-- tom graves and george mason university criminology, law & society associate professor catherine gallagher would discuss the gang activity in the u.s. ♪ guest: restore is in the paper about -- host: several stories of the paper about ben bernanke appearing this morning before the joint economic committee at 10:00 a.m. you that live on c-span3 or listen to it on c-span radio. around 10:30 a.m., both proceed to debate on the farm bill. president obama, at a fund- raiser, spoke about the future of the bush your tax cuts. this discussion started by bill clinton on those tax cuts. in our first 45 minutes, your

thoughts on whether they should be extended. you may say yes or no year only for those making above to under $50,000. give us a call. tell us why. here are the numbers -- ! for republicans -- 202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-628-0205 four independent -- for independents. we will take those calls in just a moment. even though the president made statements about it last night, it was earlier this week in an interview with cnbc that started this discussion in the papers and amongst the capitol hill about the future of the bush era tax cuts. here is president bill clinton when asked about the tax cuts and whether they should be extended. >> i think what it means is they will have to put everything off until early next year. that is the best thing to do right now.

the republicans do not want to do that unless he agrees to extend a tax cut permanently, including for upper-income people. but, the real issue is not whether they should be extended for another few months, it is whether the price the republican house will put on the extension is the permanent extension of the tax cuts. which, i think, is an error. >> -- host: president clinton's press secretary put out a statement following the interview and this is the statement they put out regarding it. host: on the republican side, taking the issue and working with it, this is stephen diamond "n the "washington times .

host: again, your thoughts on the bush era tax cuts and whether they should be extended. the numbers are on your screen. they all start with 202. you can also reach out to us on twitter and on facebook. pennsylvania. republican line. dennis. good morning. go ahead. caller: hello? yeah, basically what is going on

is all of the leaders now of all of the countries are basically getting together with the un and the council on foreign relations and what they will do is bankrupt all of the rich countries and give the money to the rich. and put the middle class and the poor all over the world. we are talking about tax cuts for the rich. they have not created one job for anybody. what makes you think that our leaders in government, or owning millions of dollars in big farms like john kerry talking about mitt romney owning property in building a garage, you are rich. you own the media. you are running the government. you to k habeus corpus away.

host: lance thing, michigan. it -- lansing, michigan. caller: i would like to put this fairness thing to rest. i am a democrat but i own my own business. your business that you taxes on, you pay all the regular taxes and all of the employee taxes and all the other stuff. you might make $30,000 or $100,000. if your business makes $250,000, 500,000, $1 million, it does not matter what you make. personally. you have to pay the 30% tax rate. how is that fair? millionaires might have to pay 30% on a million dollars, but they make $1 million. we do not make $1 million. the business makes a million

dollars. how is that fair? host: tell us your thoughts on whether the bush era tax cut should be extended. caller: i think the bush era tax cuts should be extended. they should also go down to about 15% or 18%. how about that? a flat tax. these republicans that are talking about their taxes and fled texas, i am with them. -- fair taxes and flat taxes, i am with them. the democrats have been that the businessmen and businesswomen. host: this is brian from twitter -- host: new york city. you are next. michael. good morning. independent line. caller: by the way, you have a great show. i am a senior professor in the m.b.a. program.

host: which university? >> it is here in manhattan. i would rather not say. host: fair enough. go ahead. caller: the situation is a false premise. germany has the highest tax rates in the world. they have 5%, 5 1/2% on unemployment. two years ago, we set up 20 m.b.a's to do a study on how to predict unemployment. we came up with a formula -- in 40 years, every time oil was under $30 per barrel, you have 5% unemployment.

every time you had a loyal over -- oil over $60 per barrel, 10% unemployment. host: how does this relate to tax cuts, if he would not mind? caller: the situation is, sweden, denmark, germany have the highest tax rates. they have 5 percent and unemployment. situation is which -- we are 29th and we have 10%. host: bon mot press the beshear tax cuts during a statement in california -- president obama addressed the bush era tax cut in a statement in california. "washington journal -- [video clip] >> people of the copper doing well and everyone else will presumably benefit, too. it is not enough to continue the bush tax cuts. we will tack on another five

trillion dollars worth of tax cuts. we say we are concerned about the deficit but if we are willing to blow a hole for the deficit like that, the only way to make it up is to cut out all of those things we have done together as a nation to make a stronger. investment in research and development and science. investments in infrastructure. helping kids go to college. taking care of our veterans. making sure that if you are disabled or your report child or your a senior citizen, that you have a basic baseline where you can live with dignity and respect. and get the help you need. i do not think that is how you grow an economy. host: president obama from yesterday. facebook is available if you want to get your comments on the bush era tax cuts and if they should be extended. we had 12, and starting off this program. you're a two --

host: charlotte, north carolina. in our discussion about the extension of the tax cuts. john, good morning. caller: thank you for taking our calls. i have been listening to all of the other speakers and listening to president obama talking about how to grow an economy. well, the economy is obviously not growing. if anything, it is shrinking. the reason they say gas is going down is because people are not traveling as much because of higher unemployment. it is interesting to hear all of your guests. you hear a small businesswoman who is a democrat who understands that a higher tax rate will strangle business and it does not help.

you also have a professor from the university who will not disclose which university, probably out of fear of retribution from the faculty, about oil prices and their relation to tax rates. it is interesting to hear that, but it boils down to whether you are comedian or free market. host: how would you describe yourself? caller: free market. i do not borrow from my credit card to pay down other debts. that is ludicrous. host: should the tax cuts be in place at the end of the year? caller: when you put more capital out there,e the market for people to invest, the port will not go to the other poor people. it will go to people who have capital that can create jobs. if government can get out of the way, just like everybody has said -- trying to look at as a

socialist regime. we have seen how that works to read history. if we would just get out of the way and leave everybody to the fruits of their labor, people will use that for to purchase things that they would like to own and it creates the cycle of stimulus and therefore they will create more jobs. host: if someone were to ask you what has been the value of keeping the tax cuts as they are, how would you enter? caller: well, like your other caller said, i am looking more towards tax reform. toward the flat or other incremental tax instead of our abomination of a tax code in the irs. i look at the irs as just

another creation of the socialist movement per president wilson to redistribute wealth to other people. host: that was john from north carolina. 202-737-0002, republicans. 202-737-0001, democrats. 202-628-0205, independents. host: here is a story this morning.

host: "the american spectator" as apiece -- he says that the clinton era -- host: there are a couple of thoughts this morning. we are getting your thoughts on the bush era tax cuts and if they should be extended. this is carlisle, pennsylvania. michael. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am calling in just to say i think it is ridiculous that you give businesses tax breaks that

they are going to hire people because you are giving them tax breaks. they are going to hire people whenever they need to hire people regardless of whether they're getting a tax break or not. i think we should get rid of the tax breaks for the rich. if you listen to congress, they keep talking about cutting entitlements. do the people know what they're talking about when they say that? why should the elderly and people who are less well-off be the only ones that are paying for that? i think the rich to pay their fair share, too. cut the tax breaks. thank you. host: phoenix, arizona. good morning. independent line. caller: c-span? all right. thank you. host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say it really depends on what kind of country you want. if we want to have a country that is an oligarchy style

nation where the rich just take their money and stack it up and clean out the economy, and there is no money floating around, then go ahead and drop it to 0. but, if we are going to have a country where the money is flowing and there is money available for people to engage in the economy and buy stuff, we are going to have to have a tax rate that keeps the money flowing. host: that means lower taxes? caller: no, higher. the country has done very well when the tax rate was higher. 50 percent and at one time. 7%. i think even 90% on their -- 70%. i think even 90% on their

highest income earners. we became number one in the world. host: is there a political will to make those tax hikes happen? caller: no, sir. but there ought to be. people ought to think about that. it is a matter of what kind of economy what. if you want to have a vibrant economy, you have to keep the money flowing. host: this is don off of twitter -- host: a couple of stories. this is "the hill" -- scott walker's triumph has cemented his status and put it in line for a prime-time speaking slot. host: this is another story out of wisconsin looking at the

democratic senate seat. host: we will continue on the

calls about the bush your tax cuts and if they should be extended. you can weigh in on twitter in the mail and facebook, as well. first, at 10:00 a.m., an event featuring the fed chairman, ben bernanke, with a discussion about the stetter reserve's rolen the economy. from that discussion, peter schroeder joins us. who will mr. browning keep the appearing -- mr. burr 19 be appearing -- mr. burning to be appearing before? guest: this is a panel that includes members of the senate and house. they need to discuss various economic issues and the trajectory of the economy. ben bernanke will be getting a lot of questions about this recent jobs report that was

pretty disappointing. the economy added 69,000 jobs in the month of may when people were expecting at least 150,000. there will be a lot of questions about where the economy is headed and whether or not we might be facing some rough times ahead. host: has the fed signaled as far as how they might respond? guest: the fed keeps the cards close to the best. -- vest. there is speculation the fed might need to do more. officials have indicated that they are ok with the policies they have in place. they are reserving the right to do more if the economy loses steam. the question is whether or not the fed sees the jobs report and other data and thinks that they are seeing a picture where they feel like they need to do something else. host: the members who sit on the federal reserve, what has been the reaction as far as how much they should intervene at this time? guest: it gets a little bit

split. we have heard from democrats that they think the fed should be doing more to boost the economy. they think they have more of their role to play there. the federal reserve has been under pretty consistent pressure from republicans in congress to try to avoid some of these projects. republicans are concerned that they are not doing that much for the economy but are encouraging inflation down the road. that is kind of the push-pull we are seeing. you will see more of that. host: some of the papers or reports leading up to it are saying there were concerns from republicans that the fed may be looking at helping the person in the white house gain a better economy, especially in this election year. guest: that is a parental wrote -- that is a problem for the federal reserve. of picking accused sides. the question is, depending on where the economy heads, the fed might prefer not to step into

the middle of the campaign season but they might feel like they have to. host: what type of tools as the fed have at this point to help the economy? guest: that is an interesting question. the federal reserve has interest rates near 0. that is typically its main tool they are using to affect the economy. those rates have been near zero for years. they plan to keep them there until the end of 2014. now, they are stepping into the areas where they are trying to use other tools. we have seen quantitative easing when the fed buys of billions of dollars of bonds in an attempt to lower borrowing rates and spur the economy. the fed is also wrapping up a project called operation twist where they basically reorient the portfolio so they vote on longer-term bonds, which is another move meant to spur lending. speculations are that the fed might embark on a third round of quantitatively easing. the fed has not really

indicated what might be the next that if they decide they need to take one. host: what are you most aggressive in hearing about from mr. brady? guest: the key thing -- mr. bernie? -- mr. kornacki? -- mr. bernanke. guest: the fed has stepped to the mantra that the economy is growing. mr. bernanke might be more open to the idea that the fed might have another role. he will be pushed and pulled from various lawmakers who would like to see the fed do something or like to see the fed staff on the sidelines. host: we're talking about the bush era and tax cuts. is this something mr. burning people ask about? -- mr. bernanke will ask about?

guest: ben bernanke has said congress needs to do something to get the fiscal picture in shape. he has steered clear of how to do it. he will be questions on that but you can expect he is getting good at steering clear of that. host: peter schroeder of "the hill" who has been covering finances. he joins us on the phone for this discussion. thank you for your time. guest: my pleasure. host: at 10:00 a.m., you can watch that hearing. ben bernanke in front of the joint economic committee. that is live on c-span3. listen for it on c-span radio and look at it later on c- span.org -- c-span.org. in 25 minutes, we will have representatives loretta sanchez, member of the committee. we will talk to her about what she is looking forward to hearing from burning keep. we are now looking at the bush era tax cuts.

hello. caller: good morning. i think tax rates should go up on everybody. maybe just the rich. i am not a rich person. i am a business owner. i do construction work. i hire a lot of people. that guy who says you cannot get a job from anybody who is not rich, he does and what he is talking about. the lady who said that she is a democrat who claims to be in business owner and claims that she is paying 30%, i know she is not. you can deduct right down to 0 in, -- 0 income. she is not paying 30% on

anything. only her profits. the only thing -- she is not paying 30% of all the revenue. she is only paying 30% or whatever she claimed she was paying on her profits. host: new jersey. this is an e-mail -- host: albuquerque, new mexico. betty. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. nice to talk to you. [laughter] i am trying to figure out what planet most of these people are calling from. with the possible exception of the man from pennsylvania and this last wonderful caller from iowa who really gets it. what part of the bush era tax cuts -- they created a huge deficit problem to begin with.

why is the memory so short? that and that no accounting for the two wars, no accounting on the books for the bush era tax cuts. no accounting whatsoever for the tinkering of the doughnut hole in medicare. these are the things that got us into trouble because none of these things were put on the books while bush was in office. now, poor barack obama has suffered the indignity of being blamed for this mess because he is -- he has put these things on the books. we do not need to extend the bush era tax cuts. a corporation is more profitable than it has ever been. they are not hiring because people like myself have no purchasing power. that is what has created the problem, plus the continuous offshoring of our jobs and no tax liability for doing so. host: do you think the extension

or the expiration would be a fix all for the economy? caller: it would not be. if they are extended, the deficit is only going to get deeper and deeper. host: that was albuquerque, new mexico. the reaction this week as far as discussions about tax cuts, john boehner was asked about it and mitch mcconnell also called for an extension of the tax cuts for at least one year. here's "the washington times" -- -- here is speaker boehner. [video clip] >> the jobs report last week was bad news for the american people. once again, it shows the president's economic policies have failed. as a result, it is really important we provide certainty to job creators in our country and extend all of the current

tax rates and for a least one year. that is important if we are going to help job creators gain confidence and put americans back to work. even bill clinton cannot afford it. -- came out for it. even larry summers, the president's former economic adviser. we believe it is time to extend the tax rate because it will provide certainty for american job creators. host: here is baltimore, maryland. independent line. hello. caller: i would like to comment on several things. when you look at the small businesses in the urban neighborhoods, they do not create jobs for the local people. many of the small gas stations are owned by people from different countries. i understand the need to make money and they need to live like everyone else, but once the takeover business is, they bring in their relatives and --

businesses, they bring in their relatives. people from the urban areas are trapped by outsourcing of our jobs and we have another peculiar term called insourcing. there is a new group of people from overseas who are taking over the local vendors and created zero jobs. then, they spend their money through western union -- send their money for western union back home for the people. we are losing money. we are losing jobs because they refuse to hire the people. i am not in favor of tax cuts for the small businesses. and thank you for your time. host: off of twitter --

host: "the new york times" -- deportations go on despite u.s. review of backlog. host: ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe we should go to a flat tax. go to the city and county and the state and then go to the

fed. the impact should be about 20% divided accordingly. host: why do you think that works? caller: i try to go by history and help the bankrupt nations. -- how they bankrupt nations. in egypt, he to 20% from everybody and put it in the central bank. he had enough to take care of the people and other countries around. let us take care of what is your home. quit sending money overseas. keep it here in this country and rebuild this economy. we will be back on top. host: mitt romney is in st. louis and president obama is at the university of nevada. "the washington times" --

host: california. democrats' line. caller: good morning. i was just listening to speaker boehner talk about job creators and that must be the mantra. they are not job creators.

their corporations are taking advantage of loopholes. i do not know how many times they have to do the experiment. it did not work under the bush administration. the only reason president obama signed it was because it was tied to an unemployment benefit extension. it the trickle-down effect does not work. in this economy, corporations are holding onto their money. and, it does not trickling down. president bush started a couple of wars and lower taxes at the same time. host: what you think about tax cuts for household?

caller: for the middle class, it does not help at all. it is not trickling down. president obama's tax cuts helped the middle class. when you have two wars going on and you cut taxes, it is unheard of. nobody has ever done that. host: in a story that came out at 4:30 a.m. on a afghanistan to -- out of afghanistan --

host: the insurgents appear to be much more organized. the overall level of violence is down in commanders have expected the uptick. within hours of panetta's arrivals, karzai released a written statement about an air strike. manchester, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. we have had the bush era tax cut for well over 10 years. if it is true what speaker boehner says about the wealthy having to have these bush era tax cuts because they create jobs, how come we are not flushed with jobs up to our eyebrows? no. we get worse and worse every year.

it does not make any sense. thank you. host: houston, texas. this is rick. republican line. caller: hello. this tax cuts that they are talking about is not a tax cut. it is all fair share. what this is all about is that i do not mind paying 28%. get rid of the locals. they are what is killing the country. u.s. people up there who are just paying nothing. half the kent -- you have people up there who are just paying nothing. this is a redistribution of wealth is what this is. let us call it what it really is. host: what locals would you eliminate? -- loopholes would you eliminate? caller: all of them. everybody should pay something. you do not give the money to everybody else. host: "the wall street journal"

--

host: kentucky. good morning. democrats' line. caller: i keep hearing people say they put -- poor people going to the rich people, they would not have the products that we have. there would have never been a middle-class. without the man or purchasing power, there is no way the economy will ever come back. there is demand but you cannot afford it. what is most disturbing about this whole argument is that we are looking at a lot of debt. debt from two wars. if you do not want to pay a next time, do not send our people off to war. you people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. we have veterans to take care of. thank you for your time.

host: marco rubio with and not that this morning, taking a look at syria. host: this is savannah, georgia. republican line. jonathan. caller: go ahead. what i wanted to say is that the bush tax cuts are pretty

important, in my opinion, because when you have too many taxes, the people will get pretty riled up. a revolution is a perfect example of that. the tax cuts, we do not want to end up like a country like france with 75% income tax. the bush tax cuts are pretty important to having a stable government. host: the space shuttle, enterprise, in new york is part on its permanent housing. there is a picture. it is the final frontier. it traveled from new jersey marine up past the world trade center. it is an icon in foment. -- iconic moment.

it was then lifted 70 feet. several pictures in the paper. "the washington times" looks at ethics.

host: next call is north carolina. hello. robert. caller: your honor. go ahead. -- host: you are on. go ahead. caller: companies will not hire anybody unless the will make a profit off of them. tax cuts do not matter. what they should do is come out with a graduated flat tax for people making $20,000 do not pay any. $30,000 deal $50,000 pay 5%. for every $50,000 after that, a to go up 5%. host: what makes you think that strategy works? caller: it is not working the way it is now. host: aside from tax cuts, what else should be put in place?

caller: a graduated flat tax. host: aside from that. caller: um, that is about it as far as i'm concerned. and do away with the bush flat tax. the bush tax cuts. go to a graduated flat tax. host: the papers are dealing with house states are dealing with their public employees. the atlanta journal has this story in its economy section --

host: the state newspaper, there is a story looking at the house. host: minnesota. republican line. we are talking about the bush tax cuts. are you there?

sartre. i did not push a button. are you there? caller: yes. when you talk about the bush tax cuts, you need to talk rates so people understand the wealthy are already paying higher rates. if you give some examples of what it would mean for a business to pay a higher rate, they are already taxed enough in this country. i think you need to be more specific on the rates. host: aside from their rates, what you think about the extension? caller: i do not think we need to raise rates with the economy the way it is right now. businesses need certainty. there is a lot of uncertainty. businesses are just sitting on the money right now. host: that was minnesota.

do not forget, later on, ben bernanke appears before the joint economic committee, talking about the economy. that will take place at3 10:00 a.m. at 3. go to our website, c-span.org, to look at the hearings in you can also take advantage of our video library. ben bernanke appearing before the committee live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. that will be on c-span3. you can also find it on c- span.org and a lot of resources, the things people have said. it is a good resource to check out. texas. dennis. caller: i am very concerned about our country.

in my opinion, i consider my country the terrorist of the world. the people of the u.s. are seen as not very bright. the government and high-powered people are as crooked as they come. host: tax cuts? caller: corruption is right out there. we do not even have no system that has the voes to dtes to do something about it because everything in their dogs as bought off. host: should the tax cuts be extended? caller: of course not. why the heck would you give money if money is not needed.

that is just ridiculous. i do not know why we do not have a system now that is allowing all of that corruption going on right in front of our faces. even when you say something about it, you are brought up on charges of treason. host: that will be the last call we will take. coming up, a member of the joint economic committee, loretta sanchez, will join us for that discussion. later on, tom graves with a proposal about how to use the gas tax and giving it to states. that comes later on. we will have a discussion with loretta sanchez right after this. ♪

>> they are often referred to as the heart of the congress and i can't think of a better name. it is really the heart beat of the people. >> angela rye on the role of the caucus. >> it is designed to ensure that members of congress who are african-american can come together on issues that are plaguing the community at large. issues that may be plaguing the district's. toy're coming together discuss legislative proposals to a dense the causes of people that do not have a voice. >> more with in rye sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the b-52, everyone thinks

back to vietnam. they think of the history of the b-52, cold war. there is a different kind of power associated with the b-52 as opposed to other bombers. >> these are two friends to know each other prior to the civil war. they fought against each other at the battle in 1862. >> we have one to the east. the gate to the west is 903. they really reflect or reference the moment of the bomb. >> watch for the travel of the local content vehicles on "book tv" and "american history tv" and look for our next stop in jefferson, -- jefferson city,

missouri. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is loretta sanchez, who was on the joint economic committee. what is the most pertinent thing you can hear from chairman burning he today? -- ben bernanke today? guest: i would like to hear whether he is going to -- if they think the economy is so weak that they are going to start changing bonds in order to affect the money supply out there. i think those are very important issues that we need to know. congress has not been able to rein in the economy. host: discussions amongst the

fed about whether it is a step in, what are the facts? guest: i like to wrap time. -- rock climb. i think about this the way i think about rappelling. it if we want to get down to the bottom of the mountain, what happens is that you start a person down and you on top are helping them. they risk a little bit. they figure out the lay of the land. you just do not put a person on the road and then say okay here you go. someone might get hit. the congress and the fed itself -- we have different roles but the part of -- part of it is how

to ease a person down to get them where they want to be rather than just throw them off a cliff. you have to work as a team to try to, when the economy is getting stronger, then start to tax a little bit and take some of their revenue in to bring down the deficit that you have created when you put money out there. it is a very fine dance. not too many people get it right. host: what are the roles of the house and the senate? guest: they have to work as a team. the president has to work with us. it is harder in the beginning when there is less rope going on.

it is our job to figure out who we need to -- whether we need to leave some of it in or all of it in. president clinton was speaking to that. what does it look like? when we talk about cutting back on our spending, right now we are headed to the 1.2 trillion dollar beginning october 1 of spending cuts. will that be too much? will that take out all of the -- will that take all the gas at our retain? -- out of our tank? it takes a little bit of everything. host: the rip is with us and tell a 30 a.m. if you want to ask her questions. -- the rip is with us until a 30

a.m. if you want to ask her questions. reach out to us on twitter or send us an e-mail. welcome to eliminating tax cuts or keeping all, where do you fall? guest: well, if you read the comptroller during the bush era's book, he would tell us the reason we have such a debt is because of the bush tax cuts. we have surpluses. when president bush came in we gave tax cuts. we kept spending going up. what happened was we got this dead. 70% is due to the fact we did not collect revenue.

what have we done since then? president obama and congress have decided to continue not to collect that revenue. so, if it expires, we will start collecting the revenue. i think it is addressed to an amount -- amount. as weak as the economy is, it would not be a good thing to let them all expire. host: what does the president have to offer? guest: well, i wish that two and a half years ago, the president -- the republicans and democrats in the house and the president could come together and say, let us do tax reform. tax reform, closing these

loopholes, these issues are a ese issues some of thi resolved. there are some in the republican leadership who are saying, we recognize that we need to find new tax revenue. it will not say that publicly. they say, it is not just one way. you cannot just fight your way out of the problem that we have. i'm afraid we're going to go p aoint where we're going to -- go to a point where we will cut the tax cuts and we will hit the sequestration issue in both of those things will happen and we will see something like what we are seeing in greece. host: nathan.

you are on with loretta sanchez. good morning. go ahead. caller: okay. ben bernanke could announce q e three, which is basically the printing of money. when that happens, it raises taxes on the poor. if you are a person like myself and you have money tied up in precious metals, my precious metals go up. if you have your money in stocks, your stocks go up. what about the poor guy who is living from day to day? he goes to mcdonald's and has to pay more. he goes to the grocery store and has to pay more. he goes to pump gas and he has to pay more. the policies of the current government has been the worst

for the poor person. this is why. host: host: to carr. -- thank you. guest: the large spending during the federal level 36 years when bush and the republicans controlled the congress probably was the beginning of this whole problem, especially for the poor. i would disagree with the caller who said this is the worst president for the port or. this situation was inherited. ben bernanke and greenspan policy, came forth from the last administration. i believe the president has done a decent job to figure how we stimulate the economy and how we

get people back to work. he was in a hole when he came and. congress was not adapted to helping the situation. i would have to disagree with the caller. host: this comment off of twitter. guest: not only do we have talked about that but we have a law that is about $1.2 trillion cuts. unless congress changes the law, that is going to take place. host: willie from jacksonville, florida. fan.r: i'm not a ron paul i don't understand why the fed is not audited. as far as the bush tax cuts are

concerned, president obama put them on the books. he put them on the books and he put the two war on the books. now the republicans won -- they lost. democrats are not helping the cause. ok, you are not helping the cause. host: would be helping the cause, in your opinion? caller: first of all, debbie was schulz is nowhere in sight. host: representative. guest: she is a personal friend and an amazing woman. she is working very hard over that. she is also doing their

congressional work and she continues to do that. she is involved in everything that is working to the congress, especially appropriations bill. the job and said you're not helping the cause. my cost is to figure out how to make america competitive -- might cauy cause is to figure ow to make america competitive, how we don't have to sit in traffic for robert to try to get to work -- how we don't have to sit in traffic for ever to try to get to work. the more productive we are, the better america is to compete against the rest of the world. ause.s my c if the job and is suggesting

that democrats are now reminding people, a lot of the mess we're in came from president bush. i did not want to be the one to say that president bush put us into this whohole. his own comptroller said that in his own book and continues to advocate for more revenues, meaning that some of those bush tax cuts have to disappear and also advocates for some spending cuts. it has to be a combination of both of them. host: the long-term budget outlook released by the cbo this week. guest: i think people are looking right now at how we're gong to get through this year's end. those numbers have come out and there has not been a lot of

discussion, at least among the people that i deal with in the congress. how do we get through to december? how do we get past this election? what do we do about sequestration? we're focused on the next six months. we have some real structural problems. some say that will have to wait until the next congress. host: sequestration might be blocked by efforts in the house. guest: the republicans voted us in. they said we they $1.2 trillion minimum and tax cuts. the other half will come from the rest of the budget in the

united states. so the viewers understand what we're talking about. that is what they passed. that is what they foisted on all loss for us to be able to pay our bills with the debt ceiling. now you have people like john mccain, senator mccain saying, we did not mean that. it is terrible to cut defense. let's not make any cuts in that. let's put those cuts on to the rest of the budget. we cannot do that. we have been in two wars in the past 10 years. you do not want your troops in the field not to have gasoline to get around in their cars. you do not want them not to of

water. you put the money in there and you say, we will take care of that. we're out of one of those wars and we're getting out of the other war. there doesn't need to be all that money put towards that. we need to figure out what the war of the future looks like and we to adapt our troops to that reality and there is room to cut. there is fat in places. we're working on it with leon panetta. there is some money in their -- there. just to say no defense cuts -- i did not agree with senator mccain on that. ronald? caller: this is hugh. i was wondering what might be

happening with interest rates? the money market was paying 4% and we did not have to worry about the fluctuation of the dollar value. any hopes of those days coming back? guest: well, again, this is why ben bernanke and what he is going to talk about what it was an indication will short-term interest rates stay low? will the federal reserve tried to influence that if they see that the economy is -- they have done that twice. the markets will get a better glimpse of that. it is disturbing, especially for seniors who did the right thing and save enough money to put it aside and are living off of the interest and a little bit of the

principal. it is like a mortgage. it tried to make that last for the rest of your retirement. the interest component is significantly lower. some are going back to part-time work. some are moving in with their kids. it is a concern. it will be interesting to see how ben bernanke sees the world. that will be a reflection of whether interest rates stay low. host: mr. bernanke will appear at 10:00 today and you can see that live on c-span3. we had the republican who serves on the committee on yesterday. here's what he had to say. [video clip] guest: we're approaching the limit.

you have tax increases to deal with and the debt ceiling to deal with. we probably have it health-care decision coming out of the supreme court to deal with. these are some big fiscal issues. to think the fed will save us is shortsighted. guest: to a large extent i would agree with my colleague. tois the congress' turf work through many of these issues and to put this on a sounder financial platform. that includes cuts. it also includes revenue. we need to do both in order to get through this and we need to work together. when we're standing and saying there's no way we will put new

revenue on the table, that is a problem. that is an impasse. the fed should not have to ride in like a knight on a white horse. they have been trying to lessen the blow. they have little room to work again. interest rates are 6% and you 4%.g it down to do dowo there is less movement that the fed could help us with. host: mr. boehner and mr. mcconnell said let's take a year. guest: they keep saying, let's work on this. let's do it later. we have gone through four years

of this. we're almost at the end of president obama's first term. let's pushh it off, it off." taxes will go up. you have had 14 years of these tax cuts. what uncertainty. if you have not moved in 40 years, giving you another year -- really? he think that will make people want to go out and build a business? host: jeremy from north carolina with representative loretta sanchez. caller: i wanted to make a comment about how we are about to end up like greece.

that is exactly where we're heading. we are printing money and we are spending it. we are about to see the fall of the euro. we're about to see the collapse of several european countries if it continues the way it is. people say we should not be having these tax cuts. i do not think we should bail out greece. the global economy is not good. you have to take a step back and think yourself for people like howard stern. host: you can respond to the first point. guest: i have not seen what howard stern is doing lately. we're no place close to where greece is. we are at some good decision

points. we have to step up to the plate at congress and as americans. americans have to decide that if the congress comes up with solutions, some of which will be tough on everybody, then you need to stick with us, too. people never come in to me and say, "we understand we are to pay eight little bit more or that we need a cut in this area, this research in this health disease is important but i understand i have to put something on the table so i would encourage you to do that." people walk in and say, "we understand there is too much

spending, but i need you to give me an increase." that is always what comes into my door. until the american people says everybody needs to put something on the table. i go back to the original simpson-bowles commission. they said that everybody has to put something on the table. republicans have to put some elimination of tax cuts or some new revenue. democrats have to put in some spending cuts. seniors have to put a little table of the here. young people have to put a little on the table here. how rich is too rich is always an issue we have in the congress. everybody has to put something on the table to make this work.

we have to raise the debt ceiling. host: what do people have to put on the table? guest: the debt ceiling says that we made a contract with people. we said we would pay for these services. now the bill comes due. you should pay it without any hassle or showdown on this. these are payments that were agreed to at a time. -- they were agreed to ahead of time. it is our honor on the table. we need to get it done. i do not think there will be a clean vote. be a fiscal conservative and pay your bill. that is what i would say to

them. if they want to do push and shove and then they want sequestration -- that is the problem. people keep changing the agreements that they may. we did some spending -- people keep changing the agreement that they make. host: william from detroit, michigan. caller: hi, how're you doing? why are republicans and democrats telling the truth about the fed and what they are doing? are goingre they through the quantitative easing. they create a bubble of the housing market. now they are pumping cash into the market and the value in the

dollar. guest: they have put money out there. they have tried to make a soft landing for the somewhat perilous economy with the inability for congress to release, tfour investors and to create jobs for business people. they have done what they can in the bubble, and that absence of the congress putting forward a plan that people will believe in. they have felt that they should do that and they have done anit. i think we'll hear from bernanke that he is looking at doing this again.

it does devalue the worth of a dollar that individual has and you will know that. if you have money in savings, your earning nothing in it. i didn't have that much in savings. 1/10 of 1% of the money and my savings account. host: tom from new jersey. caller: good morning. a couple of quick points. i blame republicans and democrats. there is enough egg for everybody's face. i keep hearing everyone blaming the other guy, republicans and

democrats. for two years, you have a democratically controlled house and senate. we pass the health care bill which now was going to add $1 trillion to the debt. it is adding $2 trillion to the debt. in it.nd out what is e what are you going to do to fix it? guest: i did read the bill. it is not just about reading the bill. it is about understanding the bill. if you just read the bill, there is no way to understand the bill.

i required the staffers from the three committees in the house who worked on this bill, the committee staffers who are experts in their little particular area of what never was in their bill and i brought them in and for about three hours when morning, four or five days before the bill was passed, i sat them down and i had done this all along. i brought them in and i sat down and ask them all types of questions. what would the bill do for somebody who looks like this? what are you going to do about this type of thing? i asked them questions and have them walk me through the pieces of the bill. when somebody says, he did not read the bill -- you did not

read the bill -- excuse me but you're wrong. they said, we never had somebody sit here and do what you have done. i had to try to understand how the bill will affect people that i represent in my area of california and if this is a good thing for america. i decided to vote yes. i was one of the last votes to go with on this thing. i had to tell men to police -- -i have to tell nancy pelosi, let me figure out this bill. she didn't get my answer until friday. we voted on this on sunday. there are a lot congress people who read bills and try to understand them. the bill is not perfect.

i hope the supreme court leaves the bill intact. if not, we'll have to go back and see if the bill still works. how can we still make it work? we have to develop things as we move towards an implementation, a full implementation of january . host: ivan is on our republican line. caller: i have a couple of questions and comments. the democrats had the congress years.d itfonate for two nobody is doing anything about the health care bill. they have the majority. whose money -- the government

taxes the people. that is the people's money. they are taking it away from the people. that is not their money. they don't give money to the people. i came from another country. i cannot understand there are so many -- the smartest people in congress and senate are supposed to be there. they are the dumbest people i have ever seen in my life. guest: well -- there are some functions that government does and i think they do them very well. nobody thinks when they get on the roads in the morning that somebody made the effort to put that in for them.

if you want to pay for roads on your own, it is much more expensive. most people send their kids to public school. that is the collective good. it is good for society. when you turn on your lights and have access to the internet, that is a collective good. that is why we collect taxes. we have decided that it is not good for contagious diseases to start and to go. that is why we have the cdc. some would say that governments may be in too many things. let's work on those things the government should not be in. some of the collective good is something that we do not need.

i would beg to differ about that. i have been in plenty of countries where government doesn't do anything for the people and it is not a good place to live. i am proud of being an american. a collective good is good for us. for they proud of " people, by the people." i'm glad you are participating and voicing your opinion. we need solutions. we do not need name-calling. there are some bright people in the congress. name-calling never gets as anywhere. host: we have a headline -- what

is involved? guest: california sends 53 members to the house of representatives. that is about 60% or 70% of the membership -- 16% or 17%. it has more democrats than republicans. and longevity in the house of representatives is very important. the security system has more last worked. californians have held onto their seats. you have people from both parties placed strategically on committees whether it is veterans or appropriations, house administration, financial- services. on homelandtwo

security for the democrats. the armed 3 on services for democrats. you are in the decision-making part of the committee for a large part and that has been good for californians. people decided -- republicans decided that they could win more elections if they could have an independent commission decide the lines of the new congressional districts. they did that. democrats will pick up more houses than republicans. that political peace did happen. some of the senior members are seeing either incumbent against

incumbent fights or some districts changed so much that some of the longtime incumbent decided not to run. there is a new infusion of people into the california delegation. in some cases i think that is very good. it is a change going on. host: we have an e-mail from george -- bonnie from middletown, new jersey. caller: representative sanchez, you hit on the mark as to what the problem as. what went on and wisconsin is emblematic of the problem. instead of working as it more

perfect union, we have to divide and conquer. after the last jobs numbers came out, there was an article in "the wall street journal." the unemployment number would be 7.2% rather than 8.2% if we had not lost that many jobs. this will put this in a situation of greece. guest: there are a lot of economists that have said you did not want to do this sequestration the way you're going to do wit because it will put us in a contraction of the economy. it has cut significantly its working force. it has contracted.

when you let somebody down, it is a collective work together, slowly, moving, using every piece. the person going down and the skill set of the people at the top. using the lay of the cliff, of the mountain so that you have a resting spot. get there. get your strength together. it is the same. we'll need to be working together. as a member of the blue dogs and as a california where innovation takes place and so i believe that the economic engine of the united states is california and we will lead people out of the

recession with my states help. i look to try to forge relationships across the aisle with people who believe in investment, investment of our people, education, health care, in investments in transportation and communications, in investment in research. that is the type of spending that i would prefer to do. i am pro-business. they are the ones who are having a tough time. look at the things i've tried to push in the congress. host: representative loretta sanchez, thank you for your time. the committee meets at 10:00 a.m. this morning with ben bernanke. you can see that on c-span3 or listen on c-span radio. coming up, tom graves of

georgia. later, catherine gallagher of george mason university will be our guest. >> there are reports of a new massacre in central syria. the recent bounces are simply unconscionable, according to hillary clinton. opposition groups say pro- government militiamen were behind the overnight attacks. syria rejects the claims as baseless. monitors were blocked by syrian troops from entering the site of the new killings. the united nations holds an informal meeting today to discuss the situation in syria. leon panetta says u.s. officials are reaching the limits of our patients with pakistan.

he wants the country to do more about al qaeda. the group has been blamed for several attacks of americans in afghanistan. it has ties to the taliban and has emerged as perhaps the biggest threat to stability in afghanistan. cuta's central bank has interest rate in a surprise move to shore up slackening economic growth. this is the first rate cut since the financial crisis. the new rate of 6.31% will be effective june 8. wall street is reacting to the news positively. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall.

[cheers] >> sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on "american history tv," mark the 25th anniversary of president ronald reagan's 1987 speech from the brandenburg gate in west germany. also this weekend, on c-span3, our series "the contenders" -- 14 key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. this sunday at 7:30, james blaine. "american history tv," this weekend on c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is republican tom graves from georgia. welcome. guest: great to be with you. host: the transportatiwhat has n with the highway bill? guest: 11 new line geez are

interjected into this debate-- a lot of new ideas are injected into this debate. how do we find transportation/ ? it is about empowering the state and not sending all the money to washington and letting it be dealt out to the states based on washington influence. host: what is a concept work better -- wide is your concept work better? guest: given us a chance to govern and we will change the way things are working in washington. we will send things back to the states. there was a temporary proposal in the 1950's, a temporary tax to build up the interstate system.

since that that tax has ballooned that every american pays when they go to the gas pump. the money comes up to the federal government and is divvied back out to the state. georgia gets it & on average overtaxed dollars to be spent on roads and bridges or anything else and with that comes all the mandates, all of washington's wishes and demands on how you spend that. we tried it. we messed it up. let's send it back to the states. the states are so innovative. they are better at handling the issues. the federal government has amassed -- has messed us up. what about the inner states

between states. a portion of the excise tax for maintenance and continuity in transportation between states. back to the intent of the 1950's. host: some of the elements of the proposal -- host: would that be done in a block grant system? guest: more of a block grant. without a lot of discussion about this. a cheaper for sense is collected at the pump -- 18.4 cents is collected at the pump.

we want to save consumers and tax dollars. we want to keep a lower. there would have more. that dollar will go further. states can charge less taxes and it roads done quicker and more accomplished at a better pace within the demands of the transportation and freight that is required in each community. host: with the states have some requirement to use that part of the budget? guest: that is every state. i say let the states make these decisions. this is not the federal

government saying how to spend your money. host: you are in conference committee. what type of response? guest: we have 27 donor states like georgia. then you have others that do not like it because it is giving up a power. there will be resistance. host: a discussion for the highway bill and taxes and other issues. you can give him a call and ask a question. here are the numbers -- 202-737-0001 for republicans. this first call comes from

george from florida. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. i agree with the representative there. we have the example wisconsin and when the state began to control funds and things, the state was able to lower taxes. buty didn't lower thetm, they did not increase any. they were able to get their budget in lie. ne. it just seems that government involved, especially the federal government and the needs of the local government and all that, sometimes they don't know what

the local governments need. and so i think it should be stayed thing, state by state -- i think it should be eight states thing. when the fed gets involved, there is waste. our dollars do not get used properly. we pay more than what they are able to supply because the state knows what we need. guest: you're absolutely right. but the highway bills that have been passed in washington -- look at the highway bills that have been passed in washington. how much of the highway spending goes to roads and bridges? on average, the upper 30 percentile of collected tax dollars going to roads and bridges. operas of 30% -- upwards of 30%

. that is amazing to me. when you sit in traffic, the fate, "i hope the excise tax will build more capacity -- when you sit in traffic, you think, "i hope the excise tax will build more capacity." the state of georgia passed a resolution urging congress to do this very thing. other states are passing resolutions as georgia date to incur just evolve the highway excise tax back to the states. host: kyle from cleveland, ohio. good morning. cleveland, good morning. one more time for cleveland.

david on are independent line. caller: yes. hello? thank you for taking my call. i was born in georgia and born and bred there. what -- i still have relatives there. i go back there. you still have dirt roads running all through the county. i just want to know if you are saying that the state handled the money, what they have done a thatporor done in county. guest: you are born and raised in a great state and a great part of the state.

what is confusing about highways and how they are built and local roads is when you go to the gas pump and you see that price, embedded in the price are a lot of taxes. the state and local taxes, the federal excise tax into that 1 gallon of gas. a lot of the tax is sent to the federal government. it is then returned and a lower rate. it is a bad investment because you don't get back with you invest. you get back less in georgia and 26 other states. they did not have much to work with. the epa and all the different testing that has to go on and surveys and appraisals and all these things that extend out the

project so far that it costs so much that even the simplest of road to be built or improved are going from desert to asphalts take so long -- going from dirt to asphalt take so long. your example is another reason why we want to return this back to the states. the states have more power and flexibility. host: one of the ideas in congress is something called the driver's tax and was an idea proposed by the senate budget committee chairman kent conrad. what do you think about? guest: i have heard about this tax. it means in some way the

government is tracking your mileage and there is concern about the government in planting some sort of device in your car and tracking how far you go. that seems to be the past that the concept creeps down. i'm not sure the american people are ready for that. i have been some conferences work it has been discussed. there are concerns about civil rights and tracking devices in cars. i don't know where that is going to go. right now we know we have. we can fix this. we can do a lot great things. host: john from mississippi. caller: you have to forgive me. i have a cold. i appreciate c-span taking my call.

the last caller hit it in a nutshell. the road i live in was supposed to have been finished three years ago. it is not completely gravel but it is a treacherous road. they come through every once in awhile -- i call it coal filling. it lasts a couple of days and then you're back to dodging holes. i did have one other question. i promise i will not stay on that long. the lady that was on there, the democrats. i don't know if she blamed a lot of the bush stuff. i get sick of that.

i think a lot of americans get sick of that. this is the obama administration and he should be responsible. guest: john, thank you for your call. you expressed concern about your roads. we talk about the traffic and congestion. what you have experienced and will we see in our areas and rural parts of georgia is that roads oftentimes are dirt or gravel or sand. it still exists. that is why we want to empower the states. president obama clearly blames his failures on others. it doesn't matter what is.

he finds somebody to blame. america is looking for a visionary leader. a message that leads of forward-- that is what america is longing for. and anybody blending others. -- not anybody blaming others. it takes visionary leadership to move forward in a positive way. i hope you have a great morning. host: eric from alabama. caller: george it is last in education -- georgia is last in education. you are a tea bagger. you personally got a loan. you did not pay it back. the fdic had to pay it back.

you blame president obama. georgia has the most banks that went bankrupt. all the republican politicians, the senators -- you had interest in these banks. did we have to bail you out on the million-dollar loan? host: we invite these people to come on as our guests. treat them up properly -- appropriately. guest: i appreciate that. there is divisible as. divisiveness.h

the last thing we do is point fingers and blame and accuse others of things. we have to come together as americans and push forward in a positive fashion and lift each other up and not tried to tear each other down. he is referencing -- perez been pressed in the past about businessman in the real estate industry that was involved -- accused and we work through some resolutions together. multiple business interests involved and a bank involved. it has all been resolved. politics takes a whole another angle on things. host: william, good morning. caller: good morning.

greetings. i wonder if -- i have lived in different areas of the country. i have been here for a pretty long time. i wonder if you believe if it takes more money to maintain the roads in states like wisconsin vermont or maine or colorado. guest: that is a great point. we should be allowed in the states to have full access to their tax dollars and not been required to spend it in certain ways. that is a great point as to why the concept we're proposing, empower the states to spend the money as they want to spend it -- that is a perfect example of

why we want to do that. host: we have an e-mail question. guest: we have some positive response from some of the states. they may be getting more than they send in, they are still spending a lot of money and spinning their wheels. it is taking longer and longer for projects to get done. they are saying, "we get it. if we can have more ability to use our funds, that gives us flexibility and a stronger dollar -- or more use of that dollar." georgia is a donor state. operas of $800 million -would be- upwards of $800 million -- host: craig, good morning.

caller: the problem is that they are irresponsible. i have been a general contractor in california for 30 years. when they do the roads, they take too long and use too many people. i visited, rhere they're much more efficient with their funds and much more effective and the quality of the industry moves along much better than in california. guest: i don't know the difference between the state laws. there could be something in prevailing wages.

that is a good example of why allowing each state to determine their future. if it is going well, people will be going to that state. if people are making bad decisions, then they go to other places. that empowers the states to make the right decision. a clean debt ceiling -- i would not suspect that would be the case. the republican house, as you've seen, has been about getting the fiscal house in order. you can just raise the debt limit without putting for a plan. the fact that it would be cleaned would be hit hard sell in the house of representatives.

the speaker has made it clear -- if to show where you're cutting. when you're cutting, the rest to be an equal amount of reduction. host: pollen, oregon -- portland, oregon. caller: what benefit will lead to if you think in terms - getting ready of the department of highways will be best for the country. it sounds like he wants to take the responsibility and put it all back on the backs of the states. if we take the burden of the feds, one that does not work, where do we turn? one other state but i like to make. -- one other statement that i

would like to make. you have republican people on the show. they are passionate about this bill and the things they are doing in this country, we should all be passionate that way. i think that gentleman is absolutely right. this man is a thief. if you bring republicans on who cannot stand to confront what they have done and to stand up to the represent as they have -- host: thank you, caller. guest: that is the first time i've been accused of being a thief on the air. a very active crowd watching. i guess she initiated her call with transportation.

the states do so many great things and they do them right. and now the federal government tries its best. the government has gone too big. look at what gsa has done. you see it each and every day. this is an about putting more work on to the states. the states have more work right now. if you wonder dollars back -- if you want your states back, you have to do these things over and over again. more state employees have to comply with the regulations, filling out all the forms. one i just allow the states -- why not just allow the states to work on this on the rhone? they are the ones that put out

the bids. they are the ones doing all the work. it is the bureaucracybrighter mr year bureaucracy that is telling the states how to do it. maybe i am unique. i say, and power the states, not the federal government. mike, independent line. -- host: coming independent line. caller: you think we should extend this to other programs, as well? bacon appropriation in the federal government and the state sen money -- picked an appropriation in the federal government and the state send the money. why stop transportation? is that not the case with their

program? >> great -- guest: great point. it is dedicated in the fact that you are paying a tax at the pump. it goes to the federal government to be spent on highway-related purposes. unfortunately, it is not all going to transportation or highways and bridges. it is going to a lot of other things. but, i think your point is accurate in that this could set up the opportunity that the federal government can shed some of its weight. it can allow the state to do what they do best. maybe you could look at other agencies or departments that are duplicative across the states and there are a lot of duplicative areas where the federal government overlays the state's. this is just taking one area of the federal government that could be devolved back to the states and then maybe an

example where the government could deval something else. host: our guest has served on three subcommittees. there is a story this week that looks at the appropriations bill, not only dealing with that the what they do with specific aspects of organizations created under dodd-frank. it says -- are there cats within these bills that deal with the financial services arms of the federal government? guest: you are comparing it to the president's request, absolutely. the president requested one

number for proofreading a different number. that is part of the debate. the budget that he proposed to the house and the senate's has continued the deficit and debt and required taxes, higher taxes, in order to fund his budget. we passed our budget in the house and the senate has yet to pass a budget. 1100 plus days now. in part of our appropriations process, we are an oversight of all of these agencies. we are asking, what is your role? or you accomplishing it? can you do it for less? do you need more? those are the questions you go through. we only have a limited amount of funds and we are spending more than we have. that is what happens each and every day of the last three years. trillion dollar deficit. these agencies will have to do

more with less. that is what the american people have to experience. that is what businesses are experiencing with state governments. you are absolutely right. host: your thoughts on how they have been performing to date? guest: there is some question about that. one, we do not have a lot of oversight over some of these areas. that is what we are trying to regain. i think we should have a tremendous amount of oversight with the american people -- a tremendous amount of oversight. it is what the american people iexpect. the nation needs credit. credit market is not at capacity. a lot of that is due to dodd- frank and some of the impending regulations that are coming up very, very soon. i would say that america is longing for the opportunity to borrow money and expand their business or by a new home or to refinance their home or buy more

inventory. americans are longing for that right now. we need to get the credit markets following so we can grow the economy. the economy must grow in order for us to have the revenue that is required to work through the challenges. host: as his representative tom graves, serving the ninth district. jack, republican line up next. caller: this is jack ryan in your district. -- this is jack. i am in your district. the people that have been calling in downgrading you the way they are, they do not know you. anyway, my question is, does any of these moneys going -- that are coming back to the state, do any of them get allocated to

county roads or local roads? we have some roads here that are really in need of repair. it will discover if? -- will this cover it? guest: thank you for your call. this would allow the states to use the money how they best see fit. i was in the georgia general assembly on the transportation committee and i can remember commissioners and mares in joining with me in my state house district and we would go down and talk to the department of transportation and they would always have their list of priorities at the local community level. that is what they would share with the department of transportation. it seems like each and every time we would meet, the department would say, this is all we have . we do not have a whole lot because we are not getting the revenue that we are sending up to the federal government. we only have just a little bit. we can help you with this and this and this. what we are trying to do is try to free this back up and allow

the state to have all the resources that they need at their disposal without all the regulation that is currently tied to it. i think would really help out with the area you are speaking up. host: james from florida. caller: good morning. guest: morning. caller: i would like to ask a question and make a statement. that is, some years ago, there was a bill before congress to use shredded tires to mix with asphalt for building the roads. studies have proven that it will make the roads last longer. and that the bill was defeated, even though it saves enormous amount of money for the taxpayers.

this might happen when he was in office, it was several years ago when this came up. when people are calling you for things that might have happened -- this is when you blow off the banking thing earlier that someone asked you about. we're not be mean. we are calling you to help with something that you could have been involved with. it is not being mean. people get upset when they throw snowballs. this is calling you to pass. we have the right to do this. it should not be like we are me or anything here we are just talking to you about things that happened in the past. i want to listen to your answer. guest: thank you. i appreciate your tone and you are right. there is nothing wrong with

having a dialogue. we have got to be careful of all of it. myself included. we have to be careful of the tone of it and we have to show respect. you are right. there was a business dispute ended has been resolved. unfortunately, there are those who do not agree with the fact that it has been resolved. it has been here we have moved on. it has been a while ago. i appreciate your call in your tone. thank you for watching the show today. host: the senate side, there is a debate about the subsidy. "the wall street journal" says -- what would cuts in subsidies mean for your state and you believe in them? guest: it is one of the areas where we will start seeing bold reforms proposed. how do we move ahead as a nation

when we are subsidizing so much? it covers the gamut. there are a lot of subsidies all across the nation, whether it is in the farm bill or ethanol or one group over another group. we have got to move away from that. america was founded on the concept of, we can get by and work hard. we can dream big. we can get it done. we can get it done on our own with our families help in our community's tel. -- help. we have evolved so far with the business subsidies or welfare and all of these various programs that americans find themselves dependent on the farm bill passing. we must work away from that. that will not happen overnight. when we talk to most farmers, they agree. they understand that over time, this is not the best for the

nation. we see the crisis that lies ahead. as to the senate farm bill, i do not know the details of it. it is hard to speak of what is going on in the senate. we will see if they pass it and get it over to the house and we will do with it when it comes. host: independent line. caller: good morning, congressman. i have a question about interstate 85. they have changed the hov lanes to a hot lane, a toll lane. you have to get to the georgia peach pass. it has congested and the highways and cause people to pay to get past the constructed -- passed the congestion. can you speak of this? hopefully we can get rid of this because people are not happy.

i would like to hear what you have to say about it. thank you. guest: the high occupancy toll lane is a concept that is being used in a lot of different communities across the country. i know it is one that was -- a decision was made by the state of dordrecht to put it there on -- the state of georgia to put it there on interstate 85. i have been up and down the interstate a lot. i imagine there are those who find it very useful and there are those who find it very frustrating. either way. the good part of it is that it was a decision made on the local-state level. that decision is very close to home and your concerns or frustrations can be voiced their without having to go so many levels up to the federal government. i would encourage you to share the same concerns along with any

other commuters out there kaur for or against it. that is going to determine the future of transportation. there is a lot of congestion via the metro and atlantic area. -- metro atlanta area. i encourage you to voice your opinions at the state level. thank you for watching. host: it comes to mass transit, is that your opinion on state- by-state he sure does the federal government have their role? guest: locally, that is clearly state government role. georgia has had a big debate about it. that is something that -- you have mass transit that goes multi-state. that is certainly different. the federal government should not be requiring states to spend money on mass transit in certain areas or requiring certain trends of levels of commuter traffic.

mass transit, this is the debate. is it something that can stand on its own? going back to subsidies. are we going to continue to subsidize mass transit? that is the debate. what is the right business model? what works? what does not? you allow each community to make that decision because each system is so different. if you look at georgia and how it all comes to atlanta in it is as opposed to in communities that are running parallel and perpendicular, it is a very different model than it would be in any other towns. you have to let each and everyone make the decisions and the voters are the one who won their voices heard one way or the other. host: city. republican line. good morning.

-- mississippi. republican line. good morning. caller: give me a favor. tell me what the republican party -- they want to eliminate the federal government. ok? guest: [laughter] i would not say the republican party wants to limit -- eliminate the federal government. there is a constitution that defines the proper role of the federal government and that is what the republican party's game is. bring the federal government that within the bounds it was intended to be within as designed by our founders and has worked so well over a couple hundred years. the longer we allow this federal government to get outside these boundaries, the more freedom is lost by each and every american. every day the federal government expands freedom -- every day the federal government expands, freedom is diminished. i'm all for freedom.

we need to and or the american people and not in power the government. host: democrats' line. good morning. caller: i am a senior citizen. i remember the 50's and a 40's. when the states took care of their own roads, they spend the money on everything except on the roads. the roads did not get fixed at the time. that is why the government took it over. it got better and tell the last 10 years. it -- until the last 10 years. that is because the republicans that do not want to do their job. if he would just pass the highway bill and pass the jobs bill that would fix roads and bridges, and put people back to work, we could pay off our debt because you cannot cut enough to get rid of the dead. you are going to have to put the

people back. the more people are working, the more that the debt will be paid. i remember when they fixed the roads and bridges the way of getting rid of the debt before. that is what needs to be done now. you need to do your job. pass the highway bill. past the jobs act. -- a jobs bill the president obama put in. host: we have to leave it there. guest: i understand your comments. i think back to the last couple of years, since president obama has been in office, there have been by a trillion dollars of new debt added to our nation. a lot of that was in stimulus spending and other areas. 5 trillion dollars. yet, there is no new job to account for that. i am not saying that in a way to

blame the president. -think everything -- i think everything they have tried it was in good intentions. nobody wanted to see the economy to stay as sluggish as it is. it really has not worked. more government spending only diminishes the spending -- they're going to diminish on the other side. i hear your concern. i hear your thoughts about other spending but the economy is struggling right now. we need to see americans back to work. the only way we are going to do that is to grow the economy. growing the economy brings workers back into the work force.

you do not hire somebody and then grow the economy. we must put policies in place that are going to continue to grow the economy and allow the private sector to expand. allow people to buy more supply and to expand their business and to buy a location here and there. we need to be for business is having a profit. that is a good thing. that is something that is american. that is the american dream. the to do things such as that. those are things we should be supportive of. i certainly understand your thoughts about more government spending. this is not the time for that. we cannot do that anymore. we cannot cut our way out. i agree with you. we have to grow our way out. host: rip tom graves, or of the appropriations committee. thank you. coming up, we are looking at gangs in the u.s. and how the federal government response with our guests catherine glagher.

we will have the discussion after this update. >> jobless numbers in this hour show the number of americans applying for the benefits fell last week for the first time since april. initial claims for unemployment benefits dropped by 12,000 to 377,000. that is in line with the forecast. fund-raising members in this morning for president obama and his party -- together, $60 million was raised last month. president obama mixing or fund- raising with official business today as he wraps up a two day west coast trip beginning in los angeles. the ticket started at $2,500. later, he speaks in vegas. republicans are said to approve legislation today repealing a tax on the producers of some medical devices sold in the u.s. a vote on the issue is expected to pass today in the house. expected to die in the senate. top democrats say they will not

even bring it out. the taxes are to help pay for the expanded coverage under the new health care law. the house is in at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. watch live coverage on c-span. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the b-52, everyone thinks back to vietnam and the history of the b-52, cold war. there is a different kind of power associated with the b-52 as opposed to other long-range bombers. >> these are two friends. union and confederate. they knew each other prior to the civil war. they fought against each other at the battle in 1862. here they are at age 100, sitting on the porch and talking about the old days. >> we have one to the east that is 901and one to the west that is -- 901 and one to the east at 903. they reflect the moment of the

bomb. >> watch for the travel of the content vehicles the first month. of 3 montevery next up, jefferson city, missouri. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us right now is catherine gallagher from george mason university. she is an associate of us are criminology, law, and society. what is the federal government's responsibility when it comes to gangs in the u.s.? >> -- guest: that is a big question. i think we can talk about it in a number of different ways. it depends on how we define gangs. host: what is a gang? guest: there are a lot of arguments. there are distinctive groupings of gangs. we will start with the one that i think most of the public really feels is what they mean

by a gang. that is either this group of useful offenders -- youthful offenders who are hanging about and you may have some degree of organization and affiliation. suburban --ones to who suburban folks might be concerned about. the government is concerned about big scary ones who have greater levels of organization and, international ties and a greater sense of organization as it relates to activities. it depends on which group we're talking about. if we are talking about kids, we are talking about a couple of different groups. first and foremost, within the federal government, there is something called the national gang center. this is a partnership between the bureau of justice assistance and the office of juvenile

justice and legal cheaper mentioned. -- in dealing with seat prevention. -- and delinquency prevention. they're responsible for collecting and disseminating information from law enforcement agencies to help the national government and federal government understand what the scope and size of our problem is. for the general public and for the newspaper, that is probably what most of the information is about. law-enforcement is a different issue. host: is that at the local level? guest: any level. state and federal. it depends on the type of offense and whether there is interstate activity coming international activity.

going back again to the sort of youthful offender group, that is very local. we might have the sort of big national concern about it but at the end of the day, it is a local issue handled locally. that is so important for our localities to know what a gang is and what support they need. host: according to the fbi's assessment, the categories are street gangs, prison gangs, motorcycle gangs, 1% motorcycle gangs, neighborhood and local gangs. guest: the useful group is the neighborhood and local gangs. that is the bulk of the presence of what we think about. the youthful group who are more low level, just delinquents hanging out together. the ones you mentioned are the ones that are much more targeted. those are different branches of the government. in 2005, congress enacted the

national gang information center. ngic. i may get it wrong. that center is designed to bring together agents from across the spectrum of federal government. bureau prisons. immigration. customs. d a. -- dea. we have representatives from all these different groups to come together and bring information together on what they are seeing, to share information, to get an accurate count, and share ideas about how to enforces too, . we can go to the much more serious hard core group. the ones like motorcycle gangs and the ones with international

ties. host: if he wanted to ask our guest question, the lines are as such. 202-737-0002, republicans 202- 737-00. 202-737-0001, democrats. 202-628-0205, independents. tweets at @cspanwj and email us at journal@cspan.org. guest: traditionally, the concern had always been drug trade. whether it was importing and exporting, involvement with cartels, a central american organizations, how those movements get into the street had helped recruit members and the u.s. to carry a business. -- how they recruit members in the u.s. to carry out business. there have been efforts to interrupt these networks. one of the things that we are seeing is that there is

diversification of illegal activity. it is not all just drug trade. increasingly of concern is human trafficking. the sexual exploitation of children. and the use of the people as their commodity. they use these children, for example, or women. they engage them in legitimate and illegitimate activities, simultaneously. the game is to generate revenue. i think that is increasingly a concern. human trafficking, a commercial sexual exploitation. the government has increasingly invested in understanding what is going on. for example, we have the

institute of medicine that has embarked on a study. i sit on the board so i am familiar with it. the aim of that study is to understand what the human trafficking element is for the commercial sexual exploitation. what our members is doing an exhaustive study -- one of our group members is doing an exhaustive study on what is going on with the gangs and how they use people. host: people are lining up to talk to your north hollywood, california. north caller: is a organization called law enforcement against prohibition. that is what is causing the gang problem. the say, -- host: there is a tweet that says -- guest: of course, that is a big

discussion and well beyond the purview of a 45 minute segment. i will say that when we use the word war against anything involving our own citizens and involving crime and policing, history of sales. -- fails. suppression techniques, anything that increases sanctions, makes more serious offenders out of offenders who may have disbanded on their own. you may have gone out. anytime we increase the labeling and the sanctions, we come up with a problem that is more difficult. now, i will not get into legalization issues, but if the market can be disrupted and if market surrounding things that are somewhat normative, but we can legalize and

then we have a different problem, which is out all over use. number one correlated drug to crime. we often think of drugs is released. but it is alcohol that is our problem. -- really scary. but it is alcohol that is our problem. host: democrats' line. caller: when you describe what a gang was -- lower class. let me ask you a question. would you consider -- mitt romney, you know the story about him? gay guy.argeted this big gu

would you consider that a gang or the tea party or congress or the plice bargaining certain -- police targeting certain people? guest: the research world has really struggled with this. what is a gang? is it kids hanging out? a gang is what we want a gang to be. if he took a very conflict -- if you took a conflict orientation, it is whoever we penalize. that is a long history in the u.s.. we saw it with different ways of immigration, especially over the past century. i think i want to also address a couple of issues from the caller. the idea that is not a suburban issue is one i did not mean to convey. the national gang center shows

there is a significant portion of the youth who are in suburban areas. that is where we have seen the largest growth. in many ways, perhaps one might say awareness about gangs has increased because suburban people have been feeling and us problem. if we look at different as demands from different surveys that examine -- different estimates from different surveys that examined who gang members y peopleice over identifie who are black or african- american. it is muchusyouth, more equivalent.

just looking at how kids and law-enforcement identified, there is a gross disparity. kids are much more we and law enforcement is more, these are the problems and your the subgroups. host: the national gang center offers characteristics. guest: yep. but, that can be a book club. that is one of the things they use. it is problematic. because there is a lot of subjectivity. if you go back to the collar's example, is mitt romney part of

a gang? one of the things that it fails to meet is that it has some sustainability overtime. whenever he has done here would have to be carried on in subsequent years. repeated incidents and that they would also want to have the name and the affiliation, it said iran carrying on. that was not an individual activity. mitt romney, i have no idea. i do not even want to touch that except for to say, it is a close one. routinely, they have been going around and doing this activity. they knew that activity would happen five years from them, then it would meet national gang center criterium. host: illinois. independent line. diane.

are you there? caller: yes. i was wondering why we cannot declare gang members, especially international, as domestic terrorism instead of making all of these expensive things to try and catch them. then we put them in that they for more gains in prison. why do we not call it for what it is? i live near chicago. over memorial day, there were four -- 40 shootings with 10 people dead. we need to do something about this. guest: okay. the caller is not the first to make a link with terrorist activities. there is a scientific piece of literature that does explore the affiliations between gangs and terrorist groups.

usually, and i think the simple -- it is simplified. gangs are dealing with other gang members, not people who are necessarily innocent bystanders. that does not mean that gangs do not hit interested -- innocent bystanders. their number one crime of record is drive-by shootings. this particular caller is coming from one of a higher density areas where gangs are more active. she also mentioned the issue of how present plays a role in the gang situation. if we look at prison inmates, we can say that about 20% of use identify becoming part of a gang because of protection.

there is a relationship between being an inmate and it being an incubator for subsequent terrorist activities. we think of terrorist activity sent international, -- activities as international, but this is domestic terrorism, as well. host: missouri. democrats' line. ronnie. go ahead. caller: ok. this might be a great program, you know? i believe it is overkill. we have fbi agents. police department. the attorney general's office. cia. we have all of these other programs and we are spending $2 million for somebody to tell us to the gangs are. these law enforcement officer

should already know who their games are. -- gangs are. we are in such an economical difficulty, i cannot believe we are spending $2 million on a program that tells law- enforcement how to do their jobs. guest: well, i think the caller would be very dismayed to know that $2 million is a drop in the bucket. the $2 million is just a piece of the $32 million they received from the agency. to deal with the comment, let me rephrase this. are we going about the gang business in a makeshift way where we put a band-aid here and spend some money there and come up with a new initiative? politics as usual. it is very attractive to come up high take on crime.

politicians are getting smart on these problems. my estimate is that we will see less of these stand-alone temporary responses and more of rational and fully realized approach is dealing with the fact that -- if we go back to the youth model, these youths are disenfranchised. the number of risk factors they have means that they're susceptible to failing in a myriad of ways. gang membership is the least of the issues. it will be unprotected citizens

if we do not work with their communities. law enforcement, justice, everything that happens is local. at the end of the day. very local. locally defined norms. locally defined responses. i will be brief but the bottom line is, when you make an argument to support these types of initiatives -- if he were to take the other position, what they are arguing in sharing information in a way they had not done before. i do not think they are telling people how to do their jobs as much as understanding that we need to know about what gang activities are the seeing in different areas and how other law-enforcement agencies can estimate what that will be. host: when it comes to 2010, the gang membership was 1.4 million. that is according to the

national gang center. off of twitter -- we can also begin with, is this the right number? even people at the national gang center would agree that there will be a lot of error. part one is that people are more error in -- people are more able and willing to identify gang membership. the more awareness there is, the more identification's. on top of that, the data comes from these reports and that this from law enforcement agencies providing information about their gang problem. first of all, we do not know -- i do not know and i am not convinced that those are hard and fast figures. for the sake of argument, let us assume they are. the question is been, if in fact it is true and gang membership has been rising, is it tied to

our economy? will it be tied to a bleaker future for us? what the research shows thiis we kids have multiple risk factor a, including failure from school, lack of structure parenting, substance abuse in the house, psychiatric illnesses, where all those things converge and they are economically disenfranchised, gangs offered safety. that is one of the number one reasons. two, a form of income. that income might be small and irregular. in the absence of jobs, there

are different programs in the u.s. in different legislation that would suggest that what you really want to do with these kids in what has been successful is things like the homeboy industries. you actually get gang members real jobs. they're actually working and not being trained and not being hired. host: michigan. glen. republican line. are you there? let us get to lancaster, pennsylvania. ken independent line. -- ken, independent line. if caller: the same conversations have been going on for ages. i have heard the same stuff. we know it is a problem. the problem with the government is that we have created the prison system. now, we have privatized it so there is financial gain.

we do not need any more money. what we need to do is stop. we know that the inner city and the black kids, white kids come all the color -- white kids, all the colored kids are in trouble. what are they going to do? they will do what has happened over time. host: he talked about the prison system. guest: yes. that is a wide open issue. for viewers who are aware, we do have one of the largest prison systems in the world. on a given year, we have over 6 million people in contact with the adult criminal system. 4 million behind bars. on top of all this, we have a couple of different things happening. one, because of the economic crisis, states are closing

presence. virginia has just shut down 11 prisons. california was trying to shut prisons.presenyouth the prison industry is substantial. it is a major part of localities and economies. whether or not you believe in incarceration, which is a relatively recent idea in terms of the history of time -- we are shutting down prisons. we are going to the privatization issue, yes. there are a number of private owned and operated prison systems. people have questioned the

constitutionality of having a private enterprise in flooding state punishment. -- in selecting state punishment. we have to have a rational plan for shutting down prisons. in california, we have an opportunity to do just that. we're seeing that in different states. we use prison more wisely and the way it was intended. i have traveled a little bit. i apologize. at the end of the day, prisons are really best used as a last resort for the most serious offenders. when they are used that way, and not for long periods of time but for shorter periods of time, they can be more effective. we can keep parents and families being productive. host: dorothy. cleveland, ohio. caller: good morning, pedron.

thank you for taking my call. most of the problems we are having dealing with drugs is economical. urban and suburban. i always hear people talking about the industrial compound. i do not ever hear anybody address the fact that we never talk about the suppliers. most of the suppliers of these drugs come into the inner city and the suburbs. they're coming from expensive, well-to-do people. they have a lot of money. nobody is talking about getting the suppliers. you can eliminate some of the drugs that are going to the cities. host: thank you. guest: obviously, the u.s. government has put quite a lot of funding and initiative in to constructing a supply chain.

the eradication programs we have seen, especially in the 1980's end-1990's, a globally viewed as a failure. -- are globally viewed as a failure. they have changed from a war on suppliers to how do we work with the countries to provide those communities with the support and organization and resources to turn from producing and distributing drugs into more productive communities? it is a change in tactics. that means that at the end of the day, war on this or war on that rarely works. in terms of eradication, there have been efforts. ever been successes. as it is to disrupt this supply chain, another one comes along.

-- as soon as you disrupt the supply chain, another one comes along. host: indiana. gerry, republican line. caller: the morning. -- good morning. the prohibition of all went into effect and the border rate went up -- the murder rate went up. then it went down 7% after the repeal the act. all you have to do to get rid of the gangs is repeal those drug laws. simple as that. channel 52, fox news, had a program on there that said everything illegal -- portugal decriminalize all drugs and all crime dropped dramatically.

guest: well, going back to legalization issues, again, -- host: is that a major factor for gangs? drugs? guest: what we see is there is a diversification. for example, pornography and child exploitation and human trafficking. there are other illegal activities. credit card that. internet scams. there is always in activity to get involved in it you have got the time and the willingness to organize around it. for example, they are moving into dropping kids out in neighborhoods to go car to car and steal from cars. instead of it being drugs, it is cars. if we remove drugs, will we remove gangs? not necessarily. certainly, we will remove drug

crime. drug crime amounts to the greatest percentage of our prison population and the number of arrests we make. what we do to alleviate our system would be substantial. that left side is what are we willing to do on the tail end? you see with alcohol and the diseases of the liver, what it means in terms of functioning families and violence. there are other countries we can follow who have different levels of legalization. people want to be in gangs and they need to -- f our started in terms o fou understanding as a culture. if

is very sociological. that move into an explicative -- explicative group. will they still be involved in crime? probably. as long as there is no place for these useful people to go, they will do something. -- useful people to go, they be able to go, they will do something. host: lisa, you are on the line. caller: jo. i have a statement and a question. the guest has not addressed something that we deal with in pennsylvania. we have a fairly wide population of skinheads and white supremacists. if they had it their way, they would throw the country back

into the nazi time. they would have us be the losers. they're completely ignorant on everything that this country was founded on and what the founding fathers gave us here. they gave us the freedom of some religion. i would like you to address that. thank you. guest: that is a tough one. most of our federal agencies have distinctly avoided dealing with groups such as the ones she described. these are usually falling under different heat crime statutes and mechanisms for the balance between first amendment rights and dealing with the increasing ability to police hate crimes

and understand what they mean. they are out of bed drug debate, usually. it goes back to the issue of domestic terrorism and it goes back to the issue of, what is the difference between a gang in a terrorist? i think it falls better -- the government has deliberately made it fall into a separate discussion. the correctness of that, i do not really have an opinion on that. i think that you are dealing with different motivations. in many ways, you are dealing with the same reality. groups were organized. -- groups who are organized and adhere to cultural norms and are going to carry on the mission. it serves their own values in normative this.

-- normative values. they're not dealing with turf but to obtain political or social structure. different ends and means. host: that this, tennessee. democrats' line. -- memphis, tenn. democrats' line. caller: jfk said lower the unemployment, lower the crime. right here in memphis, we have young males leaving high school and are trying to find jobs because their parents cannot afford to send them to college and they are being turned down here to let young white males -- i filed a lawsuit against them. they're discriminating against

black males. the sooner -- this is breaking the law. they're breaking the law. the minute eric holder swas talking about racism, this is our problem. guest: i think that, to refrain his point a little bit, i think that one of the consistent things we have seen over the past century is that groups to attend to -- who tend to become affiliated with cultures to have the deviant aspect are marginalized. different scholars have different takes on this. one prospective is that any threat to the current structure of property ownership and protection ownership is dealt with by a creating laws and

systems that further disenfranchise and marginalize populations. they would rather have kept under control. the caller is alluding to the fact that there is history of using the law and as a result, using it in a way that further alienate members of our society who otherwise may have been incarcerated more productively. we usually see is no accident that it is new or second generation immigrants who are more likely to be involved. but, the -- in terms of african- americans, you know, the history here -- we can talk about structural racism and edit of racism -- additive racism. the scientific literature would

support that there is evidence of a negative affect in the criminal justice system and also in the labor pool. it is very tricky because you can -- the court rules -- sorry, high.rden of proffof is for people thinking that this is structural racism keeping them from having a job have an impossible task ahead of them to make a case in court. so, this requires community efforts. and the support of agencies being proactive. one can claim that there are strides, but i say this is a call for the