies we have a the ones we create and fabricate. nobody is trying to attack us. thank you. host: talk about the missile defense shield that the caller brought up. guest: the caller is referring to a missile defense shield on the west coast. it has been proposed for one on the east coast. the obama administration has said they do not want to install a system on the east coast. their plan is for what they call system in europe, and it will be different systems such as radar that would track a missile launch, and interceptors like an mentioned earlier. missiles that shoot up out of

the ground and hit those other icbm's. the house armed services committee has proposed another missile defense site on the east coast. they say this would be critical for a weapon launched from a ship from an adversary close. host: an issue democrats disagree with. guest: the democrats disagree with this, that there is no threat with this. they cannot defend from an icbm threat from russia or china who has sophisticated icbm's like the united states. it can only defense -- defend against less sophisticated systems, the type being developed by north korea. host: a couple of questions from twitter. jim asked --

guest: the twitterer is talking about the drone that the u.s. reportedly lost in iran. there has been a lot of speculation. the iranian showed it off at a news conference when they videotaped it. at the bottom of the drone itself, it was obstructed. it is tough to say whether or not there is damage. it is believed, from what sources have told us at the pentagon, that this system was heavily damaged. that was a reconnaissance drone. host: another question from twitter -- it depends. the new systems, a lot of the newer systems do cost a lot of money because of the components that go into them, the

navigational components, satellite guidance systems that make an accurate. in a way, yes, a system like the jdam has been mass produced and ined for number of years o iraq. host: we have large stockpiles of old munitions that we need to keep up? guest: a system like the jdam is an older type of bomb, and the new component is the tale come in the gps-guided tail, or the laser-guidance sensor on the top. this is a newer system. it has not been employed nearly as much as the jdmam and is a completely new build. host: chris is on the independent like to talk about bombs, missiles, and

munitions. caller: i really worry about china, the biggest threat without a doubt to us at this point. but i am flabbergasted at the economic policies that are being promoted, for example, by your last guest, who wants to bring up china. what interest is that for the american people? we need to put import duties on everything coming in from china to offset the weapons. weapons pointed at us, the jobs that have been sent over there by pure unadulterated read. money cannot be the answer. i mean, you know, it has got to be the policy and economic policy that solve these problems. thank you. host: thanks for the comments. a question for you from an individual on twitter.

guest: i think what the tweeter is referring to, customs and border control uses similar drones to the ones that are used in places like -- over yemen or over afghanistan. not part of the pentagon budget. however, the systems are the same. the difference is the systems being used in the united states, they are not armed. they have cameras on them. they are passing video from along the border regions. host: virginia. bobbitt on the republican line. you are next on "washington journal." caller: i'm curious to know why laser guns will not make missiles almost obsolete in the future. that should be the next game. guest: you raise a great point.

there is research and development work going on in that. i have been writing about defense for six years now, and from the time i started until today, the common phrase is that laser weapons, star wars type stuff, where the laser fires at a plane or a ship and it can take down a plane or a target -- they keep saying that this technology is right around the corner, right there. we have seen some demonstrations. there was a program that was a very expensive program called the airborne laser, and it was designed to use a laser to destroy missiles, icbm's. like the type that would be launched by north korea or warm. -- or guam. it was mounted on the nose of a 747 jumbo jet.

it worked, but the big issue with that was the expense involved. they are billions of dollars each per aircraft. at least $2 billion per aircraft. then you would have to protect this big jumbo jet in the air. the caller raises a good point. there are many who believe that laser type weapons are the future. host: you had a test last week, down a missile with a new energy sector? guest: they're talking about the types of systems that would be installed to attack or combat or counter those iranian type threats. they have systems that are operational right now, and the pentagon is trying to purchase a more advanced system, and there is competition going on with that. this is a part of that activity. host: we have about 10 are 15

minutes left with marcus weiss burger -- marcus weisgerber. how long have you been with the defense agency? guest: a little more than a year, and with a news organization that covers the pentagon very closely. host: we will go to rick on the democratic line from new york. good morning, rick. caller: how are you doing? i would like to ask a question. when the plane went down in china, when the drum went down in iran and they have that -- when they find stuff like that, or the black book that went down when we got osama bin laden -- how interested are the secrets? they replicate it, reproduce it. are we that safe, it falls into

their hands and they use our own weapon designs against us? guest: i will be honest, i am not an expert on the types of the encryption and technology used on the black boxes. but probably, yes, it does hurt overall when you have technology like the stealth technology on both the helicopter and the drone, fall into the hands of people. host: what do you think is the most concerning incident of that happening? guest: it is probably the helicopter. nobody knew the helicopter existed before that raid. when those pictures him up, people were having to be gathered from their computer screen said, saying, wow, we have really not seen anything like that before, and open their

eyes to some of the classic work done in the military. host: bob from pittsburgh, pennsylvania, on the independent library you are on with marcus weisgerber of "defense news." caller: i wonder if he knows anything about the development of real gun, and how that is progressing? guest: i am not up to speed on the rail gun. some are calling it a funding issue with this one. host: another one we hear about is the f-35 joint strike fighter. tell us the stage that is in in development and when we will start seeing them. guest: our aircraft that exists now that fly, and the initial test pilots are flying them in florida. they are also being flown by testers in california, maryland,

and in new jersey. so it is progressing. first of what weapons integration, that is still a ways off. so far they have done if it checks, and the missiles -- host: they put the missiles on the plane? guest: exactly. it put the missiles on the wing and a study the characteristics of flight, pulling hard g;s. the difference with the f 35 and the f-22, which is operational right now, the goal is to have weapons that fit inside of them. so there stealth aircraft. they cannot be detected by radar. the weapons that it would need to fit inside -- radar on the ground, it makes it easier for radar on the ground to detect the plane. making weapons smaller and able to fit inside of those. host: so for the f-35, how many

weapons can fit inside the plane itself? hanging them from the wings? guest: you can. you can fix a number of air-to- ground and air-to-air weapons inside of it. the f-35 and f 12-22 at the beginning of a conflict, when you have a surface-to-air missile, once the missile sites were destroyed, you could then put other weapons out on the wings and you can carry them a lot more. host: let's go to waldorf, maryland, waiting on the democrats' line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been working for the department of defense for quite some time. i have seen a lot of waste in my day. i'm sure a lot of the federal government, we could say the

same about other agencies and what not. the one thing that really bugs me is how much money we're spending on new weapons programs, and whatnot. you're basically the 800 pound gorilla in the room. there is really nobody even near the u.s. military's supremacy on the planet, and i do not think anybody, including the chinese or the russians, will get anywhere near us. i think we have the latest count of 12 aircraft carriers. i think they are even pushing for a 13th one. my main point is, as much money as we are spending on everything, we are really getting down to -- it is really about energy these days, i think, trying to garner as many resources as possible.

i think we should really be focusing more on r&d, developing more energy sources and what not. host: talking about this issue of overkill, do we have enough weapons or too many at this point? guest: right now it is pretty widely agreed by both political parties that there are enough weapons right now that the big concern is the future. that is part of what is spurring this debate on capitol hill on defense spending at this point. the pentagon planting to cut $500 billion from its budget over the next 10 years, and it will essentially downsize. the air force will retire planes. the army is going to do away with people. the navy will keep 11 carriers for the time being, but the caller also mentioned the part about energy.

there is a large push right now to find alternative sources for energy, whether it be powering a plane using biofuels or an independent solar panel system that can be installed at a little outpost in afghanistan. all these systems being tested right now, dod has set some pretty lofty goals for the next few years of these systems. host: when we talk about the sequester cuts and the cuts from the pentagon, tell us how it affects missiles and munitions. guest: the answer you hear from leon panetta all the time and other senior dod officials, it depends on how dod defines the cuts, and where they say you can make the cuts. you cannot just give an across- the-board cut to every program. -- they will give an across-the- board cut every program.

host: independent line from georgia. good morning. caller: listen here, i remember during the iraq war with the planes there, i think down there in a bunker or something like that, they said they used a bunker buster. how much damage can that things do? it did a lot of damage. what about this bunker buster? guest: let's talk a bunker busters'. the military right now certainly has bunker busters' in use. the bunker busters' you hear about now often is something called the massive and a trigger or the m o p. it's built by boeing. it's designed to burrow deep

into the ground. this is reportedly what they are attacking -- what they will use to attack iranian nuclear sites. when a weapon hit the ground, there is a lot of trauma and stuff going on. so the fuse is not initially explode, it wants to borough itself in and then explode. yes, there is a lot of work going on in that specific area right now, and there are systems that are operational right now. they use it and afghanistan for caves and what not. but that other system, that one is still in development. host: we have been using that specific system? guest: the mop system? no. that is designed for the

deepest target you possibly imagine. right now those appear to be, reportedly, the iranian centrifuge. there are other bunker busters' that cannot borrow as deep as this one. there is one referred to that is the mother of all bonds. in use right now. host: gill on the republican line, waiting to talk to marcus weisgerber of "defense news." caller: how are you doing? are you familiar with the oxygen problem with the f-22 oxygen problem? could you tell me, did they finally solve it? i understand that at altitude, pilots are using -- are losing oxygen. i am familiar with

the problem. the f-22 is the most sophisticated aircraft, often referred to the most advanced fighter jet in the world. it is faster, can maneuver better than anything out there, so much so that it has prompted china and russia to build systems better and similar to it. the issue right now is their pilots are experiencing what is known as a lack of oxygen. the air force will not say h ypoxy. the fleet has been brought in several times. "60 minutes" a couple weeks ago, a couple pilots came forward and said they are refusing to fly the plane because they are afraid. a simple task of picking up this pen, i might not be able to do it. there are backup oxygen systems. right now they have redesigned

how to turn on the back of oxygen system to make it easier. however, there is still no apparently smoking gun in this issue. n the hillweek on during a hearing, they said the risk is low enough. host: we go back to the phones. illinois, steve on the democratic line, ready to talk bombs, munitions, and missiles. steve, i think we lost you. marcus weisgerber, tell us about what you expected. the bonds and munitions budget is not something that there will be too much debate on in the future of the debate coming up. guest: right now you are clearly seeing it with missile defense, particularly the missile defense site -- host: that we talked about earlier? guest: yes.

another issue is the national guard component of the air force. a lot of cuts have been proposed in the 2013 budget, which is being debated on the hill right now. now, unlike the active duty, the national guard has on the backing of all the governors. they are under control of the governors in the states, and they have not responded well to these cuts. her already been modifications to proposed cuts, such as some of the cuts including retirement of the f-16 aircraft, giving into active duty. retiringa1-attack jets. and small cargo planes. funding was included for the c- 27's. one more thing is the global

hawk drone. there was a form of that that the air force proposed to retire early. a lot of these systems are still being built. they will just have to build them and send an initially, immediately to be retired, which has not sat well with congress, because they're spending a lot of extra money on those programs. combat andhem in less reap the benefit of what we have paid for them. host: john is on the independent line from monterey bay, california. good morning. john, are you there? all right, we will go to paducah, kentucky. george is on the republican line. george, are you there? caller: ask, good morning. it is a fascinating subject. it is a shame we have to even discuss it. i cannot help thinking the amount of money you're talking about, i know the research is out there, the numbers out there to where you actually know how many of these typef