coming up next here on c-span, "washington journal" with the headlines and phone calls. our guest at 7:45 a.m. is mike conaway. then, democratic congressman on the bipartisan transparency caucus. it as part of our spotlight, we speak with ♪ host: mitch mcconnell says the best chance of republicans winning -- a 65% turnout in the

recall election next tuesday. president obama will receive george w. bush and former first lady for their portrait. a question for you. it teacher ratings. a story in "usa today" asked if those rankings should be made public. we would like to find out, first of all, if they should be made public, and if you think that will improve the education in schools. here is how you can wait in this morning. if you want to 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. we have also set aside a line for teachers this morning. 202-628-0184. you can reach out to us on twitter this morning.

or you can e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. we will read some of those in a moment. here is the story we're looking at. this is "usa today" this morning.

host: should they be posted on the internet or otherwise? indeed think that will improve education in the long term? 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. and if you are a teacher, and if you want to give your perspective, 202-628-0184. we already have one response off of twister this morning. -- twitter this morning. she is responding to the

question we are posting this morning. again, facebook available to you as well. when we started the show, we had about five rankings. here are a couple of them. larry says, do like capital one does, fire the bottom 10% every year and hire replacements. go ahead and give us a call. we will take those momentarily. a little bit more from this story, "usa today."

host: to your calls this morning. national, tenn., you are up to first on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. well, i think that posting teacher performance might be a good way to get teachers to want their students to improve. not that they don't already. but posting the teachers are ranking won't necessarily increase student performance. host: why do you say that? caller: because the students, at

least as far as i'm concerned, i just finished high school. the students already tries best as they can. the teacher pushes them if they know the student is struggling. i have had an experience at both the middle school and high- school education. if i struggle, my teachers do their best to help me figure it out. the problem is resolved. i didn't need to know how well my teachers were doing with their other students. i just knew that my teachers were doing their best. that is all i needed to know. i think many other students in the school feel that way as well. host: here is the denver, colorado, on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that my mom has been a teacher for close to 30+ years. she works at minority slashed

low-income school districts. -- minority/low-income school districts. over the george bush program, no children left behind, the school underperformed. it is no wonder. when you look at the upper class school i went to and you look at the suburb, the schools always over performed on the test. it always comes back to the attention that the schools are getting. host: if a teacher ranking is posted, what do you think that does in the long-term? caller: i do not think it will matter. a teacher can be really great, but if they're in a low-income neighborhood where the children are not getting the attention from the community, or the

support and attention from the government, it doesn't matter how the teacher is. students will still bad underperform. host: north carolina and next on the republican line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i would agree with posting teacher rankings. not only that something also needs to be done, all of us here in the united states should be conscious about educating our children. you post performance on rankings and things of that nature with other pressions. but we really do not as a community or culture in the united states stressed the importance of every human being, every child is born to get a proper education.

and things like capitalism. there is money offered to ignorance or lack of education of children. compared to other countries, like china, where as a culture, and they see the importance of educating every single child. not just some who have money. just every single child is important to the culture as a whole. i would like to see the united states change its culture. you know. as far as education. to make sure that every single child is born as a proper education so that they will grow up to be a productive human being before the country. host: "usa today" story

highlights the teacher rankings. it is followed up by a "huffington post" story. host: again, the idea of posting

teacher rankings and how it affects the long-term if you want to weigh in. new york, the republican line. caller: yes, sir. good morning. my thought, having been a teacher at one point, i am not a mechanical engineer. it may or may not help. at what point do we start posting parents scores? when i was a teacher i had about 8 50/50 chance -- a 50/50 chance when calling a parent. host: is that what affected your change of career? caller: no. host: talk about the idea of when a score is put up, if it captures the idea of you as a teacher as a whole.

what would go into that? caller: i do not know. i talk to some people who are not able to teach and say, i could never do their job, and yet they are critical of the people trying to do the job. it is amazing the ejected support -- that you do not get support. you learn pretty quickly that it doesn't have as much to do about education as it does about federal support and money. it is not how teachers do, is about the money. host: is there a value of letting people, overall, to see these type of results? caller: sure, there is. absolutely. just like it to be a positive thing if people could evaluate men who were working out on the road or doing any job.

sure, that would help. but it is a function of society, a lot more, i believe then the ability of the teachers. if you cannot have control of your classroom because you effectively can into a thing about discipline. you call home back and you catch irate parents. the cannot take a class of 20 or 25 students with five or six completely destructive kids a you can add to think about when you get no support from parents. host: weighing in on the internet via twitter. michigan, good morning. independent line. caller: i would just like to comment that it is really hard

to evaluate teachers without knowing how the students are put into glasses. my experience, when i lived in a big city, was that the pta members knew who they thought the best teachers were. all of the kids would group into the smart teacher's class. well, that is really unfair. the other teachers would have kids with less support. unless you have a lottery and how you put the kids into the classroom and how they are evaluated before, that is not always fair. going tohat if we're evaluate teachers needs, we need to evaluate school boards and the principles. everybody in the system, including the parents. everyone should get a report card. parent participation is less. administrators of making bad

decisions, as well as the teachers. host: keep calling and weighing in on this topic. we will look at others in the papers. this is politics wrote saying that they predict a 65% turnout. that turnout would be much higher than the 49.7% of the voters to cast their ballots ine race. host: another related story about the election. this is "the wallstreet journal."

host: this is cleveland, ohio. the republican line. caller: i think this is a great idea. that expanded this to include doctors, public defenders, county prosecutors, anyone who has a visual track record. also, universities to see what they are producing. host: what you think it does for public school education? she hung up. wichita, kansas. this is the democrats' line. caller: i would like to propose a question to the question. why are we trying to post test scores of teachers?

if this seems like a political attack on teachers, myself. with mitt romney talking about increasing children in the school system. why would you want to test of the scores? it seems to be an attack on the teachers. thank you. host: do you think is a purely political motive? are you there? hung up. illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. what do you think? caller: i am retired. i do not know where to begin. i would say that if you evaluate teachers based on performance in their class, i think everybody should realize we have a very good mix of children.

we have education were kids help each other. and then the next year you have a class and there is no chemistry at all. i have seen teachers of fired because of that. i think it is such a doubled- edged sword. i would say this. if you're going to punish the teachers for the low performance of the class, then take out the -- in other words, in private industry, if the product fails, not only does the designer get fired, but the supervisor, the president of the company, everybody suffers. rewardre going to not teachers, then go to the principle. why is the principal getting

$175,000 a year? take off $10,000. everybody should a bear the brunt. not just the teacher. the last, i would make, because i talk one hour, there is a class system in the country. i know my republican brothers and friends would slap me on the hand for saying this, but it is not just about throwing money at the problem. i have seen examples, over the last 30 years, where more financial resources is a highly effective. it is a matter of money. it is a matter of resources. i have seen that money can go a long way. one final comment -- host: let me ask you two questions. have you ever had your ranking

as a teacher put out for public consumption? no.er: well, my salary was in illinois. my salary was on line. but not at all. i was an art educator. when you teach a fine arts or any specialty like this, this is probably very difficult to evaluate performance. is that a sufficient answer? host: that is fine. my second one, and you can speak anecdotally in art, how you beat -- how you get evaluated as a teacher? caller: disciplinary problems plays a big factor when you are teaching fine arts. i am not quite sure. i would say a effectiveness of teaching, it depends on the type

of principle you have. not necessarily the product that the kids produce, but how they crash and run. again, from management to the supervisory types. there's a correlation between a well-run classroom and how well the kids do. there really is a correlation. i am not quite sure how i was evaluated. one of the things that principals would evaluate me on was the lesson plan. administrators, principals who of gone crazy, i have seen young teachers leave within one year of entering the profession because all they are doing is documented what they are doing. it has become clinical. this thing -- hours and hours on lesson plans.

they're staying up until 1:00, at 2:00, 3:00 in the morning sometimes. host: ok. appreciate the input and your insight. want to get a few more calls in. maryland, democrats line. caller: how are you? host: i am well. thank you. how about yourself? caller: i am fine. i watch you every morning. host: what do you think about making teacher rankings available for the public? caller: i don't think that will be a good idea. i think they should put the parent's rating. i would appreciate it if they would put parents because the teacher can not do any more because their hands are tied. they have nobody in the classroom to correct this that student. get the parents involved. not doing their job.

i went to public school in atlanta georgia. we had teachers who could correct this when we did wrong and contact our parents when they corrected us. host: how would you grade a parent? caller: by not taking an interest in the children. host: thank you for your input. the state newspaper out of south carolina.

host: honolulu, hawaii. good morning. a republican line. caller: in a first-time caller. i would like to see teachers tested themselves to evaluate how competent they are. and to measure that level of competence through the years. that combination will have an affect on their students. host: does hawaii have some type of way of seeing how a teacher ranks? caller: the teachers' union here is very powerful. i am convinced in 100 years or so history books will say that teachers unions were the downfall of this country.

what they are doing to the education system is simply unforgivable. host: besides how well a teacher knows his or her subject, what other things would you rank a teacher on? caller: i am not that big of a pawn on measuring a teachers and effectiveness simply because they have one year at a time. i think it is a lot more important to make sure that they are competent in the subject are teaching. host: what time isn't there? caller: i don't even know. host: thank you for joining us. if you want to give your thoughts on this, that line is 202-628-0184. calling us from san diego. caller: i think it is pretty awful to be evaluating teachers when the basic problem is that

all students are not created equal. as soon as we realize that, things are never been a change. that is what was wrong with no top left behind. it assumes that all children come equal and a supposed to leave it equal. they are not equal. there are things that curbing done in this world that cause children to be different. two, the wars. if the child is having to live in a family were the people are fighting. and then have to come to school. and perform. i guarantee you they will not perform. host: those are your thoughts of an rankings. what about posting them? caller: it is a dreadful. teachers are not going to have all equal students.

how can you evaluate teachers? if you have one child in your classroom that is mildly autistic or living in a home where the parents are using drugs or they come home and beat them up and everything, you are not going to be able to teach that child. the best teacher in the school may have all of those students having emotional problems and all that. they may get fired because they will not be able to teach those children. host: are you a current teacher? caller: no, i am retired. i have written a book on this. the book is "capitalism and white children cannot learn." host: -- and why children can't

learn." host: us angeles is one of the cities that post those rankings. -- loss angeles is one of those cities that post those rankings. caller: ally said, they're not all equal. host: on facebook. there are about 20 people havwho have posted so far. the ranked pro-sports draft picks, not public workers.

host: again, we are taking our question this morning for the next 20 minutes or so. the "usa today" today story. -- story. and then talk about the idea of it this is a good idea or bad idea and you can give us your thoughts on that. that is the question and how we will focus looking for the remainder of our time today. a couple of other stories. this is "the new york times."

delaware, good morning. brandon on the republican line. caller: i have a couple of commons. yes, i do think teacher rankings should be posted. there is nothing wrong with posting them. it is just posted, that is cool. i do agree with the man from a wide. i think it should be tested in their subjects every year. a lot of people want to get on the parents. the parents and hands are tied

just like the teachers. the whole system is to be changed. if a student can have a d and play sports, there is something wrong with the system. he should have to sit out of school and work on the subject. and not be able to play sports. if the student can pass and get by, that is what it will pass and get by with. what the teacher does have to do with is once the teacher sees the interest of the child, are they going to try a little harder to bring the interest of the child? or are they going to say, is this what you're going to do? go ahead and do it. that is why i think they should be testing on their subject. students are more away from the home. once they hit junior high and high school, they are away from the home more hours a day than they are in the home. you know, with their friends and the school and sports. it is a community effort.

not to stay parent or school effort. it is a community effort. if parents should be obligated to go to release two meetings a year, at least, at the minimal, at the schools. thank you. host: pres. obama will meet his predecessor today with george w. bush at the white house in a bed in which the former president and former first lady will attend a portrait unveiling. that will be today at the white house. it is scheduled at about 1:35 this afternoon. go to c-span.org for more information about that event. a couple of stores from campaign 2012. this is from "usa today."

host: another piece of news -- i have misplaced it. my apologies. we will go on. good morning. caller: i am a teacher at four los angeles unified. that is the school district that has the scores listed. i have no problem with publishing teachers rankings in the public and in the newspaper. it might issue is what are we using to measure teacher quality? if you're just using -- which is what they are doing right now, if they are just using one

of the test score from a student taken once a year. i would like to see instead of just using one snapshot, one picture of a whole year, let's take a look a students progress in writing. have a portfolio approach. show progress in mathematics. show a progression. writing skills, comprehension. but that is a long, arduous process. it is not an easy thing to do and it would probably be expensive by the government to measure that. but that is the only fair way to measure teacher quality. not to just take one a sampling of a students' work. you need to take an example of the students worked throughout the whole school year. that is a difficult and probably expensive process for the government to monitor. host: from your experience, what

happens once these rankings are revealed? caller: it is a defamation of character. everyone goes up online and looks set up. everyone knows about it. you can look it up and see where they rank. they even publish it in the newspaper. it goes on line. anyone can see how well a teacher does in the classroom based on one at test given to a student on one day out of the entire school year. it really is demoralizing. if some of your students did not have a good year for a good day on that test was given. -- or did not have a good day when that test was given. that is my complaint i have no problem measuring teacher's performance. how i do have a problem with the method of measurement. host: this is abc news.

host: new york, chuck on the republican line. caller: good morning. in a 28-year, currently- teaching teacher in a rural school. it is difficult for me to be evaluated in a school where there is a 50% free lunch, 50% reduced. if 40% on welfare versus a west chester county school where they are in an affluent situation. i have always said that if teachers can be evaluated,

parents should be about waited. their welfare, food stamps should be dependent on kids' behavior and attendance to school. host: how you evaluate those parents on those characteristics? caller: if, for example, they do not sure of the parent conferences, if their kids repeatedly get in trouble and there is no response from home, if they have kids that are constantly out of school. things like that, that impacts very heavily on their grades. host: new york, that is stuck on a republican line. the "associated press."

that is follow-up today by a story in "the wallstreet journal." these are comments from the u.s. ambassador, susan rise. host: harlem, new york. this is dave on the democrats' line. caller: i just want to make a few comments. first of all, the evaluation of

teachers is great. ok? but if the teacher does not have anything to work with as far as the students go, they should not be evaluated. if you go to a public school or junior high school, would you call middle school today, the thing is a competition. you're wearing adidas sneakers. it is like a fashion show. no one is interested in learning. ok? but if you go to a foreign country, i had a professor when i was in college. he told me he knew how to count the numbers before he could write his name. in america, everything is a fantasy world. .ou're showing kids today things are not like that in

reality. ok? things are not like that. there is no such thing as bullying. a person knows how to defend themselves verbally. if he can talk, i can talk back to him. ok? you want to evaluate teacher? you evaluate a teacher based on how they teach their methods. make the lessons more interesting. more attention-grabbing so the children what to come to the classroom. host: now we go to the independent line. caller: will it improved performance? absolutely not. it is a government monopoly. we need to abolish public education.

boys are being drawn up on redland -- ridlin. it is a government monopoly. if the government was involved in building cars, we would drive a yugo. host: next line. caller: i am a teacher. as a teacher of statistics, one has this assumption that your assumptions are true when using a measurement system. for more i have seen, but have never been proven. the question, will improve performance, since the ranking system has been developed, i have seen nothing, anywhere, that show that actually can help

teachers. you can look and say, where did these come from? do they have validity? i do not think they do. they have no merit. host: you don't think rankings and up -- how does that work? caller: it produces a number that represents somebody somehow that you add relative to somebody else. if you look 54 millis that are used, they are incredibly -- if you look at the formulas that are used, they are incredibly complex. it is just mind-boggling. host: can you tell us about those things that are built in? caller: they tried to massage out the differences that people are talking about. as to who misbehaves or have a bad day, or a group of students

that may or may not be particularly adept with the come to your room. those things depend upon statistical averages and data. when you build these factors into the formula dependent upon a in assumption -- upon an assumption, you have some different variables. you get a number that has some questions about its validity. i am amazed that anyone, anywhere, uses these ranking systems as having any validity. they just do not. it is out there. they are being used. they do allow comparisons, but they are not necessarily measuring anything. host: how is that ranking, once it is compiled, how does it

affect a teacher on a day-to-day basis. caller: thank heavens it has not been used in very many places. host: that is ended. one more e-mail. from massachusetts. host: a story taking a look at the senate races as we had to november with mitch mcconnell. it is on the front page if you want to see it online.

one more call on teacher rankings and if they should post them and what they do for education. ron on the republican line. caller: in just one to ask the person who just called in earlier, should we give the student a report card or anything? it is a ludicrous thy. i had a parent teacher conference with my daughter. i had a teacher tell me that if abraham lincoln was alive today he would be a democrat. well, it goes to show you how much the teacher knows. just like we have to leave our bibles on the parking lot, they should have to leave their ideologies at home.

i do not see that any teachers should not be tested in education at least twice a year. these people, every time you turn around, you see somebody screaming at kids because you cannot talk represent. -- talk about a the president. it is ridiculous how we are dumbing down our class's. we will surely the transition and the decline of america. it starts right there in the school at to the earliest ages. yet no control of the teachers on how they come in. the school boards are out of control. keyboards for the music departments. that makes no sense to me when it is reading, writing, and arithmetic. host: we will leave it at that. if you want to continue posting your comments, there are discussions taking place

independently on facebook and twitter. one more story, this is "the washington post." host: coming up, we're going to speak with rep mike conaway. and later on this program, mike quigley will discuss his efforts in transparency and having more transparency. we will have that discussion when we come right back.

qu>> sunday on a "q&a." >> there was another side of him that wanted to be the best. he was obsessive with ratings. he is probably the fiercest competitor that i have ever written about. and i have written about presidents and generals. cronkite's desire to be the best was very pronounced. >> best selling author, douglas brinkley, sunday at 8:00 eastern right here on c-span.

>> rising is a transitional -- a transactional process. writing assumes up reading. it is a question and if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it. if you have written a wonderful novel, you what readers to be enriched by it. you have to pull on everything at your disposal. >> author and a pulitzer prize- winning author, anna quindlen, live sunday on "indepth." she'll be ready for your calls, tweets, and females. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us, mike conaway. welcome.

guest: thank you. host: today, discussion on the intelligence authorization act. what is that? guest: it should be an annual bill. with the intelligence committee will do over fiscal year 2013. it authorizes the spending for all of those programs and the programs themselves. host: these are spending and budgets for major agencies such as? guest: cia, nsa, there are about 16 different agencies. we authorize the spending. host: who gets the most money out of the pot? guest: i tell you we spend about roughly $72 billion overall. i cannot break it down for you

beyond that. host: the cia gets more? the nsf gets more? guest: right. i cannot give you those details. host: how does that square with the white house request? guest: the deal we ava prices near $72 billion. is a little bit more than the president requested in his budget. it squares with the budget ax that we passed in march in the house. -- act that we passed in march in the house. host: where is the focus these days? is it still al qaeda? or other parts of the world? guest: it is a balanced focus. it ought to be a balanced focus. we have adversaries and threats around the world. obviously, the most high-profile is out data -- is al qaeda.

we do not have troops in iraq. still, a big part of what we do is make sure the folks in afghanistan have the intelligence they need as well. there are threats from around the world that are not from afghanistan. we do a lot of work trying to find out what competitors in countries around the world are doing. host: if you had to make a list of those other than afghanistan -- guest: china, russia. those are the emerging issues that need to watch what they are doing. china is not a threat. russia is not a threat, per se. although there are those same the cyber attacks coming out of this country are a direct threat every single day and a big part of what we're doing is trying to put in place the cyber defenses to protect american and american

interests. host: the money for intelligence. is it for manpower or technology? guest: people, more than anything else. this will put a cap on the people, although we do have the counter intelligence surveillance team. the bulk of the money is spent on people, but we do spend a fair amount of money on high-and research, looking for that latest and greatest new tool to keep america on the front edge. our professionals that we put in place, intelligence professionals, have those tools and equipment they need to do the job they're asking -- we are asking them to do. enough. i cannot give a number out. it is frustrating to folks back home.

i'm not evading you come in just answering you. that should be intelligence that our adversaries and competitors would like to know. it would put us at a disadvantage. one of the roles of the committee itself is to be that watchdog. to be the eyes and ears for the folks that come to make sure the intelligence committee is taking the resources and using them in areas that it should be used. that is the role of the committee. i know folks in the house, republicans and democrats, take that seriously. host: intelligence and intelligence matters is our topic with mike conaway. you can talk to him about these matters as well. 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. the consensus an e-mail, journal@c-span.org.

-- view can send us an e-mail, c-span.org. caller: the patriot act. it was passed by george bush. it intrude into individual liberty in the united states. you people claim to be the people of small government, but that is the biggest intrusion into every individual's life. it violates the constitution. also, senator obama -- president obama has kept this country safe. he is doing what he needs to do. what he did when he ran for the , he said certain things. he said he would keep the american people save, regardless of what it takes to do you -- would you come on the patriots at and the fact that we've not

had another attack? guest: that is not on the floor today, but he made a great point. the president has used the patriot act and those tools every day to keep us safe. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot go against the patriot act and then argue that the president, and we have not had an attack, and the president did authorize the killing of bin laden. the patriot act came into play every single day. nothing is done without court approval. if you're still on the line, i could ask you specifically on what intrusion into your life does the patriot act have, but you cannot argue that the president is doing a good job because he uses the patriot act every day off and then argue that it does not have -- that we should not have the patriot act. some of the act comes up for renewal at the end of this year.

we're having this extended discussion on whether or not it is appropriate between now and into december. host: what is the likelihood of renewal? guest: i think it will be renewed. with had concerns. with the detainee provisions. we worked hard to get those provisions this year. there maybe an opportunity to address specific things. no act has ever been passed as a perfect bill. we will fine-tune it next year. that is why it is important that the intel community, that is right. you insult to the guys in the senate. it is the work of the community. we do it every year. in a six-year gap, under mike rogers leadership. we did one for 11 and 12 last

year. now we're doing the one for 2013. everybody was on board. a lot of hard work going and. all the issues that both sides had with respect to this bill. this is a bipartisan effort. host: new york, democrats line. caller: mr. connolly, you were reluctant to disclose a number of employes and our intelligence community, but i can say that the total cost of our intelligence community is over $70 billion. that is more than the rest of the world combined. i am questioning whether we're getting a bank for the buck. for example, 9/11. our entire intelligence committee did not have a clue. shortly before our invasion of iraq, they told them that-

president bush that it is a slam dunk. there are weapons of mass destruction. we know how inaccurate that was. was the oversight committee in the house and the senate outraged that this mistake? or was the president at the time outraged? no. they gave the cia head of the presidential medal of freedom. my suggestion is that we need another division to totally overhaul our intelligence community to find out why they totally missed the boat as a result of the tremendous amount of money we spend. guest: well, some would argue that the intelligence operations -- what we're trying to do today is to bump up the resources that bill.

save money. not spend it where we do not need it. there's been a great deal of introspection over the last 10 years, as you know. as for what happened on 9/11, we now have a director of national intelligence in response to some of the things you're talking about. we do, in fact, have a better blending and sharing of resources between agencies. tools and information. the tendency used to be to silo and not share the information. the mindset has changed. it is not perfect yet. but this is my fourth year on the committee, and we are doing a much better job, each of the 16 agencies not only working but sharing across those agencies the information they've got. we are better today than they were certainly in 2001. church commission -- not sure if i would be in support of that, but we have made changes since

9/11 and iraq and the goal of the committee is to try to properly resource the work of our professionals. host: mike from stafford, the -- -- virginia, on the line for mike conaway. caller: there are millions of americans who feel the way i do that the people in asian petition debt, it loses a sense of its authority -- the deburred a nation gets in debt, it loses a sense of authority so it passes more laws to get back a sense of control. this is met with some dissent from the sudden sri -- citizenry, and to handle but dissent, we have the patriot act, and we have the homeland security purchasing 750 million rounds of a 40 caliber hollow point ammunition, ammunition

that was outlawed by the hague in 1899 for the use of any military. i think it is plain to most people that are real fear amongst our government is the fear of the citizenry. guest: well, that is one man's opinion. i do not fear my government. i don't think you should, either. i do not know the basis of the millions of folks statement -- i am a cpa by trade and i try to be careful making statements like that when i do not have faxed to make the assertion. you feel that way and you feel very strongly about it, but i am not one who fears his government. it is a government that needs watching. one big we do in opposition is but the same and this is auditing all 60 of the agencies and get audited financial statements that we get over it

-- from the department of defense. over the plat -- past three years, giving the pentagon to put out a statement. we salt panetta and october take it on himself to move the initiative forward. we are doing the same thing in the intelligence agencies so they -- the good house -- the good housekeeping seal of approval. i am not sure how to react to the broader statement that you feel this government. host: 15 agencies, can they be consolidated and get the same quality? guest: not that we know of. the bigger and organization gets, sometimes above less efficient in this. you can look at what happened at dhs trying to bring everything under one hats. but those are things we constantly look at. host: one of the elements of the authorization bill is

authorizing something called the defense clandestine service. guest: these are men and women who served in our military who are trained to collect intelligence, to collect things and foreign countries, to develop relationships in these countries. previous to this initiative they would simply move into the job, get trained, do it for a short period and then go back to the other units. , we get the best bang for the bulk -- bess bang for the buck, so they can stay in his path. previously there was no path for promotion through the ranks. this simply says we recognize how valuable buses, how it is voluble to have men and women serving in particular areas of the world and we do not want to penalize them, so they get the same promotions that everyone else is getting to provide a great service. basically refocusing of existing

assets to a path that says this is important for the country and for the military to have this capacity because many times our military at sachets and others have access to foreign governments and individuals in the government that our cia people could never get to. host: a new agency? guest: just a new focus for the department of defense and a career path. host: chesapeake, virginia bank. thomas, republican line. guest: good morning, congressman conaway. with of the department of defense and united states navy identifying fluctuating cost of petroleum from hostile nations as a security threat, why has the armed services committee voted down to assist the biofuels industry? i am aware of the navy did pay a high praise for 450,000 gallons of fuel which was in the

guardian the spectrum -- if you could support our industry in the infancy, we are quite sure we would be able to deliver fuel at a cheaper rate than petroleum. guest: specifically talking about the blended aviation fuel that was purchased for the rim of the pacific exercises the summer, $5 million spent that that not need to be spent. one of the previous callers to talk about the debts impact on our country and the ability put -- to project our values around the world. this contributes to that. i understand there is some tension but the department of defense needs to take whatever resources and focus them to the pointy end of the sword and buying aviation fuel at $16 a gallon instead of $4 makes no sense. i am not against the research and development and the work of the department of defense does is an example -- reducing the

number of convoys that traverse afghanistan, so if we could figure out ways to power things -- that protect american lives. but this particular initiative does not do that. you have all the feel back and forth just like traditional fuels. spending extra money at a point of time we are trying to trim 80,000 soldiers out of the army and 20 about the marines out of the marine corps. host: this is from twitter -- threats are no different today than they have been. obviously iran, particular program, and the attempts to become a nuclear power is probably the biggest threat we face. we have every day threats from al-qaeda and islamic jihad is and the radicals and there who want to try to do something on a ongoing basis. they are continuing to evolve, and finding ways to frighten

americans into doing things. then we have 10, 15, 20-year things we are doing as well. part of the initiative is to provide the president and congress, with a beat for perspective that tries to help anticipate where our adversaries and competitors are going. so we have the proper defenses and countermeasures and place whenever they developed the techniques they think are best for their country to defend themselves. host: discussion this week about it and he drones domestically. guest: one of the things tricky about the faa responded -- reauthorization bill which forces the faa -- flying along the borders. i am from texas and we have a long, remote border with mexico that runs some 1,200 miles. it makes sense to be able to fly remotely up and down the border with cameras that do not bling so we can see what is going on and see what is trying

to come across. it makes some sense. this is unrelated to the effort of our police forces and other local agencies seeing the advantages and value, the tactical view of having the remote aircraft flying over specific tactical information and it will be up to local communities on how they want to do that. but from a border security issue it seems to make sense to be able to fly more of the planes in particular remote areas of the country in order to augment and strengthen our border security. host: virginia. angell, democrats month. caller: before george bush to -- took office, bill clinton and the republicans trends a lot of that from the government and ben 9/11 happened and we created

homeland security. homeland security employs half a million employees. what about folding all of these government agencies like homeland security and the cia and the fbi into one agency and trimming the fat there, too? guest: well, of course, part of the issue is the cia cannot operate inside the united states so as you know -- so you would not want them under an umbrella with fbi which is charged with operating in the united states. maintaining the separation is important. you heard a caller earlier who is really concerned about what the pro-government is doing with him -- so keeping those separate seem to make sense. but your overall point is correct, we ought to be

constantly going through the exercise and the department of defense has done that, down to about $178 billion of efficiencies and 100 they were able to read plowback against things that were more portland of -- compared to thing decided to cut. we are requiring the intelligence community to do the very exacting. looking at those efficiencies so we can do things as cheaply as weekend but still not heard the mission. thus we all believe is important. and that is providing information to try to protect this country from threats from around the world. you are spot on with respect to the concept but i do not think we ought to but the fbi and cia under -- only have one leader for both. it all gets sent to the president. host: about efficiency, and you talked about how you thought there was better sharing between the agencies.

generally, how is it being done? guest: the national counterterrorism center, where we brought people from every agency into one central location. they are bringing their backgrounds from those agencies into that exercise. going back into the agencies, having to serve shoulder to shoulder with people -- as you build the personal relationships, it helps break down all the barriers so when something is going on. we also have regional managers, the director of national intelligence has set up heads of these barriers -- i think they are called regional managers in which they will take subject matter and they would have responsibility across all agencies to again blend and breadth of the barriers, the inappropriate barriers between the various agencies. constantly looking at ways to do that better, because we did not want something to happen

because one piece of the information on -- another entity has a second piece and 50 put them together they could stop some but because they were silo, you miss it. host: talking to representative mike conaway, republican from tennis, and the select armed services and intelligence committee. -- mike conaway, republican from tennessee. caller: i would like to suggest that the root problem and the mcaleese is the continual war between -- in the middle east is the continual war between israel and its neighbors. unfortunately america continues to defend israel to oppose a solution. those two opposing forces will never agree. and russia and china, france and england, have to be involved in this. talking about both parties.

they get a lot of political contributions from agencies that you create and fund, and you do not like the situation where you have to continually run for office. guest: let me push back a little bit. i did not know of any government agency that gives any member of congress or president any money. that is not how the system works. israel, i am pretty straightforward. everybody old testement god he will bless those of less is rouse occurs those occurs as rouse so i take god at his word. i am not willing to mandate to a sovereign people. we cannot dictate israel -- to is what is a bit. we should work with the palestinians to agree the two-

state solution. but the other side has to come to the table as well and i don't see the other side, to the table to me but the israel is to solve it. i can assure you the people it is a way of every morning with the threats they would go with, they would dearly love to not wake up with the threats. you and i have no way to understand that, every single day somebody can drop a rocket or a mortar on your house. we don't face that in the united states, but of all is in israel are not intentionally keeping the fight going because they enjoy the circumstances. we have to work with both sides but mandating anything is not going to be something. host: michigan, republican line. david. caller: good morning, congressman conaway. host: you are on, sir. caller: good morning, congressman conaway. a former caller brought up

something about w. nd's -- wmd 's. in the last libya conflict they found nuclear-weapons from saddam hussein that were shipped from iraq to libya. these men were recovered and sent to oak ridge national -- these then were recovered and sent to ohrid national labs, so if they were there the president was right about iraq and occupation of iraq stops a bomb from using his weapons and he had to hide them in another country. the palestinian question -- that is simple, just eliminate the palestinians, we do not have a problem. we already made an agreement with 1948 so we should just drop a couple hundred nuclear weapons. guest: yeah -- not sure -- i

know there are chemical and biological weapons in libya that folks worked really hard to protect so that they did not fall on the wrong hands. i am not aware of the nuclear weapons. host: an acronym that as,, cispa -- cyber intelligence sharing and protect act. guest: it would provide -- provide the authority to nsa that they could share the cyber threats coming that our country every single day. we have some of the brightest and smartest people on the face of the earth working at nsa, keith alexander. they see these threats coming every single day but there is a gulf between their ability to see that and their ability to share it with the dot-com world. we are trying to figure out a way to have them share of the top-secret information that is gained at great cost to protect the dot-com world, so to speak. host: how much of an issue will

grow over the years? guest: it is a huge issue. sun bonds -- an example -- lunch in this sold in the united states, it is clear what our military response would be and who should respond and how we should respond. we have the equipment -- every single moment as we sit here there is somebody attacking a system we have in place. we have a certain infrastructure that should be protected. we need to begin to build the agreement among americans is how should we protect cyber? we have a u.s. cyber commands protecting dot gov and the nsa as the overall umbrella agency, bright people who know things that would be helpful for the private sector to know but no wage the nsa can share it with the private sector at this point in time. one of the biggest threats.

we are spending a lot of money on research and spending a lot of money on the tactical efforts every day to protect dot gov and mil but the dot-com world is not as protected. host: we talked about -- in "the washington post" talking about a cyber plan x. have you been briefed on this at all? guest: one of the programs that go on where 50 years ago it would have been some genetic experiments to figure out a better way to do ex-wife and is a and this is just a natural evolution about to protect. we want to be in a leading edge and the cyberworld is an arena where we have to be the best and this is providing the u.s. with the tools necessary to do the kinds of things they want to do.

does not give everyone the authorization, but not use the tools but it puts them in a development phase that makes sense so when the time dot coms and should we need it to be able to launch cyber offense of the tax -- a tax, that we have them and you need assistance like this. host: one of the questions you have to s.b. for ingate -- what of the questions you have to s.b. for engaging in some been like this? guest: that is an area -- does not have -- have not coalesced. what would be the proper response to a cyber attacks coming from this direction? all of those questions have to be answered and shoot on and we are on the leading edge. for actually doing that and helping the american people understand how important it is and why when they turn their computer on, there are folks in other parts of the world using their computer to do things they

really would not want to do if they knew it was going on. these threats are beginning to be more for our consciousness, and then you got a really malicious force that could use this to take down some of our critical infrastructure that would have a dramatic impact. host: carl of the democrats' line from new orleans. caller: -- we talk about homeland security and domestic terrorism. in new orleans, louisiana, we have a lot of police officers who do a lot of dirt the people in and the community and they take an oath on the constitution. what will congress do about the police officers, those in the position of authority to abuse that at home that terrorized people in the neighborhood and adjust it slapped on the wrist and they do not get arrested or thrown in jail but we are looking for all of these people outside of america and we have people right here doing the dirt as well. what is congress going to do about that? guest: well, i share your out

rates. nothing angers me more than to see somebody abuse their authority and takes advantage to do things they should not do. we have all the laws to make against the law. it is really up to the citizens of new orleans to put in place a city council and leadership at the police department to handle that problem. that is a local issue. one of the reasons why we are $16 trillion in debt is good, hard-working people at yourself and they look to the federal government to solve problems that should be settled locally. what should of several government do of what should the states and communities do themselves. this is something that should be solved in the city of new orleans. a city council, mayor, police coverage -- that is where you should go to express the outrage. we do not need a federal law but

in orleans the have to do it themselves. host: your thoughts on syria. guest: our role now is to do what we're doing, understand what is happening. in the intelligence side, to see what is happening and syria, what the opposition groups are and how effective they may or may not be appearing -- might not be. there are plans in place should the president decide we need to do something broader. but horrible human rights violations going on there. incredible stuff which syrians killing themselves. it is an awful sudden stance. but iran is complicitous in some of that. it is a tough situation. i do not think right now we should send our troops in there, but that assumption the president will have to john. host: providing weapons? caller: we did not see the dot

cohesive opposition group -- whether that could be as active on a bigger scale. lots of groups over there, lots of folks individually in villages and locations are taking it upon themselves to do what they need to do there, but no cohesive group that we see right now that would be somewhere where you can get weapons to. host: how much of the military and the 0 d is contract out or privatized and are different laws governing contractors? guest: i do not have the that the top of my head. i know there was an effort to reduce the number of contractors both in department of defense as well as intelligence communities. i do not have a need percentage breakouts like that. is, no,ral's statement there are not separate roles or contractors, for conduct, then any other citizen. it is a broad statement. there may be a narrow area.

but the general looked statement, no, they did not have a separate rule book. host: what roles? guest: back office and technical support for everything going on, and then quite frankly, we contract folks to goes by on others as well. host: vermont's, independent line. caller: hi, mr. conaway. we in this country have a vast intelligence industry and it is closely tied to the military and police. my question for you, do you profit personally through investment or ownership of corporations? i will take my answer off the air. guest: not intentionally. i have a very static portfolio. you look at my assets over the last seven years i have had little changed. i had investments in mutual funds and broadly held interest

that may have some interest in some of the companies, as you talk about, it will sound self- serving to you but i never think about that issue in terms of how it would profit me by doing some of like that. because, one, i do not own that many stock directly, most everything is neutral funds are managed accounts where somebody else is making the decisions and if you look of my and it's a statement from year to year over the last seven years you will see something that is pretty static. i don't do much trading at all. one, to avoid those kinds of questions and, two, i do not have time to do it. it is a full-time job and the faults in district 11 want me doing it full time. host: georgia, mark on the republican line. caller: as a disabled and a combat vet, i think anybody sending another man into combat should be a vet, a ground man, instead of being these people sitting people at the top with no military experience and

watching the bodies, seeing what napalm would do. i think anybody who sends another man into a combat zone of to have the experience to do it. and one other thing -- about the weapons. we spend so much money on the weapons and a lot of them coming to them and out on the field and they did not function like they are supposed to, like the f-22 wrapped their web oxygen is not going to the pilot's brain and up and causing them to black out. it should have been cured before allowed to be put into play. guest: thank you for the call. that issue is going to be tougher and tougher to implement as the size of the united states park police and it's bigger. and we have to shrink or hold steady -- the number of people who actually served in the military, you will have fewer and fewer of the people who have

the experience that you think would make a good leader. making that happen will be impossible to do. that is not how we elect our leaders. i do agree that it is important that we have people in congress who have served and have seen of the things you have talked about. with respect to f-22, we are all frustrated. sometimes it is affected and some are not. we have even had ground personnel beginning to experience the same kind of symptoms that the pilots are talking about. there is a full-court press to figure out what it is because it is an important tool, when we went available at the time is needed and we have a problem with it. was everything was perfect, as you do, but when you find something that is not you work hard to fix it and i have confidence the department of defense is working the issue as hard as we can because we want those back in the air. host: battle creek, michigan. travis, democrats' line.

caller: when it comes to security threats, don't you think the longer we stay in his undeclared wars, the more threats we have -- may be innocent civilians being killed. because sometimes stuff like that happens and it may cause more rage toward the u.s.. and another thing i would like to ask about -- there are a lot of conspiracies about fema camps and we have heard history about the law by police officers being abused. what can you say to american citizens to reassure them that an american citizen can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial, how can you assure that that will not be abused in the future. guest: thanks. i blank on the first question. the last question is addressed in the ndaa will we put in place a position the executive branch has to notify congress within 40 hours about the retention of an

american citizen and rational. i cannot guarantee there will not be of use is going on. we are people and we put people who have feet of clay in positions of leadership, positions of responsibility, and the vast majority of times those folks will film the responsibility admirably and with great pride but from time to time we have people who screw up and reduce until we develop the to do and we do a good job trying to put these people in jail. continuing fighting in afghanistan and those places -- i am not willing to drop our guard and say, look, we will not try to protect ourselves in that regard. great efforts have been done in the last stages of iraq and afghanistan to protect civilians. you are exactly right, every time we call somebody, collateral damage, so to speak, are not involved in the fight, we create a potential enemy. howard dean under petreaus when he was there and under --

however team, under petreaus and john allen went through the extraordinary measures to assure nobody gets hurt who is not a bad guy. hurting folks who we are trying to protect what we are going to get the bad guys does us no good and it hampers our ability to continue to get the bad guys every time we heard somebody who is just an innocent bystander. our team works really hard to not let that happen. host: my desk was mike conaway, serves on the select intelligence and armed services committee. coming up, we will hear from representative mike quigley, a democratic from illinois, talking about transparency, and later on we will conclude our spot light on dot columnists. >> more on intelligence issues. a russian court has convicted a reserve colonel of spying on behalf of the united states. prosecutors say vladimir lazar

purchases disks of images of topographical maps of russia and gave them to american agents. he will be stripped of ... military rank and will go to a high-security prison. two american tourists have been kidnapped in egypt. security officials say armed bedouins snatched the two what they were traveling by car to a resort in the sinai peninsula. the americans are described as two men in their early thirties. the dragon as flying home. a spacex capsule left the international space station are today and is aiming for a pacific ocean splash down -- specific ocean that plus down later today. off -- specific ocean splashing down later today. >> i believe every book i right, go there -- go to green bay to find out what it is like in the winter with the bandsmen got --

vince lombardi coaching there, go to ", arkansas. i have never been to vietnam before. how can i write about it without going to the battlefield? >> in his book, david marinus talked about two turning points in the vietnam war, one in vietnam and won in the u.s. over the past four years he has been researching his newest book, "barack obama dot-com of the story." june 17, live on book tv. "washington journal" continues. host: mike quigley, a democrat from the fifth district. what does transparency to you? guest: access, that the public knows what is happening in the government. host: is at haping currently in

congress? guest: certainly not enough. the largest part of our spending is certainly not in the budget process, a lot of money being spent without any awareness of how effective it is or exactly how we are using the money. host: an effort you start looking at the transparency caucus. continue to explain more about the caucus? guest: we've formed the transparency " is to address all the issues. i come from illinois where four of my last eight governors have been convicted on corruption charges. two of my immediate predecessors have also been convicted of corruption charges. and enough is enough. we need to send a message to the american public will not be tolerated. i appreciated last year a cnn report showed only 15% of the american public think that congress will do the right thing for them. the purpose of forming the

transparency " this is to let the american public be their own watched of. but they cannot be that watch dog without the information, what to the government is doing. we are trying to make as much information accessible to the public so they know how these decisions are being made. host: one of the efforts is the transparency and government act of 2010. some of the book points are things you found important include tightening of lobbying rules, creating a year marks database, creating members of congress database and would put all votes, harris, markups on line. don't these things happen already? guest: things are a little scattered and it is hard to get everything. a similar measure, congressional demand dated report pack. the except the branch and congress create a lot of reports about what is happening in our country and why it needs to happen, from defense spending, health care, education. typically what happens with the

reports is the end of a gathering dust on some shells. we passed out of committee a measure that would put all of those in a central database, research of the database. the idea that everybody from iowa to california to new york can get access to the information about what is happening in the country and why and how the money is being spent. host: under the bill -- talk about some of the other changes. all searchable databases? guest: a lot searchable databases. as much access as is entirely possible. we do this under the framework of good sense. the real cost of corruption in government, whether it is local, state, or federal, is a loss of the public trust. we have to recognize that the decisions we make here are tough enough, but if we have the public's respect, if we have the trust, even if they disagree with you, democracy is going to work. when you don't have the public's

trust, these decisions are made willy-nilly without the perfect information going back and forth from the electorate, then we fail. host: mike quigley talking about transparency and other issues. if you want to ask questions -- new jersey, you are up first for our guests. this is by an up. caller: i just wanted to tie it in on our last segment about homeland security and now transparency, how long this whole underground city, i saw it on pbs special, how bare of big underground city, so many employed and we cannot account for how much we spend. the department of defense cannot account for their spending and

all the people and politicians like guiliani, because they were there at ground zero, the form consultant companies and have enriched themselves. millionaires now. how can we make it more transparent to reveal to the public what is going on? and what he was saying about trust in government, this is why because we say that our politicians are in cahoots with corporations cannot benefit the whole welfare of everybody, every citizen in the united states. guest: let me begin with the department of defense. you raise a very good point. at this point of time, department of defense spending is about 20% of the entire budget. it cannot be audited. they tell us they will not be what it does ready for about seven-eight years. in other words, one out of every $5 spent out of your tax dollars, we do not know exactly how it is being spent. it is not good government, not

good, efficient government, and clearly not transparent. it begs -- for homeless security issues we are looking to vote this week for reauthorization of homeland security money. believe it or not, members of congress on that committee did not exactly to see be exact details about the dollars are spent. we are blindly asked to support the measure. a lot more transparency could be brought in to that process as well. host: texas. good morning. caller: you mentioned the 2010 transparency act. i was curious does the transparency act not apply to the administration? guest: our tax applied to different people. i probably have introduced a dozen measures that apply to the executive branch and to the legislative branch. it depends on the issue. our most recent foray into this

is the lobbyist transparency act, which deals with a lot of the issues of how the lobbyist community addresses what we do in washington. with the executive branch and with the house and senate. for example, if a lobbyist spends less than 20% of their time lobbying, they are on the ground. they did not have to report through the lobby or to what extent the lobby at all. also right now with some of the lobbies, they do not have to say to the lobby but they have to report house or senate. people want to know how decisions are being made and who influences those decisions. a good point. most of our reform measures are issues that deal with transparency and accountability, equally applied to the executive and legislative branches. host: do it sector members have to report the lobby's they meet with? guest: no. host: why is that? guest: a good question. i think it should all be a two- way street, they -- should

publicly put on line who we are meeting with -- who is influencing us. i suppose the most after the way to decide how it is happening now, how lobbyist dollars a being used in campaign contributions. another question to raise is out of should be allowed to continue. host: does the bill take into account those -- changing the definition of a lobbyist? guest: to a large extent. basically it gets rid of a loophole that says if you lobby at all you have to report that. former members, very powerful people, to lobby in a short period of time, comes with a team of regular lobbyist to do. we all know what former members and members of the executive branch are doing to influence government. host: wisconsin. good morning. this is dave on the republican line. caller i have a question about

this transparency in government. some of the campaign promises -- everything he has passed a spending would be open to the public. previously used said that they were working on. why isn't everything open to the public? why don't we have the transports a question of guest: i honestly think the obama administration has made great strides to improve transparency. people often ask him if i introduce members to target an individual member of congress or the administration? i have been doing this as a dozen years now, in my own home state of illinois where corruption is an extraordinary problem. you can't simply just do that. you need measures that were good 10 years ago, present day, and it measures that are important 10 years from now. it has to be bipartisan. you cannot use any of these

measures to target a party or individual. corruption wears both pacts. as long as they may cause of flesh and blood, people will fall short of what they should do. so, it is not a lot of bipartisan efforts in congress. but it is important to say this about transparency and corruption. i don't see a lot of bipartisan cooperation on social issues or even fiscal issues. i have, to be all honest, seen it when it deals with transparency and accountability. a lot of my measures that deal with corruption like tension reform, cleaning of government act which restores honest services, project shields -- mr. sensenbrenner took the lead with me on a honest services restoration act and senator kirk, bicameral bipartisan, help deal with the corruption issue dealing with homeland security right back and illinois,

projects shield. so, if we are going to be successful as this it cannot be something used to go after one individual or party, but we need to recognize is the process is what needs to be cleaned up and we need to do it across bipartisan and bicameral levels and have something that is affected not just now been 20 years. host: how many members of your caucus? caller: about -- and guest: about 40. a good number of people participating. what we are still struggling with in congress, dealing with caucuses as a whole, is the battle between caucuses and committees or who takes over what jurisdiction. sometimes people will see a dot to put to the effort or encroachment on the territory. i would like to see caucuses use more for an affirmation gathering and bringing the public into the process. host: newton, alabama. you are on, man. lahood.

caller: -- .ost: you are on, ma'am caller: we are all one nation. i of wondering why they cannot work together for transparency and with the democrats and also the republicans because we all are one. and i want to know why they could not work together or come together for transparency. guest: i think it is the quintessential. . before i did to what we are accomplishing i will say this -- often the house and the senate, i think they are sort of like a bad football games. part of the problems with the democrats and republicans being tedious something goes wrong and there is a question of ethics, they often treated as a bunker

mentality, both parties. they refuse to address the problem because they feel it will draw more criticism to the members. what they said those do is recognize there should be no sacred cows and if there is an investigation warranted it should take place. it should have been on a bipartisan basis. on the good side of all of this, as with corruption and transparency, i see bipartisan cooperation. it is just the beginning here, the initial stages. but again, we have a measure dealing with transparency and the budget. mr. -- a republican from ohio is working with me on that. taxpayer -- an important issue on transparency. lobbyist disclosure, we have some republicans. access to congressional demanded a report, again, we have republicans on those bills with us. it is the concessions --

quintessential point, can we move together on critical issues. however this country agrees or disagrees on important matters, we have to agree that the process is clear and transparent and accountability to american taxpayers. i did not believe we will have unanimity on anything. this is a very diverse country with very different viewpoints. but we can agree that the prices should be fair and accountable. i think it makes the entire process look -- worked best. -- work best. i think the penalties are there. i am from illinois and unfortunately i have heard all the jokes. there is almost an indictment. i do not know if that is the deterrent. clearly the process should take place and people should be punished. i think if there is more transparency and accountability, people are deterred from doing the things that are wrong simply because there is so much information out

there that it would be easy to get to them during host: how did you practice transparency before congress? guest: i came from illinois, and just to show you how bad things got, when i first got here i was on the colbert report and the first thing he asked me, your predecessors, blagojevich, rostenkowski, have you pick out your prison? it is somewhat funny but for people in chicago -- we have a real cost of corruption. part of it is loss of trust with the public. i took on as the cook county commissioner my own party, and took on the machine and passed about six imports and transparency as six measures at the county and i brought that with me here. i took congressman emanuel was a place here right on the heels of

the blagojevich bible. you do not get that when you come here. you bring the same principles to washington, d.c., when we were dealing with that in chicago. host: richard, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. one transparency -- if logan act covers -- today they are meeting with a group in chantilly, virginia, and you never really hear the media talking about it. even though they thank the media for not covering it, like david rockefeller and the queen of the netherlands and everyone is there and you can look at the information and it is really a violation of private-sector and government agencies. like henry and obama was there before the election. and the press course -- press corps from the white house was hijacked on the plane and -- who

was going to be the vice- president of the secret kabals. i would like to hear about this logan act and a lot of things cannot get covered. now people are saying ron paul -- romney is the nominee and when their real delicate count i of looking at right now is six sons and 72 for mitt romney and 1864 ron paul -- 6724 mitt romney and 186 for ron paul. guest: have not read this yet. i had a working meeting this morning. i would be glad to read this and find out a little more how this might apply. breaking news today. but i would be glad to look into it. it is the kind of issue we appreciate and respect the public's right to know. host: petersburg, pennsylvania

pirie -- pennsylvania. caller: maybe if we had transparency in the last decade maybe we would have known the wars were not in the books. when someone is scratching our heads and wondering what the budget is so high or so low -- spending so much money, you wonder where you are getting it from and then you put everything on your budget and you look at it and sent back -- suddenly your budget is through their roof and you blame the person who tried to do something transparently. that is what i did not understand. why blame the this administration for taking the deficit high when it would have been higher if the wars were put on the books in the first place. we would have all known something about it. caller: i can't agree more. everything we --

guest: i can't agree more. everything was spent to be in the budget. it is a planning document all of -- also a message to the public. every dollar should be in the budget. the fact is, congress does not approve a budget seemingly anymore and we need to do that as well. recognize as well -- what i said in the beginning is very important. $1.20 trillion a year on tax breaks, tax expenditures, are not in the budget whatsoever. right now if you go out and purchase a card to get to and from work, the interest on that loan is not tax deductible. but if your neighbor went out and bought a yacht and took out a loan to buy the yacht, the interest on that loan would be tax deductible. that is a tax expenditure. we have no accountability on how much money there is there, no account a levy on how affective it is, no sunset provision.

in addition to go more spending, $1.20 trillion a year not on the books at all, need to be there so we know how the dollars being spent. secondary measure, a taxpayer receipts. you get your property tax bill. in most jurisdictions a pie chart that shows exactly how dollars being spent. taxpayer received gives you a detailed receipt -- how much of your money goes through -- to foreign aid, how much to education, defense, so forth. the largest purchase of the year is probably taxes. you ought to know exactly how those dollars are being spent. you also need to recognize that many americans, because they are being kept blind, do not understand and that affects policy. most americans think that about one-third of their dollars are being spent on foreign aid when the number is closer to about 1.5%. that impacts dramatically how

congressional leaders make decisions on how to spend those dollars. host: we have our network, 24- hour networks and independent organizations that deal with the information access pirie -- access. guest: you could have 1000 researchers working for you now and you would not be able to find -- this is a needle in the haystack. there are trillions of dollars you are trying to pull apart and understand where the monies are going. it is just impossible. if you are a sophisticated researcher and your organization is, it should be easy for anybody across the country to go on line and know exactly how the money is being spent and how their government works. this should not be so complicated. it should not take award winning investigators to find out how this government operates.

host: freedom of information act? guest: it should not take that to take basic inflammation and they can be delayed at abused by both parties -- it should not take that for basic information. it should not take foias to get basic information on how your tax dollars are spent and how the government as operating and who is influencing decision making. host: illinois, democrats line. caller: i do not think we need a committee on trends currency. it is quite transparent our nation is nothing but a bunch of rock stars, crooks, and you will be crushed -- fraudsters and crooks, and you will be crushed like a bug and have no chance, thrown under the bus by people know exactly where the money is going.

could the money is going into their pockets and you will not be able to stop it. i appreciate you trying but be read into the squashed like a bug. our country was founded by crooks, murderers, robbers. what you'respect saying -- let me put it this way. i and eternally optimistic perr-- i am eternally optimisti. anybody can have a bad century. i think what you are stressing is what people are trying to address. the fact that most americans feel so strongly in a negative sense about their elected officials dramatically impacts our ability to make the right decision. you and i are from annoyed. people in springfield are going to have to make very, very difficult choices was scarce resources. i always felt if we have the

public respect, even if they disagreed -- we do not have the public trust and respect, the choices will bring us down. it will be a possible to -- there are folks trying to do the right thing. it is not just to you but i hear it all the time. beth that -- there are a lot of strong, good, hard-working people on the hill, the white house, and all state governments trying very hard to make things better, whose hearts are in the right place. have some faith and get past the headlines of those who led the public down.

host: you had a project called reinventing government. guest: i started up the cookout to level with reinventing. -- cote county level. i do not see government as the evil others do but i had to recognize it needs to be as effective and efficient as possible, to respect the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and to insure it is served well. i remember the heroes of 9/11 are public servants. public servants teach our kids and protect us perry -- protect us. the mission of government matters but that has to be the most efficient process possible. a few words in -- how the government --when i did it at the local level the idea was to streamline and consolidate because i like there were courts

out there and jails and people to protect the but if they operate in the most efficient process possible we save tax dollars and we can keep the mission going. for cook county it was fairly easy because most of the government was designed for 100 years ago and not 10 years ago. but the same concept is true here. looking at military spending, a lot of the spending is hung up on post-world war ii cold war scenario. if we were to start over, what would we do to protect our country, how would we defend ourselves? for me, is focused on home as security and protecting our allies and not having a large force in europe, not having a large nuclear weapon storehouse. it is starting over and asking ourselves if we were going to protect ourselves starting today with today's issues, how would we change things. my report shows about 50 ways to save $2 trillion dollars. supporting the simpson-bowles

measures, and using concepts of reinventing government. host: statement from guest: it is frustrating. we could be here for four hours. i do believe that the american taxpayer, if they have the information they need to make the decision they want to make in this election in the electoral process, it is when they keep this information and the cynicism does very little but create negativity on the hill. it makes it far more difficult for us to do the right thing. host: what would transparency look like for the average citizen? guest: on their fingertips would be access to how decisions are made, who is influencing those decisions, and the tax dollars being spent.

how does our government work? a wealth of information that we can learn from. everyone, without extraordinary research skills ought to be able to know what is happening inside the government, how it operates, where their tax dollars are going. then they can make better decisions in the electoral process. host: california, good morning. caller: i have two questions. the first is why isn't the trust transparent in congress. the second is that there were to hundred $50 million given to the state of california for disabled children. yet, out of that, $26 million was held back to ministers. $324 million was never given or spent on the children. guest: the second part of your

question, it is hard for me to follow all the dollars that goes into every state. but i do believe you get to a good point here. when large spending programs take place, transportation, for example. i always thought it was good to set a little bit of that money aside for an internal watchdog. back to the people who make those decisions. the executive and legislative branch. you certainly do not need $26 million to administer a project of that size. i do think a smaller amount of money should be set aside for internal investigators to get imbedded in those programs. we tried a measure that allows states to do just that. it allows them to deal with the corruption internally with their transportation dollars. it passed the house. we are still trying to 112th

congress to do the same thing. host: our next call is in michigan. this is the independent line. go ahead. caller: representative quickly, thank you for taking my call. -- quigley, thank you for taking my call. i appreciate your disclosure and willingness to come out to the american people. is there any mechanism to create the vote? my issue is there is a need for americans to know their congress. there is a lack of trust. we seem to be put out or released on friday. these are quickly disclose, and acted on, and it ought to be under the rug. special interests. changing the laws.

the negotiation between lawmakers. is there a way to enact it -- to enact a mechanism that forces a possible all the stuff can be disclosed so we can observe those decisions real-time with you and let you know how we feel as these changes are made? guest: several points. let me touch on a few. first of all, as measures are introduced, committee information and reports and so forth, i think we have the technology available to put almost everything online. the american public, not just people who are making the decision in congress, have access to give permission to do your talking about it. chew on it and understand it. you did reference earmarks. let me say this. they were originally a reform measure because the identified who was targeting certain progresses'.

what i say is putting all that online and requiring full disclosure. at think what is happening in the 112th congress with earmarks is that once they have been unofficially band, they went underground we had just the opposite affect of a reform measure. that is a real shame. if you're going to promote a bill, you're going to promote a product within a spending bill. you as an individual member should put that on line and tell people why you're doing it. host: the color represent -- preference lack of trust. overall, congress stands at 14.6% right now. 32% said right direction. 50% said wrong track. would transparency adjust those numbers, do you think?

>> i think it does. we are going to have fundamental differences whether we agree with what are lawmakers do. there are 435 members in the house of representatives. we come from very diverse areas. the public is not going to agree on very many issues. but i do believe that if they know who is influencing us, why we are making those decisions, what information we are using to make those decisions, there is a trust factor which is extraordinarily important in the democratic process. we have lost that. as a result, i think it is one of the reasons you have further polarization and distrust. i respect that anger. if they target that in the democratic progress in an election, what i want to do is help them make those decisions.

i want to give them all the information they need. host: our democrats line, atlantic, the georgia. caller: thank you for letting me call in. my question or statement is that i think that the problem with congress is that the method of compensation is wrong. i think we are paying people based upon not a doing something. we should be paying them based upon the objective of accomplishing something. for example, my whole life i worked as an executive being paid a minimal salary and paid a bonus. when things are good and i accomplished something, i made a lot of money. today, that is the way the

government should work. it should be based upon being paid the minimal salary and paid upon completing an objective. the objective, for example, is getting employment up. and when you get employment up, you get paid. but otherwise, you are not paid. that should be true for congress. guest: let me say this. i think incentive should be built into a government does. i want to give necessarily implies that matter is of not sure how you quantify an elected official. clearly with government contracts we should and do have incentives. for example, on construction projects. other than that, it is hard to quantify. let me say this. i am extraordinarily outspoken

critic of government in a lot of levels. but i do believe that the majority of elected officials worked very hard and their heart is in the right place. 60, 70, 80 hours a week is a very common workweek. i think the frustration you're talking about is one of a larger issue. the economic downturn and what is happening in ethics level. i get that. but i think if we stay together and focus on the information we need to make a right decision, we will get to those points. a big we need to compensate people who work in the public's trust. if they do not do their job, they get voted out of office. host: are there limits of transparency? could you talk in big terms when

you have sensitive information like that? how transparent should we be? to releaseon't want information that would be traded public's trust. it is an extraordinarily difficult balancing act. probably overprotective of some of those issues when it deals with spending dollars. just because what you do is sensitive from a protective point of view of this country does not mean there should not be more oversight or that there is an unlimited budget. the fact of the matter is that the defense industry waste a lot of money. you cannot use the blanket while it is for national security to let people do anything they want. host: next call is colorado springs, colorado on our republican line. caller: yes.

president obama and the democrats controlled congress for the first two years in his office. there is a piece about the strategic defense budget where none of these services have a really good plans. they're supposed to be able to fight the joint warfare. how can it work jointly? and that for the first two years one of the biggest problems was to get the employees to deploy it also. you're giving a pass to the civil servants. the third thing is that i did some more for the national academy and sciences.

ops wanted a better rifle that was more lethal. instead, they put it into the defense budget. they say it is a potential for another solyndra. guest: energy savings, as a whole are critical to the safety of our troops. getting the supplies to our troops, particularly energy, puts a front-aligned members in danger. the supply lines are extraordinarily dangerous. everything we do this for our troops. the military as a whole has to be looked that regardless of the administration. this is not a two-year issue or eighth four-year issue.

our defense structure has to be streamlined. at the same time, making our country safer. host: on twitter. guest: this is an institution that is tough to overcome. you have to of great staff who are willing to work hard. i think she is suggesting a lot of information to digest. the problem is when things happen in a hurry for the end of a deadline. it is why we should be working on these projects well-ahead. we should actually have a budget so that we're not rushed at the end of a continuing resolution. that is not the way to run our country.

to answer the question, it is more acute when we are rushed and put off decisions and kick the can down the alley and do not try to address problems before their typically addressed so that we have more issues.s to thiese host: the length of the bills to get understand what actually do? guest: if a bill is complicated, it will be long. life is complicated. when we started this country, we did not have an asset or defense budgets. life is complicated. the fact that those are long is not the problem. at that rush to make a decision, we do not have sufficient time to adequately analyze what we are trying to accomplish. if we did not take the problems down the alley or address them

when we should, we would have more time to address those measures. i have no problem with complicated language and the bills. but we need more time to address them. host: what about the people up there who do not have the benefit of your staff reading them? how did they get a sense of what these bills means and by virtue become more transparent? guest: if they have enough time, if we're not contacting that time for the public to analyze it, we could help them do that as well. everything is on line. not just the bills. the american public will be on equal footing with their lawmakers. host: independent line. caller: the first thing we need to do is something with the super pacs. this is crazy. the second thing is that when we

took over the chrysler auto group and people made sacrifices, he took a pay cut. i really think that if you want the american people to start taking pay cuts, social security, medicaid, all of those things, it makes you feel like you're part of the program. everybody in washington needs to take no pay for a year or two years or at least a pay cut. it is symbolic. it makes people feel a lot better. guest: i respect that. i supported a measure twice to freeze congressional pay. i respect that. the first question was -- host: i missed it. i was doing other business. let's take one more call. go ahead. caller: please do not cut me

off. i would like to ask two questions. sir, can you tell me how the senator can come in and make $100,000 a year and windup to be millionaires? i do not understand how they can do that and to do the people's work. i know you all are only there a few weeks out of the year. so, your pay is ridiculous. and then, the federal workers that make our country work and the first thing you all do is you want to cut federal workers. when federal workers start, they barely make a minimum wage. their benefits are what entices them to come in and work for the government. host: thank you. guest: i appreciate that. i think the majority of members of the house and senate were millionaires when they got here. i introduced measures that

specifically make it much more difficult to punish those -- i think the stock act was a step in that direction where people cannot benefit. aside from that, you have to pay people for what they do. this is an important job. i hear this often. only a few weeks a year. with all due respect, i would suggest that most members worked 60, 70, 80 hours a week or they're in washington, d.c. or back at home meeting with their constituents to solve their problems. host: mike quigley, to aforetime. coming up, we wrap up our spot light of a columnist series. katha pollitt, we will hear from her after this update. >> unemployment numbers just in show americans seeking benefits rose last week to a five-week

high. evidence that the job market remains sluggish. weekly applications for the unemployment rose a 10,000 to a seasonally-adjusted -- the commerce department says it grew at an annual rate of 9.9% for the first of the year. slower than estimated. a computer virus that russian experts are analyzing. it is a new a virus they call slain. this is that a government sponsored is behind it. the virus was detected after the lab was asked by the united nations to check supports of suspicious computer activity. we will hear more about this and the united nations internet regulation plans today when the house committee meets to discuss the issue. it begins at 10:15 a.m. eastern

time. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> spent the weekend in a wichita, kansas with booktv. literary life with booktv. dennis on the farming of beechcraft. also, browse the rare book collection and a sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv, experience early life that the old cowtown museum. also, two participants from the kansas moved it -- kansas a civil rights movement. this weekend, from which it taught kansas.

"washington journal" continues. host: if you join us, you know it started on saturday. we have -- we had colbert king, clarence page, and today we are joined by katha pollitt. guest: thank you for having me. host: for those who do not know you, could you explain the people you write for? who is your audience and what do you write about? guest: i write a lot about politics, books, culture. i write a lot about feminist issues and women's issues. and things better in the news. every now and then i reviewed a book or a movie. it is pretty much what i wanted to be. as to who reads it, i, of

course, i hope i reach an audience of millions and millions. but realistically, i probably mostly reach people who are on the left and of the political spectrum. host: your column most recent deals with the topic of waged a theft, a crime without punishment. can you tell us what you're trying to communicate? guest: this is the most shocking thing. it's bad enough that blow-wage workers are very low paid. a lot of them are undocumented immigrants who can i go to law enforcement. stolen.ips are they don't get paid overtime. they have no job security. their colleagues have studied this. they worked out that your

average, among the very large percentage of workers who have any of their wages not paid to them in the right amount or at all, the average wage is $51 a week. it adds up to something like $2,400 a year. if the politicians said, let's raise taxes by this month, there would be strung up by the nearest lamppost. but here we have these extraordinarily vulnerable people who are being robbed of their just-wages. it is shocking. host: as far as exposing it as an issue, what is the message not only to your readers but perhaps politicians who read your column? guest: what is the message? i think the messages be very careful when you leave a tip for the housekeeper in a hotel because in one of the most shocking cases documented was a

hotel housekeeper who supervisor would come in ahead and still the tip. can you believe that? what kind of person would do that? occupy is getting involved, which is really great. there are worker centers or make the road by walking here in new york that are getting involved who are wanted to help workers organize against this. i think we have to have good enforcement. even when the laws are not so bad. in loss angeles, which has the best laws protecting workers, there is the most that. working in cash only businesses. i think we have to have lots of enforcement. a lot of that happens at the state level. even though the federal

government has held good on these issues, a lot of that happens at the state level. reinforcement would have to be there. we all have to start caring about this issue a lot. host: 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. if you want to send a tweet. send us an e-mail at journal@c- span.org. new figures out today from the labor department saying that weekly applications for unemployment rose 10,000 to a seasonally adjusted 3 and 83,00. what does that mean for the people you write about?

guest: the harder it is to find a job, the more exploitive employers can be because there's a huge crowd of people who want that job and need it desperately and will put up with that treatment. i think, also, you know, i worry about these people who are being kicked off of unemployment now. what is going to happen to them? there is a lot of discrimination, as you know, against people weapon out of work for a while. for some reason, i do not know. employers do not like them. it is sort of like, what does it say in the bible that to those who have all things to be given and to those have that little will be taken away? it is sort of on the lower half or having taken away. it is terrible. guest: other topics we will address with their time together. you are on with katha pollitt.

caller: i am on the left and i love president obama. i do not care but the democrats to do not like him that much. i am going to vote for him because i trust him. i trust him completely. i know he has my it -- what happens to me. i know he cares. he cares what happens to everyone. i am terrified, too, of the unemployment. we were one of the ones that got -- my husband, after 30 years, you know, lost his job. he was on unemployment for all of the time that there was. he finally took a minimum wage job. you know, if you are poor, you are poor.

you do not have a big house and blah blah blah. when you lose 2/3 of your income, how are you supposed to pay the bills? host: we will leave it there and let our guests respond. katha pollitt, go ahead. guest: i am very sorry for your situation. there are a lot of people living that way. one thing the unemployment figures to not reflect is, let's say you get another job, in the case of you and your husband, the job you get likely it pays less than what you had before. so, people are depressed. and they are losing houses, too. so, there you are. you are working minimum-wage. you have a housing problem. you have health care problems, maybe. it is really terrible. i did not understand why this

is. maybe someone will call in with the answer. i don't understand why everybody is not an occupy wall street. why you can fire a teacher and everybody says, $50,000? that is too much. but you suggest raising taxes on bankers and everybody gets in a tizzy. i do not understand. host: the caller start off with his support of -- with her support of the president. what is your assessment of his first term? guest: i still have hope. i think president obama, people think he is like making. he think he can do anything he wants. but the republicans have said, we want him to fail. we're going to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. they have done that. when i did not understand is why in 2010 that the people who voted for obama for president did not go back and give him a

democratic congress. i think people are -- people are a little -- i am taking my marbles and going home about politics. if somebody does not immediately make everything better or do you want, you just say, i'm not going to say that. i have a lot of pressure -- problems with president obama, but i will vote for him. host: how'd you think he will fare against governor romney? guest: i am not a fortune teller [laughter] all of my fingers are crossed. what can i say? i think it will be struck -- i think it will be hard. these swing states are very swingy. not only that, in some states, like florida, the republicans in charge are doing their best to knock people, disproportionately democratic voters, off of the role. it is another major scandal.

180,000 people in florida have received these letters saying that you are registered to vote and we think he might not be a citizen so come prove that you are. host: hawaii, nathan is on our independent line. go ahead. caller: how're you doing? i just had to bring up a point with your guest. i am just amazed that i heard you talk about your article about immigrants losing wages due to unfair bosses. to be honest, i cannot believe someone in your position with the media is bringing up such an insignificant issue in our country. the immigrants are one of our issues. the sympathy does not go to them right now. guest: why not? caller: because we need to worry

about the people who are actually taking care of -- the voters. none of those people are voters. none of them are citizens. i understand amnesty, but it is not always necessary. guest: well, it is not only immigrants, in the first place, who are affected by wage-theft. it is disproportionately affected by them. a lot of people affected by wage our citizens. it is disproportionately people who are in that sector of the economy who has undocumented workers. the situation of undocumented workers affects everybody. that is white unions, who used to be really against undocumented workers have really changed their minds.

because the workers are altogether in this. it is really not possible to separate the ones you like from the ones you do not like. it is one big economy. host: atlanta, georgia, republican of line. caller: i have a question and comment. my comments, first, i do not know if this should be addressed to you. i would like to see a woman who is an african-american host on your show. my question to the guest is, what do you think about what is going on in wisconsin with governor walker and with the workers there are trying to do, and all the big money that is coming in from the republicans? it to the caller that called in just now, i want to let him know that he is also an immigrant. we are all immigrants in this

country. the only people who really truly live here, back in the day, are the indians, if you want to get technical about it. thank you so much. guest: to speak to the wisconsin situation, i think here we see the terrible, terrible affect of arguably the worst supreme court decision in a very long time, citizens united. that a vast amounts of money are pouring in to help governor walker. we do not know who these people are. that is the other thing. you do not know who they are. that information can all be secret. this is what our policies have become. i just think to myself, if the person with a lot of money can just don't a lot of money and it affects an election in a major way?

-- in a major way, in what sense is this a democracy? i think what is going on in wisconsin, and not just there, it is completely shocking. think of newt gingrich running for president. he had one that donor who gave him millions of dollars. i do not know why, because it was always pretty clear he would not win the nomination. but it did affect the whole primary set up and presumably he got something out of it or he would not have given all that money. i just think it is really wrong that one person should be allowed to have that kind of a major affect on the way our political system runs. host: larry is on our democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to come on two things.

the unions are not created to have an influence on what is going on in government. the wages would be high. 40 years later, $15 an hour. i think they're doing a disservice to this country. the wages would be high. [unintelligible] the temp agencies get paid $22 an hour for employees. they give the employees minimum wage. people would be doing better. [unintelligible] [unintelligible] what you think about this? would you, on those two things? guest: i completely agree with

you that unions really help workers. it is remarkable how there has been this steady, steady attack on unions at every level. just think of the way we refer to the employer as the employer and we refer to the leader of the union as a union boss. it sounds like a mafia boss already, doesn't it? i think that unions are really all that stands between workers and tremendous levels of exploitation. i don't really understand why some of the americans have bought into the idea that humans other enemy. that was a big thing going on in wisconsin were significant numbers of wisconsinites believed that the problem with

the schools and their economy was the teachers were making too much money. can you believe that? teachers are making too much money? they should pay teachers double. it is a hard job. as a lot harder than being a politician, for example. and they are paid pretty well. i don't really understand why it is that people buy into this anti-union a thing. everybody in there had things they are a potential millionaire and the thing that is to holding them back is to have to join the union. that is not the way it is. host: if governor walker escapes' greek call -- escapes' recall, what you think the perception of unions will be? guest: not very good. it it just seems really terrible that, almost at the last minute, this rush of money comes in. sort of like, now we are serious.

host: massachusetts is next. this is danny on the independent line. caller, go ahead. your honor, go ahead, please. caller: we know the media liberal and as a liberal woman on here. for the last 45 minutes we have listened to this liberal garbage. is she worried about george soros giving all that money to obama? it just seems like the media worries about rich republicans. we just talk about how much money john kerry or al gore or anyone has. host: just before katha pollitt

comments, i just want to let you know that during this series we have presented both sides. we had a conservative columnist on the art program yesterday. i would invite you to go to c- span.org to see that for yourself. guest: i think the thing about citizens united that is disturbing is it allows money to be given anonymously. i think that both democrats and republicans should be extremely concerned about that. i think that of violates basic standards of sunlight and transparency and knowing who your politician will be indented to. they are giving that money to get something back. i don't see how that as a republican or a democrat issue. to me, that is an issue of basic good government and citizenship. unfortunately, i think you are right, that it is true. we have a politics now that is

dependent on immense amounts of money. that favors those people who have a lot of money and people who can attract a lot of money. i do not think that is good. i would favor publicly funded campaigns. and shorter campaigns. can you believe it is still five months till election day? i just want to go live in iceland for the next five months and just come back a week before. most people are not even to dig into it now. but that is with the media will be obsessing about for five months. every little wrinkle. everything any of the say will be blown up into a major story. -- any of them say it will be blown up into a major story. host: what you think about a candidate's personal wealth? guest: that is an interesting question.

there have certainly been plenty of wonderful politicians who had a lot of wealth. for example, fdr. if he had a lot of personal wealth. and teddy roosevelt had some personal wealth, too. that whole family. but i think the question with romney is how did he get that wealth and what do you think about bain and the whole leveraging of corporations and loading them up with debt and making a lot of money. that is the issue with him. principle, i would not not vote for somebody who had the politics i support because they had a lot of money. i just think it would be nice for people who did have a lot of money if they got to play a major role in politics. host: in one of your columns you take a time-in-cheek approach about an romney and her working status.

guest: i am sorry, i am hearing my voice. yeah, i am getting an echo there. there was one of these manufactured controversies when a person who was described as a democratic person, but was not that, made a nasty crack about and romney. how could she speak for women when she has never had a job -- how could she speak for economics which he has never had a job in her life. and then about how staying home to be a mom is a job. i think this is an example of the totally manufactured outrage that dominates so much of our politics. i have to say, and a lot of it does come from republicans. my column was about the endless

iteration of the mommy wars. staying home versus going to work when the real problem is that in this country, and this would not affect an romney necessarily, but in this country we do nothing to support families. it forces women into very difficult choices. most women do not have the choice to stay home. we do not have daycare. it is extremely expensive. we do not have preschool in most places. we did not even have kindergarten and a lot of places. we do not have after school. we do not have paid-for-rental please. you have a baby and that is it. you're supposed to support herself and take a back to work? no. society should be helping people. in this society we treat having a baby, sometimes it is described as being a saint, and sometimes it is like buying an

extremely expensive bicycle. why should i, the taxpayer, if help you buy a bicycle? this is the future you're talking about. you have young people growing up who are healthy, who are educated, who are well-cared for, where the families have enough time to spend with their children, and that includes men and women. i really dislike how this is always an issue of women. i just think it would be great if we focus on the policy aspects and less on a who is the moral, perfect woman. host: republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i used to work at a lot of places. i have been in mediocre jobs and restaurants.

doing about $8, $8.50 an hour. i have been laid off several times to find out that they rehired a person who was an immigrant for lower wages so they would not have to pay some much. i have even been in one job and a job was taken away from my position so they could give it to somebody else. and then my wages were cut. i understand that part because when that person got hurt, we told her she had the right to report it because the manager was that to her. you know, the mistreatment. she could not go because she was scared of being deported. we told her, you cannot have to worry about that. they will take care of you. and she was pregnant also. that is bad because we cannot

help ourselves because they will not go against the management. it is like they get away with it. host: thank you. go ahead, katha pollitt. guest: isn't it interesting how all of these issues are corrected -- are connected? if that worker had the proverbial path to citizenship, it would not matter if there were a citizen or not. if there were still decent protections for all workers, then the employer would not take your job away and give it to a person they could pay less to resolve -- who is more vulnerable than you are. what bothers me is often when people talk about immigrant workers, it is as though the facts that immigrant workers are more vulnerable means we have to get rid of them. they are the problem. if only we didn't have immigrants we would go back to having a wonderful life. you know, some world where there aren't some of the immigrants. i do not think it works that

way. i think we are really all in this together. it will not be the case at 11 million or 30 million undocumented workers in this country now are going to go back to their home countries. that is just not going to happen. we have to work with the situation that we have and make sure that everybody has rights and are taken care of. host: on twitter, this point. guest: actually, americans pay less in taxes than in other industrialized country. it is a huge met that americans are so burdened by taxes and get nothing back. you get lots back for it. most of the things the government pays for are things like, well, we do have an enormous military. when people complain about their

taxes that does not come up too often. i think that if you want to have a society that takes care of people where they do not end up on the street, where the schools are good, where people have health care, then you have to pay for it. the way you have to pay for everything. that is the thing that nobody can say in politics because if you say, hey, we have to raise taxes. then, a lot of people like your caller there think that is really just the worst thing in the world. i want to live in a society that does not have people living on the street. and that doesn't have people running out of unemployment and then what happens to them? how what a place where everybody has work, a place to live, a decent life. that's, i think, would be a good world. host: this is from texas, the democrats' line.

you are on, go ahead. caller: i was listening to what she said about voter suppression earlier. if this is a democratic nation and people were allowed to vote, we would not have the problems we have now. host: how so? caller: if everyone was allowed to vote we would get elected officials in the office that would take care of the nation. we should not have these kinds of problems. host: that is it ever was allowed to vote. guest: there is a lot of a voter suppression. there are new regulations intended to keep people disproportionately, people with color and low income, off of the role. but even without that, people do not realize that it is really hard to vote in america. every time you move you have to reregister.

there are numerous procedural things that make it harder. you have to go to meet tuesday. what if you can't get time off of work? in a lot of countries, you can vote on the weekend. that is when election day is. that would make a lot of sense. unfortunately, that is in the constitution because at the time of farmers needed to get to the county in the 18th century. so, i think it is not as easy to vote as it looks. that is why i like it where some places you can both by mail. that does help a little bit. there are a lot of people moving around a lot. they are moving around a lot. and then the opportunity to vote by mail does not reach them. you really have to make an effort. and the people who make an effort are disproportionately

older people. people with very stable housing. people who lived in a place for a long time. we are a very mobile country now. people may be feel a little less connected to their community. a little less inclined to vote there. if we wanted to raise the number of people who could vote, there are things we could do and we do not do that host: -- do that. host: john and our independent line. caller: do not cut me off. host: we are running out of time, go ahead. caller: you talk about wages. the reason i am mad at obama is because he turned around and put hillary clinton up there which people in north carolina [unintelligible]

and then he went along with the day field. u.s. cannot have it both ways. -- with the gay field. everybody talks big but nobody gets out there and does anything. host: katha pollitt, go ahead. guest: he did put a lot out there. i desantis said, i think both parties -- i think -- i just want to say, i think both parties have aspects that are very similar. they have to serve big business. that is the way it is because of the whole campaign finance situation. that is how they get elected. it is rare that somebody gets elected because a lot of good people give them $10 each. mostly, the way campaigns are funded are from large business of the owners. that distorts our politics in

both parties. host: 44, texas. bill, republican line. caller: you said you do not understand why people have a problem with the unions. they drive up the cost of everything. they don't base their employment and pay system on acknowledge. they base it on how long they have been there. somebody who works really hard and gets good at something deserves more money because they are more skilled. and somebody who does not know what they are doing, they want the same money, but they do not want to do the same effort. and they also go to companies that are not unions and they get a job and they try to get the other workers to go union said

it will have to pay more and make our government pay more. everything in government costs more because the unions to not want to have a level paying playing field. the government wants to scale wages of the union can compete. they do everything the hard way. host: caller, thank you. guest: it seems to me that actually, i am in a union. at my place of the pain -- at my place of employment. people get promoted. they get paid more. not everybody is paid the same. that is with the union is established for what you can be paid. it does not say you cannot be paid more so people negotiate for waraises.

it is not the case that everybody working at the nation today was working there 40 years ago. there is turnover every now and then. if there is somebody who complete does not work out, they are made to go away. people have this assumption that they are the ones in a unionized situation would be the ones who are such a great worker and i get paid no more than some shmo at their -- out there. maybe they are the shmo. not everybody is some worked genius. it seems to me that most people in most jobs are doing ok. my daughter was in public school. she had excellent teachers. there were all good.

there is this myth out there that the average american worker is terrible, especially if it works for a union. that is not true. that is not true at all. we are a very productive country. we're a country that makes a lot of things and does a lot of things. i think the idea that the only thing that keeps people working is that terror of being fired -- i would just like to see some evidence for that. host: just a couple of tweets. we also have another tweet. and what you do on that, let's take one more call. claudia, a democrats' line.

caller: i hear a lot of people say that voters vote against their own best interest. i wanted to have you compare the stockholm syndrome to those who vote against their own best interest. guest: i think the first question was about publicly funded campaigns. totally in favor of it. i think it would really help. and also shorter campaigns. please. in most european countries, the campaigns are very short. like six weeks. that is better. that is so much better. there is plenty of time for people to pay attention and educate themselves when these campaigns drag on and on and on. it becomes, who do you want to have a beer with? this is a ridiculous way to run a country. host: let me squeeze in one more call. we're running short on time,

such a good jump right in. caller: yes, sir. thank you for taking my call. the lady has mentioned how congress has been stonewalling obama. when he started off he had a congress, the senate, and the white house. that is how we got obamacare. when most of the people did not want it. in 2010, which is why congress came back. we still do not have a budget after 3+ years which is our mandate to do. the senate has an even brought it up. why not do a balanced budget? there will not even listen to it on the floor. host: the work of congress especially when it comes to a budget. guest: i think congress has been remarkably ineffective. most people agree with that. their ratings are through the floor. i think we're coming into a election season. actually, we already