after that, an update on the situation and leadership in syria. all that plus your e-mails, calls and tweets next on "washington journal." ♪ host: good morning, the economy will be front and senate this week in washington. on thursday, ben bernanke will testify on capitol hill with questions if there is any more tools the fed can use to jump- start the u.s. economy. it is sunday, june 3, the house and senate are in session this week and the jobs numbers added new debate how to create jobs in the economy while reducing the deficit approaching $16 trillion. the backdrop of all this is an election year. our phone lines are open with

renewed concerns and some fears of a double-dip recession. we will get to your calls in just a moment. let's begin with a couple of headlines. we would normally begin with a sunday at the end of this weekend, the " the new york times" front page look like a desperate this. there's also an analysis piece

inside "the national journal," it is about politics and the economy. the question we are asking is whether or not this is the fear of a double-dip recession. our phone lines are open and brenda is first up from houston, texas, good morning.

are you with us? good morning to you. we will try one more time for brenda. caller: i'm sorry, good morning. i am not so afraid of the double dip recession as i am the republicans putting a mormon and the white house. what will god think of the christians doing that? host: what does religion have to do with the economy and performance in the white house? caller: religion has a lot to do with everything. if you're a christian, you would understand that, thank you. host: our question is whether you have a fear of a double dip recession. this is in line with the election year. you could also join the conversation on our twitter page and facebook. william is on the phone from florida, good morning.

go ahead. caller: fla.? ok, i find it funny that we have a recession when the 1% are spending billions of dollars. i don't see how we are having a recession when we have the top 1% spending $1 billion to break obama down in spending -- instead of spending 5 cents to help somebody. it does not make sense. host: mark is on the fund from milford, new hampshire, republican line, good morning. caller: i have a fear -- i think it would be like a triple-dip recession. we originally had a recession in 2008 when bush was in office. i think we have already had a

double dip recession since president obama took office. i'm worried about a third time going down. host: wreckage from fairview, tenn., in the end of line, good morning. caller: about the economy -- this president -- it is hilarious -- he has been in office a good length of time and he told brazil as far as oil goes, he wants to be their best customer meanwhile he will not grant permits in the united states on federal lands and he will not pass the keystone pipeline which would be thousands of jobs. gas prices are three times as high as when he took office. it would be a comedy of the wasn't so tragic. he spends tax money with an almost criminal attorney general

suing the states around the country. he does not want boeing to go to south carolina. this man is determined to destroy the economy, maybe not intentionally, it is either because of incompetence or some bizarre disrespect for capitalism. he has no concept of what capitalism is or he just hates it. host: thank you for the call. this is from cnbc on their website -- on friday, mitt romney spoke to cnbc and we will have more on his jobs picture and what it means for the general election. this is from our twitter page --

jerry is on the fun from michigan, democrats line, good morning. caller: i would like to know why mitt romney's draft record is not in question -- is an published. he was of draft age during the vietnam war. they went after clinton and went after kerry and everybody else. i think he is fair game. his father was a big-time politician and he was part of the nixon administration for quite awhile. served in anyhe armed forces. i would like to know why. host: back to the issue we are focusing on which is the u.s. economy. the friday jobs picture and what it means about six months before this election where

unemployment is now at 8.2%. only 69,000 jobs were created. that was a job creation month, the 27th straight month, it was not at the level needed to start the u.s. economy. the president admitted that friday as his book about jobs and veterans and minnesota. [video clip] >> our businesses have created almost 4.3 million new jobs over the last 27 months, but as we learned in today's job report, we are still not creating as fast as we want. at this time last year, our economy is still facing some serious head winds. we had high gas prices two months ago and they are starting to come down and they are spiking but they are still hitting people's wallets pretty hard. that has an impact. most prominently, most recently, we had a crisis in europe that

is having an impact worldwide and starting to cast a shadow on our own. host: that was the president on friday and " the new york times" with a reprint available reporting on the weak economy. next up is one of our most frequent viewers and listeners. every month we hear from joe

mccutcheon. i will not list u.s. republican but a strong mitt romney reporter. caller: your the best. i have been a stock market investor and a small business honor and to avoid a double-dip recession, we need to extend the bush tax cuts because at the first of the year, they'll have a giant tax increase and the need to extend them for nine months to give the new president who i think will be mitt romney time to put in his plan for cutting taxes and cutting spending. up at our fired t barbequed that we want to make at the center of capitalism. i'm a businessman and people are scared of the regulations. we need to quit attacking our current president. mitt romney will raise business and give investors confidence. i think the answer is to elect mitt romney and congressman like

tom grace. i don't think our president understands business. you cannot raise taxes and a bad economy. to avoid the double dip, extend the bush tax cuts so the capital gains and other taxes will not co op january 1 which would be a killer for the economy. the long term selection -- the long-term solution is mitt romney for president. host: on the other side of the argument, you hear that that if the tax cuts are made permanent, it would further damage a $16 trillion pesetas and growing. how'd you bring down that big a deficit without increasing revenue? caller: in my opinion, when mitt romney is elected, there is money sitting on the sidelines of that will be invested in the sidelines. that will increase the revenues. in history, it has shown that when you cut the capital gains

and the dividend tax, it increases revenue to the government. when mitt romney is elected, we will have to put in spending cuts to take care of the $16 trillion. that is a very important points. we will have to get that -- i've got six grandchildren and the only way they will have a chance to get that paid off. we need to cut spending but to keep the taxes low, you don't want to raise taxes in a bad economy because people are already scared to death. you need to give them confidence and i think mitt romney will give the american people confidence. i am fired up about the election and we love cspan. past host: we will talk to you on july 3, thank you very much prepar. this is from "the christian science monitor" --

next is from new york city, welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i think this whole argument about the comic is absolutely stupid. -- about the economy is absolutely stupid. we know why the economy is not better. we know who is stopping it. .e act like we don't know how are you going to get jobs when the republicans say we will buy off everybody to make sure that you don't get jobs? they say they will stop you from getting jobs. if you create 10 jobs, we're going to lay off 20 people.

to make sure that the people will be angry because they don't understand what we're doing. host: thanks for the call. our phone lines are open and you could also send us an e-mail -- you can also contact us on twitter. we are talking about the fears of a double dip recession. there are a couple of stories related to this from cnbc talk,. they have been talking about the effect this would have and the stock market. -- on the stock market. the dow was down more than two other points on friday. from st. louis, missouri,

republican line. caller: i could not agree more with the gentleman before. you cannot raise taxes right now in this economy. i think that will guarantee a double dip. if you raise the taxes, i don't think obama understands business, that is my point of view. thank you and have a nice day. host: we will hear from mitt romney in just a moment but here are a couple of other headlines -- hosni mubarak was convicted of being an accessory to murder.

he is the first arab strongmen jailed by his citizens and that for tens of thousands of egyptians back into the streets. they denounced the verdict as a sham because the court also acquitted many officials more directly responsible for the police until the demonstrators. for many egyptians, the court's handling of the case will -- was the latest disappointment and a 16-month transition that has yielded some major accomplishments but has not yet delivered the ratification of the constitution that is from the front page of " the new york times."

back to your calls and the concerns of a double-dip recession in this election year based on the latest jobs report. unemployment is at 8.2%.

on friday, mitt romney responded to this on cnbc -- [video clip] 10, in providence rhode island, go ahead. caller: the gentleman from tennessee was talking about the bush tax cuts. historically, the wealthy are under taxed at mitt romney paid just under 13% in taxes and the middle class is being driven out of existence. what we have to do is get the middle class back. host: how'd you get the middle class back? caller: first, get rid of the bush tax cuts. make the whole tax burden more equitable across the whole scope.

people with less money, the middle class and even people who are below middle class, basically have to much of a tax burden. we also have to get rid of this trickle down situation. people keep repeating that if you tax the rich less, you will have more money for everybody else. it simply is not true because small business is the engine of the economy. some wealthy create jobs but invest ande wealthy in bes they're not creating jobs for everyone else. as far as corporations, incredible amounts of money are being sat on by corporations. the banks will not get credit going again because after the bank bailout, congress did not require that the banks get credit flowing again. this is another big reason why

the economy is in the state is in. only 59,000 jobs in, may is proof that few jobs are being created because and none of this investment is being made. host: thanks for the call. a frequent guest on this program friday posted this story on cnbc.com - evanston, ill., good morning. caller: this president has done everything he could to grow jobs

even though the jobs was low yet it is still positive numbers. for you people to come on and constantly talk about what he has not done, from da one one. they did it at the behest of the nation. they do not want this person to receive any type of credit. to the detriment of millions of people that is unemployed. and yet, you just walk by this like this does not happen. you do.

you just walk by a like this has no role. >host: we will listen to the president addressed this very issue on friday and we will hear from his words and a couple of minutes. caller: you just walk right on by like nothing happened. host: let's hear from the president. he addressed this issue you are talking about in which he blamed congress for not doing enough. [video clip] >> my message to congress is now is not the time to play politics and now is not the time to sit on your hands, the american people expect their leaders to work hard no matter what year it is. the economy is still not where it needs to be buried there are steps that can make a difference right now, steps that can also serve as a buffer in case the situation in europe gets worse. right now, congress should pass

a bill to help save and prevent more layout so we can put thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers back on the job. [applause] laos at the state and local levels have been a chronic problem for a recovery but it is a problem we can fix. congress should have passed a bill a long time ago to put thousands of construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads and bridges and runways. [applause] since the housing bubble burst, no sector has been hit harder than the construction industry and we have this stuff that needs fixing. remember that bridge in minnesota? so, this is a problem we can fix. let's do it right away. instead of just talking about

job creators, congress should give small business owners a tax break for hiring more workers and paying them higher wages. we can get that done. we can get it done right now, let's not wait. [applause] host: that goes to the earlier point about the president blaming congress for not doing enough. let me go back to " the new york times" give you a larger scale sense of the jobs picture.

batten ours, louisiana, republican line. caller: good morning. he's back up to his old tricks again. he is always blaming somebody accept himself. -- except himself. the problem is, there is only one person, not one person, but why doesn't he tell us what he will do? he never says what his ideas are. about improving the job situation. it is always the congress

problem or somebody else is the problem. if you remember when he was running for president, he said when i get in and i get my cap and trade bill passed, i will bankrupt every coal company in the country and he has done a good job with that with his bpa regulations and all that. and not approving the keystone pipeline and that will kill a lot of jobs. it will not create any it does not pass it. all the best jobs, natural gas

jobs, all the oil pipeline but in the gulf -- host: we appreciate the call. this is with regard to the president and lightning congress -- -- and blaming congress -- as i said earlier, mitt romney appeared on msnbc friday talking about the unemployment rate and

the effect is having on the middle class and taking aim at the president's agenda. [video clip] >> this has been going on for longer than just the crisis of the euro. this has been going on for 40 months and of arsenic, you have a president that is more focused on his perspective of his historic legislative achievements been focused on getting people back to work. jobs is job one for the presidency. this president put implies obama care which is owned team concluded it will slow the economy and it has. instead of getting people back to work, he thought he would fight for something historic. the american people don't want and cannot afford it and as energy policies made it less likely for us to develop more energy on government land. even in pennsylvania and ohio, his and his policies have put people out of work. the president's policies with regard to taxation, regulation

as well as trade policies, labor policies -- all of them made it less likely for businesses small and large to want to hire more people. when you add to that the normal ups and downs of the world economy, it is tough on the american family. host: mitt romney friday on cnbc. next is huntsville, alabama, independent line. do have a concern about a double dip recession? caller: absolutely, good morning. if president obama wins the election, he will going to be faced with the same thing he was faced with the first time out -- a do nothing congress for at least the first two years and if mitt romney wins the election, he will go after social security and medicare and on employment and things of that nature. when you speak of a double-dip recession, america is not alone in this world economy. we are connected the only thing

the president can do is strive to create jobs. what he tries to put forth, congress always says no. if mitt romney gets an office, he will make the bush tax cut permanent which will continue to hurt our economy which will continue to destroy the middle class. by way of solving this, i am in earnest prayer and a daily basis, i read and research and study and i will make my decision as to whom i wanted office the day of the election. host: 4 wayne, indiana, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, obama got what little jobs he did get and they lower the wages of everybody. obama is making money by writing books, his wife is writing

books and his wife spends millions of dollars of taxpayer money on his mother and their families around the world. i cannot see where the man is doing any good other than helping himself and lining his own pockets. host: thanks for the call. coming up on "newsmakers" at 10:00 eastern time, robert coups army will be meeting us. khuzami will be joining us. >> what we have tried to focus on is a greater effort on specialization so we can

identify wrongdoing earlier in this cycle before the investor funds are gone and in areas that perhaps are not as transparent. we're not waiting for the fund to blow up for the headline to appear but we are in their earlier. in our asset management unit, we took a look across all investment advisers to seek who was returning returns in excess of their competitors for certain strategies and whose returns were static over a period of time when you expect to see volatility. those two factors are not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but that would be the kind of fun you want to take a second and hard look dead to determine whether there might be a ponzi scheme going on or a false evaluation. we're using our data to identify subsets of firms or individuals we want to take a closer look at >> to come back to the impact on

the agency, when you go up to capitol hill and as for marie -- more resources, do you feel that is a headwind? is it making your job harder? >> no, i don't think so. we have not forgotten the lessons by any means. i think there is enough of a track record of honest reform and proactive efforts that the honest critics will see that and don't use madoff as an example to deny funds. it and for those persons still troubled by madoff, the statistics make it clear that we are sufficiently underfunded. while we are responsible for regulating 35,000 entities, public companies, broker-

dealers, investment advisers, transfer agents as well as the investment division, anybody who could commit fraud but we are about the size of the d.c. police force. that is one way of getting a measure of our size and budget compared to the task at hand. host: robert khuzami is our guest on "newsmakers"at 10:00 eastern time. back to your calls on the u.s. economy. we're talking about fears of a double dip recession. this is a note about hillary clinton who traveled to the arctic circle with an eye on oil and gas and energy issues. she took a firsthand look yesterday at the region and competition for vast oil reserves.

orlean, virginia is next, democrats line. caller: i am shaking my head listening to some of these comments on the republican right. i don't know where to begin. a quick comment --fred barnes was guilty of telling a half truth. yes, there are two houses of congress and yes, the democrats to control the senate but they do not have the 60-vote majority required to block a filibuster so nothing can be done there. everything can be stopped by simply threatening a filibuster. the other thing is mark caines who died a year and a half ago was the host of "squawk on the

street." he had the integrity to come out and say there is not a shred of evidence to show that the tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the economy in general. there is ongoing feud on another show suggesting that mark was trying to help the obama administration by making comments like that. mark chalice the point. it did not happen under bush when he had as tax cuts and under ronald reagan. ktynesian economics by cutting taxes on the wealthiest corporations and made the united states the largest credit toward nation. host: recalled.

john from north carolina -- from the new york -- from " the new york times" -- the essence of the story is focusing on what is happening in europe. chicago, good morning, welcome to the conversation. good morning? caller: good morning. i believe there is concern about a double-dip recession mostly from a slowing economy in europe and china but there's plenty of other markets that the

u.s. needs to go after such as russia needs are expertise in drilling. we have a tremendous amount of expertise in that area. we have a lot of other companies that have a great amount of technology expertise which we need to go after in different markets that are not slowing down. south korea created a free trade agreement and let's go after them and see what kind of penetration we can make in their market. there is also companies that are developing alternative energy expertise. iere's a company in florida, drove alternative energy, which uses tides from the ocean. unfortunately, the regulations in florida do not allow them -- the red tape does not allow them to approach florida to do this.

they have to go to other parts of the world. they have the expertise and they will be be creating clean energy for other parts of the world. host:mark murray of nbc news will be joining us in a few minutes as a talk about the new polls in key battleground states. this is from writers -- -- reuters. mitt romney could select a running mate sen. soon. we have a democrat from san antonio, good morning. caller: good morning. you are talking to a business owner, i have four businesses in georgia and three in texas.

is cspan today, are you guys interested in comparing the truth? if you are, then you would be having comparisons on the eight years of the bush economy where bush did not grow any jobs. if you look at the statistics in regards to eight years of bush growing the economy, there was no jobs added to his term over eight years. as compared to obama. for three years, you are looking at positive job growth for 24 months as compared to eight years of the bush economy. in regards to the recession, if

you look of the job growth from business owners such as myself who are constantly growing jobs, i am not having a tough time. i'm looking forward to be taxed more. that is what our country needs. as opposed to what mitt romney is offering. he did not grow the state of massachusetts. the unemployment number he had when he left office was of around 6%. obama has continuously ground the economy for 23 straight months. your show is very disappointing today in regards to a comparison. i am disappointed in that statement. host: this is the job creation

from 2005-2008 and shows the decline. marty is on the farm, a republican in line, from ohio. caller: good morning, concerning what that gentleman just said -- please put up that chart again. i think that chart reflects that

in 2005, the bush administration indeed was growing jobs. the country was growing jobs until 2006. something happened in 2006. as i recall, democrats took over congress. i believe during that time that we began to lose jobs. it was not before that. congress has the power as the president wants to say, to create all these jobs, let's take into consideration who is in control of congress during this time of the bush administration when all these jobs were being lost. that is the comparative illustration that i would like to to determine whether the bush administration is doing a good job as the obama administration.

i would even guess that prior to 2005, throughout -- from 2002- 2006 when democrats took over congress, the administration was creating jobs. the so-called tax cuts for the rich which president obama has and people are now urging him to do something about before they expire. host: that will be the last word and thank you for your calls and comments including this one -- the question this morning is whether there are fears of a double dip recession and we will

have more in a moment but one note on this weekend where the queen is getting a lot"of lot " time magazine"has full coverage of the diamond jubilee. she is 86 years old and here are surprising facts about queen elizabeth ii. she speaks fluent french. she has received more than 3.5 million items of correspondence. since 1952, she has conferred over 404,000 honors and awards. she has sent over 37,000 christmas cards and is the only person in great britain and drive without a license. the last and only other british monarch to celebrate her diamond jubilee was queen victoria back in 1997 at the age of 77. at the age of 86, when elizabeth will be the oldest monarch to celebrate this occasion.

coming up in a couple of minutes, our sunday round table looking at the wisconsin recall. we will be joined by two reporters as to what will happen on tuesday and later, we will talk about the euro, the debt crisis and whether the solution is cutting spending or raising taxes. that debate is coming up as "washington journal"continue as review thet let's sunday morning programs. >> good morning. today on the sunday talk shows, the topics include the presidential election, the economy, and foreign affairs. the re-airs begin at noon. we begin with "meet the press"

with duval patrick, the massachusetts governor. and john kasich and bill bradley. follows.k" "fox news sunday"fall laws and they will have ed gillespie and stephen ratner who led the president's automobile task force. "state of the union"airs next and they will have republican governor bob mcdonnell and richard lugar and mark warner. "face the nation"completes a lineup and they will have david axelrod and reince preibus. also ed rendell and senator kay

bailey hutchison. five network talk shows reairing as a public service beginning at noon eastern time. you can listen to them all on cspan radio on 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. area and you can listen onr your blackberry or go online to listenadio.org. >> sunday -- >> the problem with walter cronkite is that people see him only as the avuncular friendly man which he was to everybody but there's another side of him that was to be the best. he was obsessed with ratings and beating by huntley-brinkley report every night. he is probably the fiercest competitor and i have ever written about and i have written about presidents and generals

and his desire to be the best was very pronounced. >> best selling author douglas brinkley on his biography of walter cronkite tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> [video clip] continues. journal" host: we are joined by mark murray. your other title is a new dad, congratulations. guest: thank you. host: craig gilbert is joining us from ohio. thank you for being with us. guest: nice to be with you. host: what do we expect on tuesday? in terms of turnout, we have seen the polls show that governor walker is slightly ahead in some polls and democrats say it will attend -- will depend on turnout tuesday.

what can we expect? guest: there has been amazingly little public polling so we just don't have a lot to go on especially given the national interest in this race. people are expecting a big turnout. this is a political conflict that has consumed the state for 60 months and everything is building toward tuesday. the same two candidates in 2010 had 50% of voting age adults in the state them out to vote and a presidential race in 2008 was 70%. we have not had -- and a governor's race where the turnout reached 53% in 50 years or 60 years. it can be fascinating to see how much higher than 2010 turnout goes. most people think it will be higher and democrats think the closer it gets to presidential levels, the better off they are. host: let me show you byron york this morning --

guest: president obama is trying to win wisconsin in a presidential election year and the recall has repercussions for november and repercussions for the state of organized labor and the democratic party and wisconsin. president obama realizes that to be able to win wisconsin, he has to win over independent voters. there are not a lot of people who have not made up their minds in this recall election but the white house realizes they will meet people who are supporting scott walker or maybe who are not voting yet on the recall in favor of tom barrett and they will need those votes. president obama has cut its tv ads and they feel like they'll take a hit. president obama in 2010 when and

campaigned for democratic elected officials or candidates and did not work out that well. the white house has a hands-off policy. they think this is the fight of organized labor. host: not a whole lot of polling and wisconsin but there was a market university poll that showed governor walker ahead slightly. in that sample, the president right now, it showed the president winning wisconsin. guest: they have been living in most of the polling for quite some time. it would not be a shock it both incumbents were victorious in wisconsin. just because we're talking about two different elections. , two different electorate. they think the turnout will be bigger. in september. it will probably be better

electorate for present obama than the electorate that votes on tuesday. they are being very risk averse and not coming in here and playing. if he injects himself into this race, it's that will help. this is a state that is right on the dividing line right now. they have voted democratic president the last six times since ronald reagan. if scott walker does win, i think you will see that it will encourage the mitt romney campaign to go after wisconsin full tilt. host: there are two debates in this election and we carry both of them on c-span.org. the last one took place last thursday. they talked about jobs and the economy. [video clip] >> before a reform, a handful of

special interest dictated what was going to happen. instead, we drew a line in the sand and we will put the power back in my hands of the taxpayers. that is a fundamental difference between the two of us. he wants to restore collective bargaining which means higher property taxes on working families and others out there. it is the first time robbery taxes have gone down. one of the 10 commandments of the far right is you have to be against unions. >> he would have a fall from grace in the far right if he said he was going to do that so he cannot. he would no longer be the poster boy of the tea party. host: from last week's debate. you have been following this

closely in milwaukee and across the state. what is your reaction? guest: the union thing is interesting because if you look at the union households in wisconsin, probably about 40% of them are republican. those people are concentrated in the private unions, not the public wants of their is a bit of a gap between public and private unions. this issue of right to work is interesting because the governor has gone after the public union but is trying to signal that he will not touch the private unions when it comes to collective bargaining or union rules and how unions organize. it is important for him to hang onto that minority of the union vote to that he does have carried it will be interesting to see what happens with that vote in the exit polls on tuesday. in november of 2010, tom barrett won 63% of the households and scott walker 137%.

host: man allyson, wisconsin, good morning. -- madison, wisconsin, good morning. caller: why did the unions threatened scott walker's life and his family and harass his children and break into the capital and threatened businesses and threaten companies? what would your comment about that? host: we saw the demonstrations in madison, wisconsin. organized labor used this as a way for them to organize across the state and that led to the recall we are seeing on tuesday. guest: this shows you the conflict in wisconsin. what is occurring in that state is neighbor vs. neighbor and employee purchase employee and sometimes friend vs friend. you probably see the most polarized electorate and well foreshadow november. you look at where the caller is talking about where you have

union folks who say we are angry with scott walker and what he did. on the flip side, you end up seeing their frustration on the fact that this was something that walker did not campaign on in his gubernatorial election. this took democrats by surprise raid when you talk to some republicans and observers of what played out, scott walker problem could have gotten about 95% of what he wanted if he had a card of collective bargaining. democrats with a bent over backwards but he decided to go for the one under% and that shows where we are now with the recall. there is so much divisiveness host: and: this is from twister. -- this is from twitter. guest: that is the argument that the governor is making.

he has tried to draw a line between them. the unions have cited his comments and caught them on videotape about right to work where he made a cryptic comment about divide and conquer which they interpreted to mean he is trying to divide the union movement and ultimately going after the private sector. the governor has argued there is a difference, fiscally and republicans and conservatives have made the argument about public-sector unions, that they don't have -- then don't play the same role as private-sector unions and don't have the same kind of rationale. that has been his argument. in the last poll i saw, and all the polling marquette has done in 2012, the democrats have dominated among public-sector

union households. pearlie is much narrower among -- but to their lead as much an hour among private-sector union households. you have private union members that care about issues that come into play but the real division is the public employees whether they are in a union or not had really been mobilized against scott walker in this debate and they are very democratic in their partisan preferences, more so than in the private sector. host: let's go to steve also from wisconsin, a republican. will you be voting on tuesday? caller: yes, i will. host: what do you think the turnout will be? caller: very high and most people will be voting for governor walker. i just wanted to start off real quick -- in 1959, wisconsin

passed along that the teachers' union was the only one where the school district could get their insurance from. since then, in some school districts, they have been charging up to 78% more for the insurance men they could have gotten if they went on to the free market. so far, governor walker has to save the school district's $600 million just in the insurance part of it alone. that is a big start. now the teachers' unions he and the public unions -- the dues from the union comes automatically out of their checkable have to pay for it themselves and the teachers' union, 50% of the people are not

sending their checks in and the public sector, it is 67% not sending their checks into the unions. host: thanks for the call. guest: the collective bargaining piece of this has gotten more attention. it has been kind of a dagger to these public sector unions which is why they took the pretty far reaching step of organizing this

recall because they are desperate to stop this policy in its tracks. i mean, for their own future and their own survival and obviously in addition to having public policy implications, this has huge political implications because you've got a republican party that's been relied upon the business sector for its fundraising base and you have a democratic party that's relied on unions for their fundraising base and what's happened is that leg of the stool has been kicked out from under the democratic party. host: we'll come back to the wisconsin recall in a couple of minutes. this tuesday night, we'll have coverage of governor walker and mayor barrett's reaction, comments, following the recall election on tuesday. you can also follow it on line at cspan.org. let me get to the national election and the latest from the nbc news poll, looking at some of the battleground states and this is the latest in a series of battleground state polls. he states it will determine whether or not the president is re-elected or whether mitt romney is elected president in

iowa. and i want to pick up on what chuck todd said on friday, this is the one state that has been the most competitive in terms of the iowa caucuses from both the democrats and the republicans, 12% undecided in iowa. colorado, 46% to the president. mitt romney, 45%. in nevada, 48%, 46% for mitt romney. guest: it's all tied up in those states and it shows you how competitive the presidential election in the tight recall, presidential election is competitive. what's interesting about these three states, these are states that aren't polled as often as others. to be able to look at the snapshot in iowa, nevada and colorado and what actually had occurred -- was occurring in this time that we released these polls was some dampening about the economic mood, some not favorable job numbers and what did we end up getting on friday? a very, very tepid 69,000 jobs

that were created. we actually released nbc polls a week earlier in iowa, in florida and virginia all showing president obama with a very, very slight lead but steve, i have to tell you, i mean, this is such a very close race right now, i would expect it to remain close into the summer and we'll see if there are external events and, of course, the debates that come out that would probably be incredibly crucial in deciding who ends up winning this election. host: as you see these polls in these three battleground states, what do you think? guest: you know, one of the oddities in wisconsin has been the presidential numbers have been more volatile than the numbers in the governor's race. i mean, you would expect the president being, you know, such a high profile figure for an opinion to be more entrenched about a president than a governor. we've seen the polls in wisconsin float around a little bit. nbc had a poll earlier this year in which obama had a 17-point lead over mitt romney at a time when mitt romney was at a low point, he had taken a beating in the republican primaries and we

had a series of polls a few weeks ago where it was tied. last poll, obama was up by eight. it's bounced around more whereas in the governor's race, it's been amazingly consistent. i mean, you look at scott walker's numbers, they don't change very much. people are truly dug in about him even more so than they're dug in about president obama as polarizing as president obama is. so that's an interesting aspect of all of this, wisconsin is open ended. it's a hugely tempting target for republicans, if they can flip wisconsin, it makes the math a lot easier in the rest of the country. host: let's go to the news of the weekend, this a piece that was posted on friday, available on line. headline, mitt romney could pick a vice presidential nominee early. and then use that pick to help raise money. senator john mccain waiting until the 2008 republican convention to name his vice presidential pick.

the tradition is thought to pump up party activists during the big push to election day. this year, right, there is a small chance that republican mitt romney might break with tradition and name his running mate earlier this summer. romney has a small circle of confidants including his wife ann, long time advisor beth myers and campaign manager matt rhodes. the vetting process is already under way. guest: there are two schools of thought here. on one hand, you mentioned having your veep very early. that gives two advantages. one, to be able to have another person that can fund raise for you but also, another person to send to the campaign trail. president obama has his surrogates, vice president joe biden and first lady michelle obama. it gives you one other person to mobilize on the campaign trail. the other school of thought, it's what john mccain followed, you use all the veep stakes, all

the speculation about what you're going to do to build up to convention and get people really excited. if mitt romney waits until late june and early july to have your own attack dog, the one thing that you would be giving up a little bit is a lot of the speculation going into the tampa convention. of course, there will be tons of media speculation. that's what we always do, whether it's the democratic convention or the republican convention but there would be a little bit of that kind of game it's like who is going to be the vice presidential pick and if you decide to go early, take away a little of the speculation. a little publicity heading into that tampa convention. host: let me to go back to one line from steve holland's piece, he points out once the vetting is complete, it will leave mitt romney with a handful of potential running mates. your reaction? guest: well, it does seem like there's a short list out there. you know, one of the guys that's been on the list that's gotten some public speculation,

of course, is paul ryan, the wisconsin congressman who campaigned with romney for several days with the wisconsin primary and was the first big name to endorse him. there's been some speculation about whether he would have the ability to flip wisconsin for republicans. you know, a lot of these candidates, we tend not to think of them too much any longer of being one state picks because it's been a long time since vice presidential candidate could actually -- has actually had an impact in a key electoral state but wisconsin is one of those places where that could come into play if someone like paul ryan were chosen. i think mitt romney would have to have a lot of reasons for choosing ryan as well. host: dorothy joining us from portland, oregon, democrats line. good morning, thanks for waiting. caller: thank you for c-span. what i would like to say is that, you know, i have to at least premise that i am really

somewhat precedent because i find that the republican party morally and ethically just bankrupt. and i think that the coverage of this walker recall is so extremely important and the person who said that they think that this fight that obama thinks this fight is a union fight is really wrong because the republicans own all of the media coverage, you know, either they're buying up so many millions and millions of dollars worth of air time and they're trying to divide the country and that's what they're doing. and the media has been sold. so i would have rather seen the media cover this very, very closely because of the tactics that the republicans have used with, you know, stopping minority people from voting and, you know, i mean, just taken the country back to the 12th

century. also, as far as the -- someone saying that the union attacked walker's family, that sound like a republican move to me. host: thank you, dorothy. we'll get a response from craig gilbert. guest: well, you know, this race obviously is getting a lot of attention. i think from the white house's point of view, it really wasn't necessarily a battle of their choosing and that's why you're seeing them hold off because if you come in and you play and you lose, you know, the risk is that you elevate -- you elevate the stakes, you rebelevate the gover by taking him on and losing but the caller is right that there's a lot of other issues in play here besides just collective bargaining and the governor of wisconsin has had a very aggressive agenda and -- and it's an agenda that has, as i mentioned earlier, a lot of political complications as well

as public policy implications. they did pass a pretty far reaching voter i.d. law that is held up in court so aspects of it aren't in place for this election but it's one that democrats are fighting very bitterly because they argue that it will depress or suppress the votes of students and people of color, poor people who are part of generally seen as part of the democratic coalitions. so there is a lot at stake. i mean, the outcome of this race, you know, will have not only has both national implications but in a state like wisconsin, it could have far reaching implications in terms of the partisan balance of power, redistricting is another example where the republicans drew another map and it tilted the playing field that made it extremely difficult for democrats to compete and win a majority of the legislature so those things are all at stake

here. host: craig gilbert joins us from milwaukee and writes for the "milwaukee journal sentinel' and mike murray, senior political editor of nbc news here in washington. let me share with both of you the very latest. first your reaction to the ads. now on the air with mayor barrett and governor scott walker part of this recall effort. [video clip] >> this 2-year-old spent six days in intensive care after being beaten. but tom barrett's police department didn't consider it a violent crime. tom barrett claims -- >> violent crime is down 15.5%. >> but the "milwaukee journal sentinel' found that hundreds of beatings, stabbings and child abuse cases were never even counted. violent crime in milwaukee is up. and tom barrett isn't telling the truth. >> scott walker is playing tricks with job numbers because he didn't like the real ones. just like the tricks he's playing with the john doe scandal, felonies, guilty pleas and over 1,000 e-mails showing

taxpayer dollars used for walker's campaign. if walker received or sent any of these e-mails, he's in deep trouble. he's hired criminal attorneys. and walker refuses to tell us what he said to the prosecutors. doesn't wisconsin deserve the truth before the election? host: mark murray, the unemployment rate in wisconsin an issue for the barrett campaign and, of course, crime in milwaukee an issue for the scott walker campaign. guest: it's interesting, the callers that we've been talking about collective bargaining and union rights, organized labor and when you look at all the tv ads that have been playing out in wisconsin, almost have been anything but but one ad where you actually played that tom barrett is soft on the crime. on the other hand, you have the democratic ad saying that scott walker hasn't done a really good job on the economy. so those are the issues that actually are being fought out at least on the air waves. i think what has fired up everyone is what occurred in wisconsin in early 2011 but it is interesting to see this dynamic play out. one other thing about the other walker ad is it was hitting

barrett on being soft on crime using that 2-year-old, using crime in milwaukee. this is a classic incumbent strategy on being able to disqualify your opponent. it's interesting to note that tom barrett only got that democratic nomination on may 8th. he's actually had less than a month from being engaged in a primary battle into this general election and the walker campaign, his allies have been hitting him, trying to disqualify him and it's interesting to note that that strategy is similar to the strategy you'll probably see from president obama come september or october. the classic situation where you want to turn the race from a referendum into a choice. host: craig gilbert, this is from jack hutton on our twitter page, talking about the spending certainly in these campaign ads both by the candidates and outside spending. who was spending what in this wisconsin recall? guest: total spending is way beyond anything we've seen in a race for governor and it's been very lopsided. there's a lot more spending on the republican side. governor walker has been able to

raise, i think, more than $30 million. he's got a national donor list. he has a result of a feature of the wisconsin recall law, he could raise contributions of unlimited size during one phase of the recall process. he took contributions of $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 from individuals. i think tom barrett has raised about $4 million so there's no comparison between the amount of money the two candidates have been able to raise and spend. there is outside money on both sides that i don't think we've had in my experience in wisconsin a competitive race that was this lopsided financially. so there's a huge difference there and about what mark just said, i totally agree, i mean, one of the interesting things about the recall law in wisconsin, the last recall, the only other gubernatorial recall you had in modern times was in california in 2003 and that ballot was totally different. that was an up or down vote in

that ballot on gray davis on recalling him. before you got to voting for his successor, in this case, this is just a regular election ballot. a democrat vs. a republican. and that's, i think, been helpful to scott walker in terms of trying to cast this as a choice as much as a referendum. host: go to mark on the republican line from grand forks, north dakota. good morning, thank you for joining us. guest: yeah, good morning. i think scott walker is doing the right thing in addressing spending and on the public side. however, when it comes to soft on crime, the republicans are as bad or worse than anything that's ever been seen in this country before because the 2008 financial crisis really drove the state's revenues into the toilet and they're not addressing that side of the problem. in fact, neil barovsky was the inspector general for the tarp bailout program and he said regarding the nine biggest banks "it didn't matter when they were

cooking the books on the balance sheets, treasury was giving them money anyway. in fact, they had larger holes in their balance sheets due to fraud. that would have been more reason to give them money." you can find that interview at my web site. host: thanks, mark. thanks for the call. and a related note from one of our most frequent tweeters. he says wisconsin is about to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the koch brothers. think, cheeseheads. think. get your reaction first? guest: well, you know, the koch brothers have been an interesting sort of subplot in this race in wisconsin. there was the famous hoax call in which someone posing as one of the koch brothers got through to the governor and had a conversation with him. that was a conversation in which the governor talked about dropping the bomb in reference to making his dramatic announcement about his proposal to curb collective bargaining for public employees. so they've been a big part of

the conversation. the money has been a big part of the conversation. and it will be interesting to see -- talked about the far reaching consequences and implications of this race. in terms of the financial parody between the two parties, they are significant. i mean, there is some question going forward if -- to the degree to which the unions and the public sector unions are kind of neutralized financially, there is some question going forward about in this current campaign finance landscape how democrats are going to be financially in state races. host: let me go back to this earlier tweet, congratulations, scott walker, you have managed to get half the citizens of wisconsin to hate the other half. from your vantage point, has this truly divided the state? guest: oh, absolutely and you can actually argue that this country has been divided and polarized in the 3 1/2 years the obama administration, looking back to the eight years of the george w. bush administration going all the way back to the florida recount in 2000.

but you look at the high level of polarization that's actually gone on and you look at what scott walker has done in wisconsin and what ohio governor john kasich did in ohio and what they did in florida, they pursued very specific things that they were actually trying to make reformed but using kind of a political club to target voter i.d. and what their critics often say is making very politicized decisions and that really has polarized the electorate. on the other hand, you end up looking at a governor, for example, in michigan. rick snyder who has actually didn't pursue those types of policies. his approval ratings aren't all that high but you don't see the pitch in the political battle in michigan right now. you also end up looking what ended up happening in virginia where governor bob mcdonald

actually pursued -- pursued reforms that you got caught up in some social issues but by and large, they've actually stayed away from a lot of these highly charged -- some of these highly charged battles so it kind of depends on what the agenda was actually going to be. but you can make the argument that if scott walker even survives this recall, how much power is he going to be able to have? of course, he gets to keep his job but is he going to be able to get the legislature to do anything at all, does he essentially become a lame duck and we look forward to his re-election in 2014. host: mark murray, the editor of "the daily read" the first read out from nbc news and also one of the senior producers for chuck todd's program that airs at 9:00 eastern time on msnbc and craig gilbert who is joining us from milwaukee with the "milwaukee journal sentinel'. john is on the phone. fairfax, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. mark and gentlemen. steve, before i ask these people a couple of questions, how long

has it been since tom hartman has been on your show? host: i don't have an honest answer for you. caller: tom hartman has this show weeknights at 9:00 that's broadcast over the air and he has the most in-depth analysis and debate of what's really going on of any show you can see. host: i've listened to him. he's been on this network. i don't know when the last time is. caller: divide and conquer is kind of lopsided because the right wing will say anything and twist unions and make them sound like common sense. for example, the rich are referred to as job creators, people like romney are wealth extractors and we need to start

realizing that these people are doing that. host: thank you for the call and thanks for the note about mr. hartman. guest: couple of points. one on the divide and conquer strategy, if walker is able to pull this off and able to survive, his party was able to achieve certain reforms that put their head down and bowl straight ahead and you look to see how walker and what wisconsin republicans did vs. what president obama and congressional democrats did in 2009 and 2010 and scott walker and republicans just charged forward. they had a majority and all you need in wisconsin is actually a simple majority in the state senate and the legislature to pass laws. you don't have the filibuster like you had in the united states senate but they charge forward. you know, as much as republicans criticize the obama administration for passing a health care law at the end of the night, doing it on almost a

party line vote, what was interesting is how the white house spent 2009 trying to win over the olympia snows and susan collins to get republican support for a lot of their initiatives and in some ways, that -- in some ways, that proved futile ended up delaying the amount of time on those reforms. i see two different strategies at play vs. scott walker and barack obama. it will be interesting to see when the dust has settled come 2013 which strategy was actually more successful. host: to your point from fairfax, virginia, one of the appearances of tom hartman was on c-span's "q&a" program. it's on our web site at cspan.org and it was an interview that we conducted, "q&a" airs every sunday at 8:00 eastern and pacific time. one other note for you from mark murray, franco was challenging

elizabeth warren in a party line. elizabeth warren trounces her rival girding for a nasty campaign and your friend and colleague from "the washington post" giving elizabeth warren the worst week in washington award this week. guest: two things to point out here, it's going to be a competitive contest which means two polls come out showing that scott brown vs. elizabeth warren is a virtual tossup, a coin flip. but on the other hand, yes, elizabeth warren has had a disasterous last couple of weeks and all over a flap about her designating herself as a native american, whether or not she was a native american, whether or not she got harvard to employ her because of that minority status, something she didn't want to talk about at all. she wants to talk about corporate reform, wants to talk about scott brown's tenure in the united states senate and his record there. but the campaign and the coverage has been almost anything but. the good news for her, this is

still may. this is june. there's a lot of time. in some respects, steve, that election is going to be more decided about the margin of the vote that barack obama gets in massachusetts than anything else. if obama is able to win the national vote, say, 52-48. 53-47, it's hard to see how scott brown no matter how great of a campaign they were able to run was able to hold on when massachusetts would be voting for barack obama and the democrats in a decisive manner. on the other hand, when mitt romney wins the presidential election, it's almost impossible to see how elizabeth warren could be able to end up winning in massachusetts and then, of course, to say almost a 51-49 race. i think that that is a tossup. but i would remind everybody how important the top of the ticket is going to be in that massachusetts senate race. host: as you both know, often editorials drive the conversation and craig gilbert, i'll begin with you but this is the piece this morning inside "the new york times." it's also available on line at

nytimes.com from maureen dowd, the headline "dreaming of a superhero." let me read to you a portion in which she writes on this sunday morning. on friday night, the nation's capital was under a tornado watch and that was the best thing that happened to the white house all week. as the president was being slapped by mitt romney for being too weak on national security, he's being rapid by "the new york times" editorial page for being too aggressive on national security. in his new book, democratic governor ed rendell, former governor of pennsylvania wonders "how the best communicator in campaign history has lost his touch" and maureen dowd goes on to talk about superheroes and mythic heroes must boldly leave. a life as being deserted by his father and sometimes mother have restrained him at times in some ways, barack obama is finding himself too absorbed to see what is not working but the white house is a very hard place to go on a vision quest especially

with a storm brewing. craig gilbert, let's begin with you. >> this has been a running argument and discussion about president obama. about his style of leadership. i think i remember reading a piece recently about karl rove in which he argued that the difference, one of the differences between 2004 and 2012 is that president bush got re-elected partly on the strength of being perceived as a strong leader even though there was a lot of division over his policies. on the other hand, you know, president obama obviously is going to point to the killing of usama bin laden to make the argument that he has led but it's -- this is a running discussion. it's even come up in the context that wisconsin the fact that he stayed out of wisconsin, some people have argued was -- showed a lot of caution and timidity. you know, these kinds of arguments obviously a part of the presidential campaigns and presidential debates. how important they are, how important perceptions, personal

perceptions of leadership are compared to, for example, perceptions of the economy is hard to say but, you know, this is clearly one of the things that is going to be driving the presidential campaign, discussions for the presidential campaign, the president is likable, according to the polls. but how people perceive his leadership will be one of the things that , you know, kind of shakes this election going forward. host: dreaming of a superhero, that's what maureen dowd is writing about and matt judge is posting it prominently on his web site this morning. guest: it's important to note how quickly narratives can change particularly in washington or new york. it was two or three months ago where mitt romney was being criticized as being out of touch, be a candidate who continued to make gaffe after gaffe during the republican primary season. but then when you look at the totality of what's happened in may, particularly that was capped by friday's jobs reports numbers and it's -- it's not surprising to see how the

narrative has flipped. that president obama seems embattled and he's a weak leader, indecisive, but this campaign is going to go -- have its ups and downs and the obama campaign, one thing that benefited them so much in 2008 was being able to weather a lot of the ups and downs. never got too high when there was good news and never got too low when there was bad news and this race will continue to go up and down and up and down but there's no doubt that this past month has been a very tough one for president obama. his election campaign and, of course, the economy which has actually been tied hand in hand, i'd argue. host: don't shoot me. i'm only the messenger. this is the headline from the front page of the baltimore sun. martin o'malley rallies the faithful in new hampshire with an eye on 2016. guest: well, and the race for 2016, one of the great things about being a political reporter, we always have a tremendous amount of material to always go with. if we decided that we're not -- we're tired with the wisconsin

recall and 2012 presidential race, we can look forward to 2016, even the 2014 midterms that would end up coming up. martin o'malley is somebody who has created more of a national profile in the last couple of years, particularly as head of the democratic governors association and with all the gay marriage activity that's been going on in maryland, he is someone to keep an eye on but i would argue that we're really not going to know about the 2016 race. we have to get through 2012 first. what it will impact is actually on the republican side, if mitt romney ends up winning in 2012, that means all the talk about the marco rubios, the chris christies, the bob mcdonalds of 2016 will go. we'll be talking more about mitt romney's re-election in 2016 and the focus on the democratic side. martin o'malley, when you look at the democrats, he's there. people are still talking about hillary clinton, governor cuomo in new york. i'd also argue new york's senator kirstin gillebrand. there will be some democratic

names but at this very stage during the 2008 cycle when you're looking ahead, no one was even talking about barack obama. so it's possible that there would be another name that actually would pop up and democrats usually like to go with people who are fresher and newer, rather than people who have been around for quite a while. host: few more minutes with our guests. don on the phone from the new mexico independent line. good morning to you, don. caller: good morning. i'm a graduate of the university of wisconsin at eau claire, and i've closely watched what's happening in wisconsin. to craig, i'd like to say that money is never a subplot in politics and the real point that i would like to make is the amount of money $25 million that flowed into the coffers of walker, now, this is post citizens united and money can flow into state coffers like

this, the democrats will never, ever have a chance again. and this money that went into the coffers of walker, we don't even know who gave it. there are no names on it. and that, i think, is totally frightening, not only for wisconsin, but for all states in the united states. >> thanks for the call. we'll get a response. guest: actually, we do know who gave the money to governor walker. that's all disclosed. what we don't know is some of the money that's being spent independently is not all disclosed. some of it is. some of it isn't. there is a sizable amount of money that they were blind to. that's true. but the money that went directly as candidate contributions to governor walker whether it exceeded the $10,000 contribution limits in wisconsin or not, we know who gave that money and, you know, to the larger point, absolutely, money is important and i think we've

alluded to that, that it's a big part of this race and also the question going forward of, you know, the financial kind of parody or lack of parody between the two parties in this landscape where we've seen more and more outside spending, more and more unlimited giving and the question is in a purely partisan sense whether democrats can compete with republicans financially in campaigns in that environment. host: sasha has this twitterment we knew it was going to come. who drives this nonstop election? the politicians or the media? i was just showing the headlines on "the baltimore sun" but we get blamed for driving the campaign 24/7. guest: we do. and a lot of times the media is wrong is whether the narratives that we ask to see. there's a lot of sense that right now, scott walker has a little bit of the advantage as craig was noting, we haven't had a good public poll in the last week in wisconsin but we always get surprises and next one could

be tom barrett and the democrats end up winning in wisconsin and turnlz -- turns a lot of narratives that are already coming up that walker is going to be victorious in this very tight election. we get things wrong. we drive sometimes silly narratives. when you look at journalism in and out, it's trying to make sense of what's going on in wisconsin and campaign trails. host: craig gilbert, walk us through the next 48 hours in wisconsin. what are you looking for? guest: we're in a familiar place. 2000, 2004, reminds me somewhat of those years. divided state. lots of anger. lots of division. lots of engagement and wisconsin is a high engagement, high turnout state. but it has ratcheted up even more in this context and so, you know, we're just seeing everybody engaged and this mad scramble between the parties to maximize the parties in wisconsin know how to do this, they've been doing it now for

the past decade, just trying to squeeze every last vote out of their political bases and you're going to see some eye-popping numbers on tuesday when you look at places like madison and dane county which is a democratic base and you look at places like the suburbs to the west of milwaukee which is the republican base, the percentage of people of eligible voters voting in those places is going to be off the charts. guest: i look at the stakes that are going to play out, scott walker and the republicans have actually had these hard charging type of reforms. there's a lot on the line if scott walker ends up losing, that i think you're going to see that almost a referendum on those types of policies that we saw republican governors pursue in 2011 and it's why you're seeing the republican governors association, the republican national committee go all in on this race. on the flip side, if walker is able to win, the big stakes have to do with organized labor. they were the ones who actually organized this recall, they were the ones who really wanted to make this happen, to go after

scott walker and one of the dramas is playing out is that if you actually mess with organized labor, the thought was always that organized labor would be able to fight back. well, we're going to be able to see on tuesday the level to which organized labor can fight back so a lot at stake on tuesday and i think what ends up, the coverage on -- on wednesday will be fascinating. host: mark murray of nbc news in washington. craig gilbert of the "milwaukee journal sentinel' joining us from wisconsin. gentlemen, thanks very much for being with us. guest: thanks, steve. host: quick note of what a lot of you might be reading from "the new york times" bestseller list, number one this week is "the amateur" by edward klein, "the passage of power" is number two. and "the president's club" co-written by nancy gibbs and michael duffy is at number 10 this week. they were featured on c-span's "q&a" program and the interview is available on our web site. coming up in a couple of minutes, we'll turn our attention to the euro and the

future of the european economy with an expert from george mason university and later, mona yacoubian of the stimson center will be joining us to talk about the developing story in syria. but with the help of our partners at cox communications cable, all week long here on c-span 2 and c-span 3, book tv, a look at programming from american history tv and book tv, our look at wichita, kansas and it's featured all this weekend and the city itself is called the air capital of the world. lon smith is among those we talked to, the executive director of the kansas aviation about the early days of american aviation and why wichita, kansas has attracted so many aviation pioneers in the early 20th century and we're featuring wichita on c-span 2's book tv programming and c-span 3's american history programming. here's a portion of our interview.

>> came here because there was lots of oil money. it was a unique building and it was the original wichita air terminal from 1934 to 1954 and it's one of 12 buildings like that were built during the first round of air terminal construction that still exists and it's the only one built in what's known as the indian art deco style that exists anywhere in the country. at that time in the mid 1920's

when local officials began thinking about a grand air terminal, charles lindhberg was traveling the country and he came to wichita with the idea that it would be on the major east-west route between los angeles and new york. he worked with the official and until then, they went all over the area looking for an opponent site and finally settled on this one. it is the highest point in wichita and one of the reasons they picked it. because of air travel at that time, this was a major route between new york and los angeles, this was the fourth busiest airport in the country for about 20 years. >> the problem with walter kron cite, people see him as the man that he was to everybody. there's another side that wanted him to be the best.

host: we want to welcome veronique de rugy with george mason university as a senior fellow and an expert on europe and the euro. i want to begin with the issue of austerity. we've been seeing the debate unfold over the last couple of years where there's been the argument for more budget cuts vs. more spending to create a stronger economy. the president has been part of that discussion since taking office in his conversations, according to "the new york times" this morning with the angela merkel, the german chancellor. let's begin with the question of

austerity. define that. guest: it's a very, very good question and i think it's at the heart of the problem that we have in this debate. so austerity is generally defined by economists as measures that lead to reduction to the debt to g.d.p. ratio but there's different ways in theory to reduce the debt to g.d.p. ratio. you could cut spending. you could increase taxes or do a mix of both, right? but the problem is the way that the debate is framed makes it sound as if what was implemented in europe was only spending cuts and that's really far from the truth. host: what is the truth? guest: the truth is that very few countries have actually implemented some sort of spending cuts when they have these cuts were small and certainly small in comparison to what we did see happen. many countries have actually not

-- have continued growing government spending. but they have actually engaged in large tax increases. host: the president is saying you need a balanced approach and what we saw in france, for example, with the elections that led to nicolas sarkozy losing the election, the french voters concerned about the budget cuts and yet, as you point out in the piece for the l.a. times, the cuts didn't even begin to take place. guest: no, i mean, they haven't even proposed spending cuts in france. host: what were they reacting to? guest: there were a lot of problems in france. i think it's -- i suspect it's a political maneuver to actually pin the discontent about making nicolas sarkozy on austerity. there have been large tax increases in france. but with sarkozy, there were a lot of other problems with him that had nothing to do with austerity or even, you know,

austerity. host: this is one of the scenes in london earlier this month. solidarity with greek strikes and occupations where the frustration is kind of spilling over throughout europe and the u.k. you point out in this "l.a. times" piece that the extent of declining europe countries push sued austerity has mainly been through large tax increases and you add it's because small spending cuts are overwhelmed by the tax increases. explain. guest: for instance, the u.k. is a good example where the prime minister had announced really large austerity measure involving large, large spending cuts. initially, the idea was to cut like $3 of spending for $1 in tax increases. the reality when you actually look at the numbers is 75% of the austerity measures took in the form of higher taxes. they already have marginal tax rates on income. that's how they raised this in

spite promises that they wouldn't. they've implemented some increasing the capital taxes for some capital owner. and the cuts were only cuts to the growth and they were only minor. this is what happened actually in the u.k. host: here's an example of how that debate unfolded as the leader posing some tough questions to prime minister david cameron earlier this month. [video clip] >> international community is divided, not united as the prime minister said, it's divided between those who believe we should have a divisive shift towards growth. president obama joined by president hollande and they believe it lies both in the german chancellor and this prime minister. for two years, he has been the high priest of austerity. he's been telling the world that austerity alone is the answer. but now, of course, the recognition has gone that it

isn't working and he finds himself on the wrong side of the argument. we agree with the italian prime minister that we need reform in europe. we agree with the german chancellor that deficit reduction is vital in getting interest rates down. the problem is europe hasn't had all three but we support all three of those things. finally, i'd just say to him, that nobody i can find in europe, not even the left wing party in greece, that's his idea of an extra 200 billion times of borrowing into the british economy. that's the labor policy and it would put off interest rates. it would wreck our economy and wreck our prospect which is exactly what they did in office. host: from last month's the british house of commons. your reaction? guest: my reaction is i love the passion of the british when they debate. see, the problem again is that they made a lot of promises and

they haven't delivered on them. and they've increased taxes massively and they said they were going to engage in structural reforms, labor market reforms which they haven't and they also promised that they would reform public pensions reform and increase the retirement age and they haven't done any of that. host: a debate took place last thursday that would align more budget cuts in ireland to help stablize the euro but as you look at the last couple of years, you can see from 2007 until last year, the most recent figures, that more and more people have as they say gone on the dole because they're out of work and they need some of these benefits that could very well be cut. guest: yeah, so the idea is not to say that no spending cuts are taking place. but i think actually, ireland is the pretty bad example to look at, it confirms my point so

ireland in 2009 or 20 -- between 2008 and 2009 raised spending dramatically and now because of the bank bailout, because of some of the safety nets, you know, activating and increasing spending and debt reduction because the bank bailouts weren't renewed, that is actually counted as the spending cuts. it's not. it's not. and when we look actually at the level between 2007 or 2008 and today, it's actually fairly equal. it's hard to argue that until now, they've actually dramatically and savagely cut spending. the other thing is ireland is a good example. i had actually done a blog post where i listed all of the instances in the last three years where they've implemented tax increases. so it's not to say that countries are not engaging in

some spending cuts. but they're always like overwhelmed by a large number -- basically by austerity in the private sector both austerity in the government. host: we talk about the euro and debate in europe, cuts in taxes vs. cuts in spending and what the alternative is and the relationship it has with the argument we're having in the u.s. let me introduce to you again our guest and if you're joining us on line or listening on c-span radio, veronique de rugy is with george mason university and a columnist for region magazine and the american, part of american enterprise institute's on-line magazine. she has been at george mason university for five years. let's get to jeff on the phone from spencer, west virginia. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. good morning, ma'am. could you please comment a little bit on the cultural and lifestyle differences between the nations involved? for example, like germany and

france and the scandinavian countries have more of a stronger work ethic as were the southern part of the euro zone, spain, italy, france, portugal have more of a set in the sun attitude and how that really has affected us, more than anything else. thank you. host: thank you. guest: thank you for that question. it's hard to tell. there are obviously large cultural differences between these countries. but i actually think that it's possible there are a lot of cultural differences from the kind of government involvement in the private sectors so you take greece, for example, i mean, greece is a country that's always been relatively poor, especially compared to even spain, italy, france and germany. and for the last 20 years lives

under the friction of being wealthier because it was getting gigantic amount of subsidy from the european union and also when you look at the country's level, have lavish pensions, packages and pension benefits that retire sometimes with and i think that doesn't promote a good work ethic. host: i want to show you this poll from the gallup organization, to talk about the issues that will really drive this election but as you can see from last month and in april, it is essentially tied, 46% for the president. 46% for mitt romney. and the centerpiece when you're dealing with a $16 trillion deficit and unemployment rate at 8.2% in which the republicans are calling for more tax cuts and reduced government spending and the democrats are calling for what they call a balanced approach that includes some tax

increases and some spending cuts. guest: yes, i think the president has an approach, the balanced approach is what has been tried in europe and it doesn't work and in fact, the academic literature is extremely clear about this. there's some 21 studies that shows that the type of austerity package that effectively reduces the debt to g.d.p. ratio, are the ones that are made as spending cuts and the one that fails are the ones that are made of this balanced approach. so i think it will be a tremendous mistake. we should learn for what's going on in europe. host: let me share with you. this is one chart from your center at george mason university when you look at total government spending from 2000 to 2011. you look at france, italy, spain, the u.k. with spending increases and the bottom line here is greece which has been relatively stable over the last

decade in terms of government spending. guest: yes, but greece -- so the chart is adjusted for inflation and greece, greece has actually cut some spending when you compare it to some of the other countries it looks relatively stable but when you look actually they've cut some spending but certainly not enough. what greece has done is they've increased taxes quite dramatically. they created taxes. they increased it to the value added tax to 23%. on the other hand, they really haven't reformed any of their -- their pensions and they've kept a big fleet of b.m.w.'s. i mean, it's like greece is not done what needs to be done and that's reflected in these numbers. host: this question from one of our viewers. is the level of economic development in members within the eurozone an indicator of future economic problems? guest: we always treat europe as

a block but the truth is they are made of individual nations and yes, i mean, there is already problems. i mean, the problems are here. they've been here for a while and you have -- it's true that you have countries that are the poorest country, as i said, greece and portugal and you have very -- you have much richer country like, you know, france, spain, italy, germany and that difference was somewhat compensated by the large amount of subsidies flowing from the rich nation to the poorest nation. that doesn't actually -- this is just a fiction and so troubles are already -- i mean, trouble is here for europe. and it's going to -- it's going to continue. the question is what's going to happen with the euro zone as a whole. i mean, what's going to happen with greece? is greece getting out of the eurozone?

and when is it going to do it? what consequences will follow. does it means that portugal is going to leave, run on portugal bank and italian and spanish. these are all questions and i don't think they had very happy answers. host: here's another look at spain, italy and greece in terms of government spending. tim is on the line from republican line, waterford, michigan. good morning. caller: hi. host: you're on the air, go ahead. caller: hi, how are you doing? i like to say that everything obama is doing when it comes to religion and everything he's doing overseas and everything falls under the category of the anti-christ. if they read the bible and nostradamus. that's my comment. thank you, bye. host: let me go back to the issue of the euro. was it a mistake? guest: i always thought it was

an illusion, it was a mistake, the idea that you can actually take this group of countries which was originally smaller, call it an optimal monetary zone and slap on it a, you know, like say that they were all benefits from this one common currency when the help of each of the nation is so different and try to say that you're going to have to -- you're going to be able to maintain this illusion over time and it seems like a really -- a big delusion. and they were -- there were a lot of voices that were ignored. at the time, i lived in france and they were -- they were unfortunately like is often the case, these voices were ignored in the name of very artificial theory of optimal monetary zones and things that actually look

good on paper but don't take at all under consideration the relationship between countries, the way people respond to that incentive like, for instance, what happens when you have countries suddenly receiving massive amounts of subsidies and i mean, that's never actually a good incentive to become fiscally responsible and to actually promote growth. host: our conversation with veronique de rugy from george mason university. a senior fellow at the mercatus center and that name comes from -- guest: market. host: one of the viewers saying you're not using the facts. austerity alone is not working for europe and the evidence is there. using the words balanced approach calling that better. guest: well, that's -- again, i mean, this is where the whole problem of these debates come from like the facts are in. the facts are, in fact no one

has been able to contest the data that i've put out in my charts because they come from data, the imf data confirms it and it's gone up for the most part when spending has gone down, it's been quite minor relative to the amount of austerity we should be seeing in the government sector and on the other hand, european austerity has mainly meant austerity in the private sector in the form of large tax increases and this is the balanced approach and by the way, i would like to say that one of the reasons why the balanced approach doesn't work is it doesn't work for the exact reason that were illustrated in england. england promised that they would cut $3 in spending for everyone dollar in tax increases. either way, this is what president reagan promised and president bush promised the same

thing. what ends up happening is the tax cut have materialized but the spending cuts don't. so what we've seen in the u.k. which is the same thing we've seen with reagan, it's the same thing we've seen with bush is in the end, you have a complete reversal in the u.k., 75% of the austerity came from increasing taxes. host: i want to ask you about the swedish model in a moment. let's go to mike who has been patient on the phone from ft. myers, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, mrs. rugy. guest: good morning. caller: my question is based on american history and europe and the united states. and the interesting thing is if you look at it, europeans built the united states and the immigrants came in in huge waves, obviously because things weren't good in europe and opportunities were swelling, of course, in the united states.

and today, we have certain immigration that i'm not sure of what the laws are. host: your response? guest: i actually think the u.s. remains tremendous -- it wasn't as good as it was. but it remains a tremendous land of opportunity. especially if we in the future do the right thing which is impose very strict austerity on the government and actually, i wouldn't be surprised if we saw a renewed of immigration coming from europe. i mean, who wouldn't want -- if you were stuck in europe, why wouldn't you come here? no matter how, you know, imperfect it is. host: this issue will come up on thursday when the fed chairman ben bernanke is expected to testify on capitol hill. we'll be covering the testimony on c-span networks. one viewer saying we have to get rid of the central banks. to me, they're the root of the

problem, they're stealing your wealth and creating slaves of all of us. guest: certainly, the central bank is a big part of the problem because central banks tend to create -- to send artificial signals. when you keep interest rates low, you create a large amount of what the economists call now investment. basically, you direct investment by sending signals that this is the place to invest. so i mean, there's no doubt that central banks have a big role to play. but i would argue that we have to look at beyond that one event. the true problem i have is whether it's europe or the u.s., we have been living in this world, this fiction but since we can increase government spending dramatically, and increase debt and there will be no consequences. and we're coming to realize that

this is not true. host: let me ask you about sweden. this is using your statistics from george mason university. but one of the summaries that you have is "sweden has significantly cut government spending that may surprise a lot of people without equivalent increases in taxes. the finance minister has reduced welfare spending and pursued economic stimulus through a permanent reduction in the country's taxes including a 20-point reduction to the top marginal income tax rate. still high but a reduction. explain, as we look at this and we see sweden in blue, the u.s. is in purple and france is in red. host: -- guest: let's say from the get go, sweden is not. it remains a big government democracy, that being said, they have really for the last maybe, you know, for a while, not just the last two or three years, actually engage in reform that are actually very pro growth.

and the forms are you cut spending. you reform -- you engage in structural reform and that involves reforming pensions that are like really a gigantic drag on the economy but you also reform the labor market. you want to make sure that people can go in and out of the work force, workers who are not -- so anyway, you make the -- you free the labor market and more importantly, they have not used stimulus. this idea that in order to promote growth, you have to -- the government has to spend and spend and spend money. they've done exactly the opposite. they refrained from spending. they cut spending and they have reduced taxes a great deal. host: yet, one of our viewers is saying hey there, what is the top swedish rate? guest: it's still high but they've reduced it. host: by 20%. guest: yeah. so they've engaged in quite

significant reduction at the margins, other thing i should say is one of the things that the academic literature is pretty clear about is in order for the government -- the austerity in government package to work well, right? you need to have a central bank or a monetary system that actually accommodates these -- these cuts. and it's true that the swedish are not tied to the european central bank in the way that other countries of the euro are. and that's helped them dramatically. sweden now will say it's not the only country, the balkans, the baltic nations have done the same thing and that's worked really well for them, too, so i think we should look, you know, towards what they've done. host: veronique de rugy is our guest formerly with the kato

institute and now at george mason university at fairfax university. frank is on the phone from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: i would like to suggest that i'd like to get paul craigman on with this woman. he'd wipe the floor with her. what she's implying is bush with reagan, their growth is primarily economics where it's deficit spending that caused that, that's the first point that i'd like to address and secondly, so austerity isn't working and now she's trying to change the rules and say primarily it's because she hasn't done it right. yeah, that's -- get paul on, he's made numerous arguments about the fallacy that you can't do deficit -- you can't do austerity programs on a low growth environment. clinton had it exactly right. they basically pay down the debt during the high growth period. that's the problem we had. bush never paid down the debt when he came out of the recession in 2002. host: frank, stay on the line

and let me share with you what robert reich who served as labor secretary in the clinton administration said about this as well. we'll get your reaction. he pointed out that the u.s. have avoided budget cuts that pushed much of europe in a recession. growth on this side of the pond expected to be about 2.4% this year. jobs are recovering although recovering slowly. your reaction to that? caller: absolutely. that's absolutely is true, that essentially you can't do austerity program in a low growth environment. and if you -- paul has made a wonderful argument on bbc the other night against two economists on the conservative side who are making the argument that they need to continue the austerity programs and again, i think this woman is trying to put in revisionist history now, now that austerity isn't working, that's because europe isn't doing it right. that's a joke. host: thanks for the call. we'll get a response. guest: actually, thank you for giving me the opportunity to say on the record that actually, i think that president reagan and president bush were big

spenders. and the thing that's quite interesting is that by comparison, president clinton was the fiscal hawk. i mean, his growth in spending in the last -- as adjusted for inflation in the last eight -- in his eight-year term was only 12.5%. compare this to the increase in spending adjusted for inflation under president bush, it's anything with president bush, and so you can argue it's because he wasn't spending it on the right thing but actually paul krugman has made multiple times the case it doesn't matter, the importance is to spend. i will say again the problem with austerity is because the anti-austerity people are the ones changing the debate. they always want to prevent austerity in europe as -- as government dramatically cutting spending. it's not true!

what the european has done is the president is -- what president obama wants to do here which is the balanced approach. they want to barely cut spending and then they want to increase taxes which is a recipe for disaster in a slow growth economy. if you actually impose more taxes on the private sector, you make it much higher for the private sector to grow. host: paul joined us last month so to the viewer in fairfax and anyone interested, you can watch his interview on c-span's "washington journal". he joined us on may 9th and all of our programming available on our web site, part of c-span's ever growing video library at cspan.org. michael is the phone from brooklyn, new york. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? yes, i got to call on this, veronique de rugy on the comments that she made about people retiring in their 50's.

how dare they, right? how dare they retire at 50-year-old. come on now, we're on this planet for about 80 years, you know, average in most countries anyway. don't you think we should get some sort of life out of our life? what i'm saying, then, i don't know what the economic policy that would make that happen but i think people should be able to retire at 50 and get a life. now, i think that might have to do with taxing people a little more or maybe even a lot more. but taxing folks so the people on the bottom have a life and all of us have a life. a good life. host: let me jump in with your question and certainly if you retire at 50, one of the questions that comes up is at what type of pension should you get at 50 and who should pay for that? caller: ok, well, obviously, it's either government or if you have a private industry job, you know, you get it that way as well. but the point is that we have to have a bottom on number where people have a decent life. figure that out democratically what that number would be. host: ok. caller: we need to find that out

and make that happen so people have a life. they need -- host: we'll get a response. guest: people can -- i mean, as far as i'm concerned, people can retire at 50, at 35, whenever as long as you do it because they've saved money. the problem that we have already, social security is already running a cash flow deficit. and -- and it's the system itself in its current form is not sustainable. more importantly, and more dramatically, i would argue, social security and a lot of these entitlement programs, they rest on an idea of like basically transferring a dramatic amount of wealth from the young, relatively young and relatively poor people in america towards the relatively wealthy and relatively old in society. and that's just really unfair especially considering that the younger people are likely in a very unsustainable system not to

be able to get anything. so we have to rethink entirely how we get people to retire. and i would argue that -- i mean, if you want to retire early, all the more power to you but you have to plan. to achieve whatever your dream. you have to plan for it, you have to save money, you can't. and i think europe is a good example. you can't count on lavish government benefits that will actually drain the entire system, you know, and destroy growth. and just, you know, increase debt and put us in the pretty dramatic situation the europeans are in. and where we are heading. host: in response to the caller, michael from brooklyn, new york, michael thinks if we throw all our money into one big pot, the

government will dole it out even steven. let's go to george, fairfax, virginia, republican line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i think romney -- your guest failed the economic test. i'll tell you why, she sounds like she's doing what milton friedman in the past. we saw what happened to that economic theory in south america. tell me one country in south america that has an index in double digits and to finish up on that point, the u.s. has now surpassed china. our index is now higher than china. we are now the communist but one last quick point for c-span. let's get -- what radio station is the national radio station, they did a survey on their own -- host: npr? caller: excuse me? host: npr.

caller: that's what i'm trying, thank you. npr did a self-analysis where they said 61% of their guests were republican that left the rest of their balance to be democrats and others. and they said that was fair and balanced. they also call that a landslide in an election, i'd like to see c-span's statistic on the other guests and what percentage is republican and what percentage is the rest. do you have statistics on that? host: i would say pretty much straight down the middle. all our guests are on our web site. you can keep track of what we have every single day and every event we cover is on our web site. we are probably as transparent as they come in terms of what our programming is and what we represent. thanks for the call. guest: i'm not sure, if the idea is to say that the government of the u.s., the caller was implying that the government in the u.s. is too big, i entirely

agree. in order to grow, you need economic freedom within the -- and you need like sound monetary policy, good property rights, and the rule of law that restrains the government because when the government is overwhelming in the economic life, it doesn't give business incentive to hire and to produce. so i mean, if -- if the criticism was that -- to say that government is too big, i entirely agree. we need in the u.s. to impose dramatic austerity on the government. host: let me take that to the next step. if you were to create a pie of where the government spends its money, 2/3 of the money in the u.s. budget goes to entitlement programs, medicare, medicaid, social security. unemployment benefits. another third approximately goes for defense spending and the discretionary spending is a

small sliver of the overall budget. guest: yes. host: where do the cuts come from? guest: i mean, the social security and medicare right now today consumes 37% of our budget. by 2033, they will consume 50% of our budgets and they will be both programs will be -- will have been probably for years in the red. so these programs are unsustainable and they're bound to squeeze out absolutely everything else. this is what we need to reform. this is our priority. host: when you say reform, what do you mean? guest: there are many ways to do it. host: raise the retirement age? guest: you can raise the retirement age, you can test the program and you can do fundamental reform where seniors -- basically you work your entire life to save for yourself. you save, you put money aside

because right now, i mean, like we always see -- we're always -- the government always talk about how much they will give us and provide for us but there's never any mention of how much money is taken away from our paycheck just for social security alone. like 12%, right? and that money we could actually save to build our own savings so i mean, there are many ways of reform. there's -- and we can debate what is the best way, what is the way america wants to deal with this problem, that on the option list is not doing nothing. we need to address this problem. that's already there and continue to grow. host: two final points. joe was on the phone in independent line. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. and i'm a trained economist and

when i finished my training, i realized that it was such a waste of time because when an economist looks at things, they say everything else remaining equal in order to deal with two or three variables and you have to live in the real life. you have to deal with the whole thing holistically as a whole. you cannot compare country to country. you cannot -- have a prescription that fits all. i hope that this lady realizing what i realized when i came out of my studies there on the economy because you are wasting

you're wasting your life because every country is different. you cannot say one thing or the other one and this is going to apply over here. it's ridiculous. guest: well, so actually i agree that the problem with most economists is that things that look good on paper, they tend to take it for granted ignoring the fact that actually people change their behavior in response to the policy and place. for instance, but i think they are overwhelming response to the same type of policy. so for instance, we know if taxes are too high the private sector will shrink. the private sector people over the long term, people will respond in a negative way and it

will impact growth. in the same way, we know, for instance, that theories that show when you -- when the government spending -- when government spending increases the economy grow. we know this looks good on paper but the reality is quite different. a very serious economist and does a lot of empirical work has shown that, in fact, when you take under consideration how people respond and she looked at, you know, how people responded to massive wave of increased spending, the private sector shrinks. so when you -- when the government increased spending a lot so i think the caller is exactly right that a lot of the economic theory looks good on paper and ignores entirely the way people respond. host: follow up with one final question earlier. the elections taking place later this month in greece and another

round of national elections because they have yet to form a government and the big question -- will they stay in the euro, will they leave the euro? what's going to happen? guest: i mean, i think there's a lot of fear about what will happen to other countries if the greek leave. and it's a question mark how bad the contagious effect will be. you know, your guess is as good as mine. i suspect that greece will leave the euro. i suspect but again, the fear about the consequences of the greek leaving the euro, because the panic will spread to countries like portugal. italy with some weaknesses and spanish banks are in big trouble and it may be that the european union tried a big, last push to

keep greece in the euro. you know what? it's only a question of time. this is an artificial, it's a fiction and it can't last forever. host: veronique de rugy from george mason university, thanks very much for sharing your perspective with us. guest: thank you. host: come back again. coming up in just a couple of minutes, we'll turn our attention to the developing story in syria. this coming weekend, of course, the egyptian people saying that former hosni mubarak has been sentenced to life in prison as we see what's happening in syria and its impact on the middle east. mona yacoubian will be joining us from the stimson center. the other issues and guests that can be heard on c-span radio. nancy in the c-span radio studios as always on this sunday. good morning, nancy. >> good morning, steve. topics today on the network talk programs including the presidential election, the economy and foreign affairs. and reairs at the five network talk shows come to us as a

courtesy of nbc, abc, fox, cnn and cbs. we begin at noon with nbc's "meet the press." host david gregory welcomes massachusetts democratic governor duvall patrick. ohio republican governor john kasich and former new jersey democratic senator bill bradley. abc's "this week" follows at 1:00 p.m., guests today include stephanie cutter, deputy campaign manager for the president. and eric fernstrom, an advisor to mitt romney's campaign. chris wallace hosts ed gillespie, a romney campaign advisor and steven ratner who led president obama's automobile task force. cnn's "state of the union" reairs at 3:00 p.m. eastern. candy crowley welcomes the virginia governor and senators richard lugar and mark warner, a virginia democrat. "face the nation" from cbs completes the line-up reairing at 4:00 p.m. bob schieffer talks with david axelrod, a senior strategist for

the president's releekz campaign and reince priebus, chairman of the republican national committee. again, five network talk shows reairing as a public service beginning at noon eastern with nbc's "meet the press". 1:00 p.m. abc's this week. at 2:00 p.m. "fox news sunday." at 3:00, cnn's "state of the union" and at 4:00 p.m. "face the nation" from cbs and you can listen to them all on c-span radio here in the washington, d.c. area. nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 119. listen on your blackberry. download as an iphone app or go on line to cspanradio.org. host: we want to welcome mona yacoubian, a senior middle east advisor at the stimson center here in washington, d.c. thank you very much for being here. guest: thanks for having me. host: we want to get your reactions and comments of secretary of state hillary clinton.

some of the news this morning saying that president assad saying his government is not responsible for the killing of the syrian people. what do you think is going on? guest: this is a continuation of what assad is espousing from the beginning of the uprising. he's attempting to portray what the u.n. and others have noted as government-sponsored violence as being that of foreign extremists and terrorists and so he's simply continuing the same line. host: let me share with you what the secretary of state said in copenhagen, i want to read her words from the associated press in which she was asked very directly about whether or not there would be any u.s. military involvement. she said "we are nowhere near putting together any type of coalition other than to alleviate the suffering. we are working very hard to focus the efforts on those who are appalled by what is going on to win over those who still support the regime both inside and outside of syria. she went on to say that we must work together to peel away the regime's continued support within syria bolstering our

assistance to the opposition and isolating the regime diplomatically and economically. guest: i think she's laid out very clearly what the obama administration's strategy has been vis-a-vis syria which is one of pressure and diplomatic. it's really an acknowledgment that at this point, military options and other things simply are not in the cards. the key strategy has been to try as she has said to peel away key pillars of regime support. whether it's the business elite by economic sanctions, the military and i think in this case, russia could play a key role if they're playing to join an international coalition. host: patrick mcdonald is joining us from beirut, reporters are not allowed inside syria. thank you for being with us. guest: you're welcome. host: let me begin with the

comments over the weekend by president assad saying monsters wouldn't even carry out such a crime. this narrative that we've been hearing that his government is not responsible for what's been happening inside the country. guest: he was specifically referring to the massacre last week at a place where 100 people mostly children and women were killed. and the u.n. has found evidence that -- they said they found evidence that it was committed by pro government gunmen and kind of a shadowy thuggish types and the government of assad has totally denied that and said it was done by terrorist which is the code words for anti-government rebels in a bid to undermine the peace plan and basically frame the government and make the government look worse. so they haven't taken any responsibility whatever for what happened there and a lot of people show that massacre has been a bit of a turning point. it certainly galvanized opposition against the assad government.

host: this again coming the same weekend that we saw the life sentence for president mubarak, the arab spring that has swept many parts of the arab world and yet, not so yet in syria. why? guest: well, every one of the situations, you know, are very unique. from one country to another and syria is a unique brand of challenges for the people trying to take out the assad regime. i mean, it has a very, very strong sectarian element. it's been said many times before but the revolution basically comes up from the sunni muslim masses in that country who were a majority and the country is largely essentially a security apparatus and president assad is from an ally minority that might be 12% of the population and i think that sector of the population increasingly sees itself in a fight for survival and it's very difficult for them to kind of to give up at this point. they can very much see it as a fight for survival which is not a good sign for a peaceful end

for this. host: as we indicated in beirut, lebanon and one of the stories that you posted at the "l.a. times" web site is how this violence is spreading beyond the syrian borders. guest: well, there's a lot of concern about that. kofi anaan, the special envoy made a comment just yesterday about the spillover and there was some very, very heavy fighting in the northern lebanese city of tripoli where there are some very strong pro assad and anti-assad factions, at least 10 killed. 50 wounded. i think there's a lot of concern about spillover violence here in lebanon that has its own history of division by sect and many people are worried that this doesn't spill over into lebanon. host: when president assad said not even monsters would carry out the crimes that we have seen saying he is heart broken by what has been happening and according to the associated press this morning, very much standing his ground inside syria. how much support does he have to remain as the syrian president?

guest: that's a bit of an impondable from those who aren't in the country. it's clear he has some support but other groups including christians and others in syria which is a very diverse country, and many of them fear an islamist takeover and that has been the line that the assad administration has been playing that after me comes kind of a radical militant government that would not be as tolerant to minorities as i have been. that's scared some of people of some of these massacres that the government and the government media has basically blamed on the terrorists and people in syria, you talk to syrians, they're very, very well aware of what happened in iraq next door. more than a million refugees from iraq went into syria. they saw those bombings and they see a lot of these things happening in syria and some people do see president assad as

a source of stability. host: patrick mcdonald joining us on the phone from beirut. thank you very much for sharing your perspective with us. guest: my pleasure. host: let's go back to the comments of the secretary of state. she was in denmark, part of a week long tour of europe. here's more of what she said of another key player of this domino effect of syria and its related allies, russia. here's the secretary of state. [video clip] >> the russians keep telling us they want to do everything they can to avoid a civil war because they believe that the violence would be catastrophic. they often in their conversations with me liken it to the equivalent of a very large lebanese civil war and they're just vociferous in their claim that they are providing a stablizing influence. i reject that.

i think they are in effect propping up the regime in a time that we should be working in a political transition. i look forward to working with kofi anaan and with like minded nations like denmark and others and with the russians to see if we can't get a way forward. host: yet, the human rights toll continues in syria. guest: right. well, i think, again, the secretary's comments, though, suggest and i would agree with it that russia really does have a key role to play in this. they are, perhaps, syria's strongest ally and many believe should the russians have a decision to withdraw, this could have a significant impact inside the country and may bring about his demise and i think the issue is as we're watching the situation inside syria deteriorate, the question is when will the russians come to the conclusion that syria is

headed towards a civil war and this would not in any way serve russian interest. but this is the -- this is the strategy that the administration is pursuing at this point is to really find common ground as they watch the situation deteriorate. host: as one of the viewers point out, syria is buying from russia. guest: that's true, russia has been a key ally of syria and this is sort of the last bastion of russian support in the arab world but at the same time, it's very clear that the situation in syria is continuing to deteriorate and that would not serve russian interests. all that military hardware, economic investments, etc., they stand to lose all of that. if the country descends into a widespread sectarian civil war. host: our guest is mona yacoubian with the stimson center. previously she was at the state department and at the u.s. institute of peace, graduate of

duke university at harvard's kennedy school of government and also a former fulbright scholar who lived in syria in the mid 1980's. cliff is on the phone from baltimore. good morning. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. thanks for having me on the show. again, this is just the latest instance where the american people are being hit over the head with lies and propaganda concerning what's actually going on in the middle east. the pictures of these women and children were actually pictures of dead women and children photographed in iraq. just from american crawford broming, ok? this is like the incubator story about the babies in iraq. been completely false. complete propaganda. and the so-called arab spring is completely western backed. host: thanks for the call. is this propaganda?

guest: no, there are u.n. monitors on the ground that have in fact confirmed the deaths in syria at hula, there are also human rights orpganizations who have interviewed survivors of the massacre, it's very clear that this massacre did take place in syria. there are other pieces of evidence that suggest that the massacre was undertaken by paramilitary forces that are aligned with the outside government and the state department recently released satellite imagery that shows syrian forces that were allied around the villages itself so i think there's compelling evidence that the massacre did indeed take place and likely with the syrian -- under the syrian government command. host: as we listen to the next caller, rick is joining us from michigan. background information, syria,

home to 23 million residents and roughly the same size as the state of north dakota. 74% sunni. 10% christian. the unemployment rate among young people 20%. and required military service for all qualified men. go ahead, rick. caller: good morning. i was hoping that your guest could give us some information on the military operation called eager lion 2012. the u.s. and 19 other military operations happening right now. host: are you familiar with this? guest: i'm not very familiar with it. i know given the deterioration in syria, there has been an increase of attention paid to what the u.s. might be able to do around syria's borders including in jordan which is, of course, an ally of the united states but i'm not entirely familiar with the operation that the caller refers to. host: you say we are using russia and china as a means to

justify our inaction. we can do something in syria if the political will is there. is that a fair assessment? are we blaming china and russia? guest: i think, again, russia and alongside it, china are in fact at this point still blocking moves toward an international consensus that may, in fact, make a difference in terms of moving on a political transition rather than using military options. i think it's unfair to say we're hiding behind russia and china. i think we are rightly pointing out russia's continued insistence on backing the syrian regime and blocking an international consensus on those that may add additional pressure on the regime and again try to push towards a transition. host: here's how vladimir putin who is in germany responding to criticism that he has been funding the assad regime. here's what he had to say,

listen to him through an interpreter. [video clip] >> russia is not supporting any kind of regime like that. those who claim it are wrong. we have very good and long standing relationship with syria but we are not supporting either of the parties. if there's a threat of civil war involved, i agree with madam chancellor, our common objective is to prevent the development of this kind of unfavorable scenario. what we are witnessing today is the beginning of a civil war and this is extremely dangerous. our objective is to stop the violence, no matter whom it comes from. we have agreed with madam chancellor that we will do all we can, both russia and germany and other partners will do all we can to prevent the escalation

of violence. we will help mr. anaan get a positive result. host: that was last week in germany, the russian president. your response? guest: again, i think the russians have sort of escalated. they, for example, joined the u.n. in condemning the syrian government for the massacre. that was early last week. at that point, there was some thought that maybe russia was shifting away from syria and would, as i said, join a u.n. consensus to add additional pressure and move towards the implementation of the anaan plan. since that time, the russians have seemed to vacillate and to, in fact, back the syrian government's version of events. at the same time, they continue to express a desire to put an end to the violence, to not have syria descend into a civil war. i think that they're playing somewhat dangerous game of chicken which they are trying to hold out in joining the

international community to leverage their influence inside syria until they think the time is appropriate to make that shift. but i do believe as the situation continues to deteriorate inside syria, the russians may well make a decision that assad, the assad regime, certainly president assad and those around him need to go. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio, xm channel 119 heard coast to coast. our guest is with the stimson center here in washington. josh is on the phone. jacksonville, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i would suggest that we take what vladimir putin says with a grain of salt and also, kofi anaan does not have the best record. if we think back to rwanda in 1995, kofi anaan does not have the best human rights record in terms of what he's willing to do, what he's willing to authorize to prevent human rights violations, not to say

compare what is happening now in syria with rwanda exactly but as far as the u.n.'s abilities to project power in the realest sense. it has more bite than it does peace. host: josh, thanks for the call and a related twitter comment on those same lines that our allies have no stomach to get involved in syria. russia and china involved are the best option. your response to those points? guest: the points are making, it's the same idea which is at this point, there is very little international consensus for anything more muscular, for a mill more military intervention inside syria. it's been made very clear by russia that there's no interest getting involved militarily. our allies in europe haven't shown much interest in military

intervention. i don't think there's much stomach for it here in the united states. so i think really at this point, the question is is there a way to use diplomatic means in order to pressure the assad regime, not to -- how to cease the violence and begin some sort of political transition. host: our next call is margie on the phone from macon, georgia. thanks for waiting. caller: yes, syria and russia, also china, just like us are all members of the commonwealth and belong to britain so why doesn't britain have them stop instead of trying to implement agenda 21 with their population control like they've inserted into our health care bill also? wouldn't that be a little more sensible? guest: i'm not sure exactly what the caller is referring to but, again, i think the issues really have to do with is there a way to build some sort of

international consensus which to this point has not yet been assembled as to how to deal with the situation in syria with a peaceful manner. host: let me show you one of the related editorials this morning from inside "the washington post." former secretary of state henry kissinger that served in the nixon and ford administrations, the perils of intervention in syria. he points out "military intervention, humanitarian or strategic, has two prerequisites, first a consensus on the government after the overthrow of the status quo that is critical in his eyes and second, the political objective must be explicit and achievable in a domestically sustainable time period. i doubt that the syrian issue meets those tenets at the moment." guest: i think that's absolutely correct. i think one of the key elements that's been missing from syria and distinguishes it, frankly, from the other uprisings has been this lack of what a post assad syria would look like. the opposition has remained

deeply divided and it has not been successful in attracting syria's various minorities that you enumerated earlier, the christians and also the kurds. so without a plan, without a vision for what a post assad syria would look like, it's very hard to justify military intervention which may well simply open up a very dangerous vacuum, essentially add to the problems in the instability and the chaos of the country is currently experiencing and we certainly saw this in iraq, to what happens when there's intervention without a plan, without an organized entity that would then take over from there. host: this debate, of course, unfolding in washington, d.c., european as well as in the united nations. and for last week, the syrians represented to the u.n., responding to all these developments, here are his comments.

[video clip] >> this massacre that took place does not constitute the beginning of the syrian crisis. the syrian crisis go back to almost one year. and i'm sure you have followed what my colleagues have said as well as inside. most of them with the sensibility acknowledged the presence of a third element they call it the armed terrorist groups. something that we have been trying to explain for almost a year. and some of the same colleagues used to cast the doubt about what we're seeing. ladies and gentlemen, in syria, we are facing terrorist armed

groups. trained, financed, harbored and prote protected by some countries in the area, other countries, regional countries and internationally speaking also. guest: it's been a long standing contention of the syrian government, it is not born out by reality or facts on the ground, they have long tried to portray this, the uprising being the work. they began to talk about it being the work of foreign extremists, al-qaida, etc. they have undertaken a strategy of playing up syria's sectarian differences as a means of trying to keep those minorities on the side of the regime essentially saying that the regime is what stands between them and chaos. unfortunately, though, what

we're beginning to see is as the situation in syria deteriorates, there have been some inroads made by jihadist elements and other things. there have been some suicide bombings in syria. that may well be the work of jihadist cells so, unfortunately, we may also be seeing the beginnings of a self-fulfilling prophecy inside syria. host: c.j. has this point, framing it in terps of the election year politics in this country. he is looking for the exact time to get involved for his own political aspirations and it would appear to help him in an election. henry kissinger going back to his comments that this is a nonpartisan issue and needs to remain that. guest: i think so. the decision to undertake military intervention inside syria has significant consequences. both in terms of what may happen on the ground inside syria, the cost in terms of american blood and treasure. we are at a point now where we're winding down from two wars

inside the middle east. and i think it's very important to ask the question, is the american public in favor of beginning a third war? host: one of our viewers responding to the syrian representative jafari's comments at the united nations last week in new york with this point -- it sounds like the work of the c.i.a. is the c.i.a. involved in trying to help these groups trying to oust president assad? guest: not that i'm aware of, no. host: sheldon is the phone, kansas city independent line. how are you doing? caller: there's no doubt that the c.i.a. has its hands all over this. the united states keeps funding these groups and it's sickening. look, you have clinton saying straight up she wants a regime change and then she calls for arming the rebels. you know, any other time they're terrorists. for some reason, when we want a regime change like in libya, we were funding rebels and we support them.

this is flat out terrorism that we're funding and for people not to see this, you can -- what kind of planet are you living on? host: your response? guest: i think it's important to put the syrian uprising in the proper context. it began peacefully and it very much was a home grown uprising, frankly it came much to the surprise of many people watching syria. because the country is such a repressive place but yet, inspired by what happened in tunisia and egypt, the syrian people began to protest and demonstrate peacefully. over time as the government has used more and more oppressive measures, we have seen the opposition itself become militarized. the united states government is still at least on paper saying that it is opposed to arming the opposition. because of many of the potential issues that could arise, it's a very complicated situation on

the ground. while there's discussion of potentially vetting groups that might receive arms, this is by no means a guarantee that the arms would end up in the right hands. and so my sense is that the obama administration at this point is not in favor of arming the opposition inside syria. host: quick side note. what is the stimson center? who funds your organization, who do you remit? guest: the stimson center is a relatively small think tank based in washington, d.c. and it focuses on peace and security. looking for pragmatic solutions to transnational problems and so forth. funded by variety of foundations, private foundations, corporate sponsors and also some u.s. government funding. host: arthur is on the phone. corpus christi, texas, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i've been listening to this syrian thing off and on over the last year or so, and first of all, i abhor violence so don't

get me wrong here but everybody is in raising their hands in horror about what to do, what to do. and it seems to me like and call me simple minded to the rebels or the whatever, revolutionists, whatever you want to call them obviously can't win. so if you want to stop the fighting, why don't they just lay down their arms and regroup when they're stronger. host: thanks for the call. let me take his call and share with you -- that's what susan wright said last week in new york. she is, of course, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations. she essentially spelled out a number of different options that are available. here are her comments. [video clip] >> so those three outcomes are as follows. first and best outcome would be for the government of syria to finally and immediately implement its commitments under

the annan plan as it's obliged to do. that's what kofi anaan is pressing for and that's the surest and best way for this to get back on track and for there to be a live prospect of a political solution. at this point, however, that does not seem to be a high probability scenario. the second scenario would be that government fulfills its commitments would be for this council to assume its responsibilities. and to put additional pressure on the syrian authorities to meet its commitments. and that pressure could include sanctions of the sort that have been alluded to and discussed and we were among those that raised that possibility. now, in either of those first two scenarios, the anaan plan survives and the unity of the council is preserved and there is a path forward aimed at

putting the political process on track. in the absence of either of those two scenarios there, seems to me to be one other alternative and that is indeed the worst case which seems, unfortunately, at the present to be the most probable. and that is that the violence escalates, the conflict spreads and intensifies, it reaches a higher degree of severity, it involves countries in the region and it takes on increasingly sectarian forms and we have a major crisis not only in syria but in the region, the council's unity is exploited and the anaan plan is dead and this becomes a proxy conflict with arms flowing in from all sides. host: and that's susan rice last wednesday in new york. three options. clearly three options that don't bode well for the syrian people. and yet, no reference to direct u.s. military involvement.

guest: first, i would agree with the options that ambassador rice has laid out and i think it's precisely because of the dangers and the complexity inside syria, that third option of essentially no agreement within -- on the anaan plan and the country descending into an all out sectarian war that has really served to put the brakes at least at this point on the idea of military intervention. i think in many ways, this past week, we may end up looking back in hindsight and say this is where the syrian conflict reached a tipping point towards more all out sectarian civil war. we've seen the massacres not only at hula but also two additional mass killings this week so simply the scale and pace of massacres inside syria is very concerning. we also have as ambassador rice slightly pointed out now, this specter of regional spillover

with lebanon experiencing some of its worst sectarian violence in the last four years as a result of differences in that country over syria. so the options, i think, are very difficult under those circumstances. i would maintain that that second option that she laid out may not fully be dead. that is to say again, try to bring the russians along and forge an international consensus. that would put additional pressure on the syrian regime. the e.u. will be meeting with russia this week. president obama is scheduled to meet with president later this month, could there be, perhaps, in those meetings the possibility of bringing the russians into an international consensus, having them be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. host: that meeting with president putin taking place at the g-20 summit in mexico. i want to ask a moment about your personal time in syria in the 1980's.

let's go to fred from queens, new york. democrats line. caller: good morning. i don't quite understand -- what's so special about now? didn't his father show 10,000 plus in 1982? guest: very good point. his father indeed did kill between 10,000 and 20,000 people. at the time there was a lot of violence inside syria and it was sunni islamists opposing this minority regime. but the times were quite different then. first, there wasn't the sort of social media and other kinds of technology that allowed what happened in syria to be broadcast to the world. in the way that we are seeing violence in syria today being broadcast to the world. and i would say secondly, what's happening in syria is again part of this broader transformation that is beginning to sweep the arab world. it's a generations long

transformation. syria, unfortunately, is experiencing, perhaps, the most brutal of these uprisings. but i think times are very, very different. and therefore, we can't simply turn away and not pay attention to what's happening inside syria. host: let me conclude on that point as somebody who spent a year in 1985-1986 under president assad's father when he was in control in syria what you saw in the country then and your observations and thoughts today. guest: well, syria at that time was at the height of assad's rule. it was an incredibly repressive environment. i lived in a dorm in syria with other syrian students and the level of fear, of being watched was palpable. i felt it myself. but it was an enormously stable country at that time. there had been a series of rota

rotating rule that the country was entering a period of relative stability. that said, he was a brutal dictator and i think in many ways laid the seeds for what we're seeing inside syria today. his son has not been nearly as strategic a ruler as the father. i went back to syria as i started to sort of begin my work again on syria in the mid 2000's and the difference in the 20 years was astounding. both in terms of the level of corruption, in terms of the deterioration of the infrastructure and so forth, i think that was really a precursor to the decisions by people inside the country to rise up. host: how much influence does hi have over him? guest: reportedly quite a bit. it's a close knit family and the roar in syria over the years have become more clannish in its

nature than what it once was. host: mona yacoubian with the stimson center in washington, d.c. is a senior middle east advisor. thank you for being with us on this sunday morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal" as we do every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. the editor of politiofact will be stopping by to see what's going on in terms of television advertising in wisconsin and the recall effort and some of the latest in this presidential election, what's fact, what's fiction. politifact.com is the web site. we'll be discussing china's investments in the u.s., what impact it's had on the u.s. economy and our yoefr all deficit. james cosgrove here with the government accountability office, g.a.o. on a program called the quality bonus payment demonstration targeting medicare advantage. it allows medicare recipients to receive their benefits through private health insurance plans. details on all of this tomorrow

morning on "the washington journal." thanks for joining us on this sunday morning. hope you have a great week ahead. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]