y information and steve bell will outline his group's study which shows spending cuts set for january 1 could cost up to $1 million. jobs. >> if no action were taken and the fiscal cliff happens, it's likely the economy would begin to attract or possibly go into recession and unemployment would begin to rise. that is something we want to avoid if possible. host: good morning, it's friday, june 8, 2012. while fed chief ben bernanke was on capitol hill yesterday, he added his voice to those warning congress for about a fiscal cliff heading the country's way

at the end of the year if steps are not taken to address some of the earlier decisions that had been postponed. lots of different tax cuts and other policy questions facing congress at the end of the year. we will talk this morning about the fiscal cliff, its implications for the u.s. economy, and whether you believe the fed should act or congress should act. our phone lines are open. here's how to reach us -- you can also send us a tweet. you can post on facebook or send us an e-mail. if you have concerns about the coming fiscal cliff, we would like to hear your concerns. it's friday morning. we will talk to ryan, who sent to the fed chief's testimony

yesterday to try to take some cues from what his message to congress was. thanks for being with us. guest: my pleasure. host: i'm looking at the headlines out of ben bernanke's testimony. some people are reading that he was optimistic. others say that he was concerned. others take cues they might act in their summer meeting. what was your take? guest: that's pretty typical of a fed speech. they tried to let everyone see what they want to see in their comments. the general take away is the federal reserve is not happy with the pace of recovery, but they don't get enough signs of a slowdown over the past few months that they're ready to commit to doing something more than m. they may end up doing that is shaky conditions continue. host: with regard to the fiscal cliff concept, and the economist

has an essay about this phrase that we are increasingly hearing and what it really means. but the message to congress was the fed cannot act alone what d? guest: his concern about all the policies that are set to expire the end of the year. i think that would be enough to send the u.s. economy back into recession. fed could take some actions to offset that partially or entirely. that would require very aggressive action on the part of the fed. they would have to do a lot of bond buying. that is a thing they're not completely comfortable doing. when he ended up saying was he would very much be happy to see congress takes some of the burden of the federal reserve. host: he was lectured by some of the republican members of the

committee about the fed has already done enough. another example of the big debate happening globally about stimulus vs austerity. guest: that's exactly right. on the monetary side, it is trickier. normally what we would expect that when governments need to cut their budgets, that would have a negative short-term impact on the economy, that is when we would want the central banks to provide more of a boost to the economy. i think that there's some disagreement between the parties, republicans seem to have become much less comfortable thinking of the fed in those terms. we don't know whether it has to do with the election, but there's a debate about the proper role of central banks. in europe and in the u.s. ideally what umc is as budget cuts occur, central bankers do a bit more to help the economy prevent it from falling back into recession. host: what are we seeing in this

country as an effect of the downturn of the european economy? not so much talking about the concern over global banks but really consumers, businesses in europe and their decrease in spending and how it might be affecting the u.s. economy? guest: pardon? go ahead. host: i think we have lost you. i will say thank you and we will move on to our callers. ryan is an economics correspondent for the economist, talking to us about ben bernanke's testimony on capitol hill with a slightly optimistic message, but concerns about the future and particularly about the so-called fiscal clift. you can see some of our headlines we have this morning. the baltimore sun has -- we would like to talk about your

concerns, whether you think it's time for congress or the fed to act. or whether you are optimistic about the direction of the economy and would like to leave things as they are. let's hear from a caller in cleveland, bill is a democrat. you are on the i line. caller: we need to totally reevaluate our economy and maybe our society. we cannot have continual growth on the planet that has finite resources. i think we have to change our goals and our outlook. i think it will take a complete reconfiguration of our economy, to make it more sustainable, more compatible with the nature rather than confrontational. this is the way to go. host: next is a call from philadelphia, anna is an independent. go ahead, please. caller: ron paul put forth the

best solution. host: are you there? let me move on to the next caller. we are talking about your concerns about the economy. caller: i blame congress. host: would you like to tell us more? caller: i blame congress why we don't have any jobs. they will not put through the transportation act. they have blocked and blocked and blocked obama. host: looks like we're having a problem with our phones. we're losing calls partway through. let me go to the lead in the wall street journal this morning. it talks about ben bernanke's testimony --

let's listen to more of mr. bernanke posed testimony from capitol hill, somebody had to say to congress yesterday. [video clip] >> what is particularly striking is this is all pre-programmed. if you all go on vacation, it is still going to happen. it is important to think about that and work with your colleagues to see how you might address that concern at the proper time. host: let's go back to phone calls. donna is a democrat in kansas city. -- don. caller: the way we could get the economy back running is for corporate america to start hiring folks. i believe it would be their

patriotic duty to do so. they are sitting on the funds. a lot of ordinary folks have been making a lot of sacrifices and it's time for corporate america to do their part. host: how would that work for corporations to take on employees that they might say would hurt the bottom line? caller: the thing is that we always talk about shared sacrifice when we have a crisis in this country. it's time for corporate america to share in the sacrifice of this country. forget about the bottom line. when we get people working, then we will have the economy will rise. people will start buying stuff. there will be tax money. and the economy will correct itself. host: thank you very much for your call. on twitter --

let's hear from mike, a republican in lindenhurst, illinois. caller: the fed is a problem and what street all acting together. [unintelligible] it was in the 1980's and the 2000's, there was one bubble and then they started another bubble. the second part of it would be misleading and that information that alan greenspan gave and the treasury printed money. and in chicago they buy votes.

half the city is on food stamps. repaving the same roads over and over again. everyone has become conditioned to it. traffic jams everywhere. people talk about transportation bills and such. we spend billions on the same things over and over again. there's no production at all. they got rid of all the jobs. chicago builds nothing. they consume. --t: back to twitter next is a call from tony listening to us in california, a democrat. you are on the air. -- toni.

regarding the bottom line for corporations when they are hiring. even distribution of wealth, if they would hire more people that are unemployed, that would help with spending. i know that we are trying to reduce the consequences, but if they could somehow get a little more tax breaks and maybe less bonuses, because it seems the government is enriching the government. if you work for the government, you are in the safe zone. while i am not trying to advocate more tax breaks, but i think the bottom line is to help a person that is unemployed with the spending, which would probably help the taxes.

host: banks. let's check in with our facebook audience to see what they are saying about how the fiscal cliff is and what their concerns are valid it. -- about it -- let's go back to telephone calls. we are talking about the warnings about a fiscal clift that came from the fed chief yesterday on capitol hill. now to an independent in greensboro, north carolina. jay, you are on the air.

caller: we should follow the constitution and listen to our founding fathers. the federal reserve is a bank and it makes money off the people. the irs is a fraud. we need to go back to the gold and silver standard. it is in the constitution. we really need that now. thank you. host: north carolina, joan is a democrat. you are on the air. good morning. go ahead, please. back to twitter -- in the financial times this morning there's a column with

the headline -- krugman,ing about paul the times columnist. here is what he writes -- that is the heart of what we are talking about this morning with you. is the prescription for the economy something the central

bank has to do or do you want more action from congress, or is it healing itself on its own time? now to an republican caller, good morning. caller: your previous caller said it's a patriotic duty to hire. if somebody else can make something cheaper, that is where they are going to go. we have the highest corporate rate in the world. we have to have tort reform. medical costs are twice as much as canada. school systems going through the roof. $11,000 to educate a child. it is because of the extracurricular activities. host: next is a call from athens, georgia, and independents. -- independent. caller: i found out some stuff

and i was able to follow the mathematics behind it. walmart. fairly admitted to walmart the boxed macaroni and cheese that used to cause $1.25 in georgia in 2009 cost only $4.50 because of the national debt and it has nothing to do. with the do we are being charged more for gasoline because our dollar is worth less. it has less value. so they are charging us for gas partly on our groceries. it is getting a lot harder for people to live on social security when we get as little food stamps as we do. people get $31 of food stamps a month. about $708 a month. it does not really help when things caused a lot. host: are you unemployed or retired? caller: basically, i had an

accident not terribly long ago. i have not been able to find a way to get reemployed because, basically, the side effects of my medications and the accidents that i have had, no one will allow me to have a job. host: so job hunting is more difficult from your personal circumstances. what is your message to washington? would you like congress to take action or the federal reserve to take more action? caller: well, i think, partially, let's put it this way, if a box of macaroni and cheese should cost $1.25 and in 10 months if you buy 10 of them it should be $12.50. $4.85, the most

intensive help they could do is find some sort of way to start paying down the national debt and maybe that would start turning the gas prices back to normal, which is really what is causing the biggest problem for us. we are further behind in poverty level than was posted last by hud. host: thanks for your call. in all comes down the cost of a box of mike conneen cheese and signs of inflation. next is boston, massachusetts, donald is a democrat. caller: the president has been trying to get congress and everybody to approach it on a balance -- in a balanced way. that is common sense. what the republicans are doing is, basically, they have made a decision that they will block everything he does so that they

can have him as a one-term president. as far as i'm concerned, people need to wake up and realize that you have a smart guy as president. he knows exactly what he's doing. he is taking hits from everyone, even bernanke basically said you need a balanced approach. it does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out. this is just really bizarre that people in this country cannot see what is right in front of them. we deal with this every day. take time, but i watched the wisconsin thing, how statee going after employees. most municipal employees and not been getting raises. i am one of those. i will not tell you which agency, but we have not had a decent wage in over 15 years.

we have been nickeled and dimes. we have been told you cannot get a raise this year because if you get a raise, we will have to lay people off. this is the game that is being played. wake-up, america. this could be solved. but if congress does its job, ok, and stop spilling games, and stop being selfish, we will get this country back together. host: on twitter, a cnn poll with this question -- next is a telephone call from it aspirin, california, john is a republican. -- from ashburn. caller: for the last year the democrats have been calling for a balanced approach. the fiscal cliff could not be more balanced. it raises taxes on everyone, it

cuts spending on everyone. it is the grand bargain everyone has been asking for. if congress deceives us into calling it a fiscal cliff, it will ruin the economy. they need to do this. it's time to take our medicine. host: next, from twitter -- let me go back to the wall street journal, reporting about the fed chief's testimony yesterday --

next is a call from plano, texas. mel is an independent. caller: i am a businessman and i have succeeded in this economy.

if they ever want to try to stimulate our economy, they need to direct money to local governments and assign various committees of businessmen to spend on the best ideas brought forward from local citizens, like incubators. i tried recently to build a second store in allen, texas. it was $66,000 in fees on surveys, soil samples, environmental impact, anything they can make up. we have to get back to realism a. you cannot grow anything when local governments are out of control. texas is really a joke when you get down to the local government. that word has to begin. host: let's go back to our facebook community and hear what some of they are saying. and the conversation can continue on facebook after we

are done on tv. anthony writes -- next up is memphis, tennessee, terry is. a is caller: the only reason we are going deeper into a whole is because rich people in congress, of course they are born to tell us taxes are off, because they want to remain rich. it's only the broker people that will never get better. most of the people that go to

work every day and pay taxes and come home to want to raise their children in a safe environment, and then these people up there with all the money, they want to feed us cake. they don't want us to have anything in this country. we should come together as equals and seven democrats and republicans and then we can solve something. host: next is a call from salt lake city. joe is a republican. caller: a couple of points on this. first, the bureaucracy of the federal government has gone way out of proportion. all the american people are paying into washington, d.c. < and what do they get for it? corruption, waste, at all levels of government. the other problem is lack of leadership. you have a president who runs

around the country like he is on vacation all the time, like a rock star. and all the minorities calling in to say give obama a chance. he has wasted every opportunity he has had to lead the country and to straighten out this fiscal mess. the other thing is they should take washington, d.c., move it to denver, colorado, and get it amounts the farmers and common people. the american people are getting swindled by sending all their money to washington, d.c. and they are spending that money irresponsibly. nobody knows where any of the money is. all of these people are living on nickels and dimes. host: thank you. the financial times front page is a story of central banks --

we're talking about the state of the economy, mr. bernanke's warning about what he sees as a fiscal cliff at the end of the year if congress takes no action. he suggested that the fed alone cannot act to improve the economy. he also called on congress to do its part. we want to know what you think about all that. let's go to springfield, missouri. billy is a democrat. caller: good morning. it is plain and simple to me that our leaders take tax money from corporate america and whoever. as soon as they do that -- and that from the state all the way up to the federal --they become a puppet. corporate america is the puppet master. they pulled the strings. who do you think is going to win? my big dilemma is how does the

government ever passed the 17th amendment when the constitution says that no state should give up its right to vote? the 17th amendment needs to be repealed. our government would not be in the state that it's in if it were not for. the 17. host: banks. -- thanks. the "washington times" -- lots of different takes on what the fed chairman said yesterday. here's a little from the associated press --

next is a call from arkansas. charles is a republican. good morning at. caller: good morning. the people in congress, if they want to spend the money, we are $16 trillion in debt and we borrow 40 cents on every dollar, for our children and grandchildren cannot afford this. you ask what country or what instance it works if you want to spend money to get out of the whole?

free trade and capitalism has worked fine. the government needs to get out of the way. host: the situation right now with the fiscal crisis and the aftermath, you still want washington to stay out of the way with no more spending and you don't want the fed to do anything? caller: absolutely. i don't want the government in anything. free trade and capitalism has worked. this country became a great by standing back and letting the people do the work. people, you cannot steal from one person to give to another. the gimme people are now at 50%. you cannot win that argument. we get a little more people that want something for nothing, it is never going to come out of the whole. host: daniel hahn twittewrites -

the front page of the washington post --

next is a call from michigan city, indiana. michael is an independent. caller: hello. i was working for delivery companies in texas in 1980 when jimmy carter put out funds for the oil industry. when reagan got voted in, the shutdown all the oil rigs and put me on the unemployment line. that was one of the things i cannot and understand. i want to echo what the first lady said about there saidtoo much gridlock in congress right now. everybody is fighting on something good is put on the table. both sides cannot agree. it does not make sense.

i have sat there and watched bush signed a tax relief for the millionaires and it is supposed to be a trickle-down. i have not seen no trickle-down. i'm on food stamps living in the woods and i worked hard all my life. host: you are watching cable tv and living in the woods and how does that work? caller: my mother has cancer and somebody has to be here to take care of her because her cancer medication is expensive. host: so you are basically homeless? caller: i came from fort myers, florida. i was working down there. when my mother got sick, i came up here to help out my mother. host: what do you see in your near-term future? caller: i watch you all the time. i have been watching the jobs theme. i was thinking of going to fargo, north dakota, because i've been hearing about the work

situation up there. so i might make that trip. i have to travel to fort myers to go to work and i have traveled to texas and wisconsin. i have watched the stock that's going on up there. one place, irking find work. host: what do you do? caller: a little bit of everything. anything i can do. host: thanks for sharing your story. we have been talking about paul krugman a little and his prescription for the economy. the look at this headline this morning in new york times --

next is a call from chicago, doris is a democrat. caller: republicans and their obstructionist ways, they are the ones pushing us right over the cliff. i heard a person on tv say the other day in order to get the captain, who would be obama, the republicans are willing to sink an entire ship, which would be the country. just how extreme they are. to get rid of obama they are

willing to destroy this economy. host: here's the front page of the washington times -- next is a phone call from indiana - illinois, rather. bud is a republican.

caller: hi, susan. the problem with the democrats and with paul krugman in particular is they don't want to admit that the unemployment and underemployment is a structural problem. more bborrowing will not help. it will make everything worse. if you look at the trade balance, that's the key. we are importing so many goods from places with cheap labor, that unless we bring those jobs back here, we will continue to have high unemployment and underemployment and we will never be able to get out of debt. the key is, is this unemployment a structural problem not? host: back to facebook --

next is a phone call from mark, an independent in los angeles. caller: i think we are on such an economy on how the economy was, that it will never be that way. companies, why should they hire more people when they can run a company on less people?

if we all said there's no crisis, then all of us would be out shopping. it is a matter of a lot of different things. we expect the economy will be like it was in the 1980's or whenever it was prosperous and it will never be that way. with jobs, we need more factories, more industry to have more jobs. you cannot just throw money at it. somebody has to build a factory for the job together. host: factories need customers for the products they will be making? caller: sure. we have the sun. all we need is in a solar panels for the whole world to be electric, but there's not enough industry. in the desert of southern

california and all over texas, solar panels would take care of all the energy crisis. we need to say, don't be scared, everything will be fine, just live your life, and if you don't have a job, the best way to get a job is to go tell somebody that i'm interested in working in your company, i will work for free, i will sweep the floors, and work up that way and you can get a job just about anywhere. start off with a dishwashing job. host: thank you. the new york times today --

as soon as the supreme court held care case decision is available we will bring it to you to comment about it and what

the impact might be on your life, of the court decision. in the washington post -- talking with you about the economy and what the fed or congress could or should do. tulsa, oklahoma, thomasene is the democrat. caller: good morning. our government, we spend lots of money overseas, helping different countries, and sending

money to israel when they need help or want somebody to see after them. if we don't pay them money, they might not work with america. everybody works hand in hand. britain, england, russia, all of those. i think it's a shame when you can have all those countries go to war, kill our innocent children and boys and we cannot get the big guys to see if we don't plug a hole in it, the father of that house will take his own money and the bills will get cut off. otting andtion is a riveti they don't care. their children and

grandchildren's futures are paid for off the sweat and blood of our people. they are not considering that the closing of schools and closing of jobs and losing your 401k plan, the government regionally and nationally have failed. they are failures. they don't want to follow leadership's. everybody wants to be a big chief. host: almost out of time. next, on twitter -- also come from the newspaper this morning --

led to our last phone call on this question of the discussion about the economy and washington. annapolis, dan is a republican.

caller: i just want to make a general comment. i have been listening to your program. it reminds me of a bunch of people running around in the woods in circles but getting nothing accomplished. the comments that are being brought up have valid concerns, but it has nothing to do with making the economy better. when the economy gets bad, people start scrutinizing all the little bitty things that really don't drive the economy. that is tragic that people have such a short-sighted views. i encourage you to consider, for the last 200 years our economy has been made great by one concept and that is productivity. productivity drives the entire economy. what it means is we do things better every day, get better, get more efficient, make more money.

we invented the steamboat, the wire, the transistor. these things make our economy more productive. that productivity is what drives our ability to make more money and to spend more money and the wealthier as a nation. i encourage you to have someone to come on and explain to your guests about the concept of productivity and how the government needs to get out of the business of the private sector and let the private sector become more productive. host: annapolis, that was the last voice on our economy this friday morning. we will be back on the economy later in the program, but specifically to talk about sequestration. there's a new study that looked at the jobs implications, if sequestration goes into effect. coming next, michael hirsh will be talking about the recent classified information that has been made public in the news

media and congress' concern about it. we will be right back. >> ♪ ♪ >> today's of live coverage from the chicago tribune's festival on "book tv starting saturday at 11:00 eastern, the making of present-day chicago. and the banana man, on latin america that at 1:00. at 5:00, a man convicted as an adult at age 16. his memoir about prison. and the texas role in politics.

and libya. and watergate. also, madeleine albright on growing up in nazi-occupied chuckles of akia, sunday at 9:00. "book tv" this weekend on c-span 2 on sunday. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific, mark the 25th anniversary of president ronald reagan opposing 1987 speech from west germany. also, this weekend on this3, our series the contenders. this sunday a 7:30 p.m.. republican candidate james lane. this weekend on c-span 3. blaine.es

host: this is about revelations the u.s. and israel were a coubehind it. people have gotten agitated about this in recent days. guest: that was a big story. reporters and pundits had speculated about that for years. there was widespread belief that the u.s. and israel were probably behind it because it had done so much damage to the iranian centrifuges, apparently, but this story came out and quoted numerous officials as

saying the obama administration signed on to a program begun by president bush called olympic games, which was very much a covert effort to launch cyber attacks. that was quite a huge newsbreak. so it has sort of reached a tipping point in this town where people on capitol hill in particular are wondering why we have had a number of leaks culminating about covert operations. previously there were stories about the obama administration's drawn program and a way that target are identified, whether the president personally oversees the "kill list as well as other leaks. host: there was a pretty lengthy

press conference in which democrats and republicans participated. let's hear dianne feinstein and what she had to say. [video clip] >> when people say they don't want to work with the u.s. because they cannot trust us to keep a secret, that is scary. when allies become concerned and when an asset's life is in jeopardy or his family is in jeopardy, that's a problem. the plight of intelligence is to be able to know what might happen to protect this country. we cannot do that if the intelligence is no longer kept with strict scrutiny, with in the number of people that need to have it. host: 1 happens after that? the national intelligence director spoke about the leaks and what can be done about them. and the white house response to the call for a special

prosecutor. where do you see this all going? guest: there certainly will be hearings. the fact that dianne feinstein, was a democrat and chairs the intelligence committee has said she is outraged by what she has seen and it's the worst is ever seen in terms of leaks, means it will lead to something. as of now, we have the white house appearing to reject calls for a special prosecutor even though it appears that the justice department opposing national security division has at least partially recuse itself from the investigation, which is why some republicans were calling for a special counsel or a special prosecutor. we have something of a standoff right now. we will see how that goes and whether this dies down. this is not the first time there's been some fuehrer. over leaks to the fuehrer they do tend to die down rather quickly. but i think that we will hear a lot more in congressional

investigations that are to come without probably knowing what the real source of the leak is. host: let me show you and our audience, a lot of these stories came out in the new york times and looked as though they were the course of reporting for a book that came out this week. this story about the drones was in this book. i want to go to this note on sources in the back and read to you what he says --

does that sound like leaks to you? guest: no. he is a very dogged reporting. there's no question he spent months working on this. it does not work that way. they usually get information because reporters are pressing and have to make who a make to talk to. david is someone this particular white house talks to because he has been an important figure in the media in this town and has been distinguished for a long time. i have no doubt that it was mainly his reporting, probably piecing together different parts of conversations that he has had

with many different administration officials. that being said, what i'm trying to say is it was not that the president or one of his top aides said we will tell you all about stuxnet. he was pressing and a some point they decided to crack the door open a little on some of the aspects of the program. that being said, there's no question that the obama political scene has been key to get out the image of the president as being strong on national security. they have talked to other reporters about how good a national-security president the commander in chief is. one of the most effective things obama has done is a covert program, specifically focused on drone strikes on all. , the all so they are trying to get that story out while at the same time not reveal classified information. it is a very tricky line to walk. it is entirely possible that some officials working for the president stepped over the line

or appear to have stepped over the line, and reveal classified information they should not have talked about. host: about the reporting of classified information, here's a -- you as a citizen, are you concerned about? that is the crux of the discussion as washington is battling its swords over the latest reporting on some classified programs that counteract terrorism. the phone lines are on the screen. you can also send us a tweet and there is facebook and e-mail. dutch ruppersberger is on the house intelligence committee. is an editorial from the newspaper in his hometown --

now we know about the programs and that gives the opportunity to say do we like them what are your thoughts the editorial sums things up quite well it leads us

into uncharted territories in terms of the new type of war that obama is overseeing it is largely a covert war, which means it is secret at the same time, the president has felt compelled to justify it morally he has directed some of his top people to speak about it. his counter-terrorism made the justification. the previous two years they had refused to talk about it. the feeling they need to talk about it in order to make the case of why it is necessary -- you run into the contradiction that diene -- dianne feinstein talk about -- intelligence and classified information are secret for a reason. programs are more effective that way. when they are revealed, lives

are put in danger. reporters think about this all of the time. they will make decisions about not printing details because they realize they could put lives in danger. it is a very tough tightrope walk that we do. >> i want -- host: i want to get to calls. you have written a piece. host: missouri. beverly is a democrat. caller: yes. i am all for knowing everything that our government is doing, secret or not. it it puts somebody's life in jeopardy i do not like that, but if we're willing to have an honest government, we need to be honest and i am glad obama felt

it was a moral obligation to tell what he was doing. if you do not, you have germany all over. everything is secret. like the justices you talked about, it was when the far right took over when the judges went south. if the newspapers go south, we will have a far right country and a holocaust all over again. host: thank you. michael hirsh? guest: i think that is the best argument for talking about this, not necessarily in full detail, but talking about these types of programs. this is the new way of american war. if there is anything like an obama doctrine, it is to have a very light footprint, use

special operations and droned strikes as a way to pursue national objectives rather than sending in large armies. we are not going to do that for a long time. we have to have a discussion about this. this is not an aberration. it is probably how we will see worse conducted for all long time in the future and it does not matter who is elected. i have a feeling mitt romney will adopt these policies. it's called there is a list of the five recent -- host: there is a list of the so-called leaks.

host: san antonio, texas. bob is a republican. caller: i wanted to talk about the security clearances. people are leaking secret information, classified information. it is dangerous for the people out there trying to help the country and -- and when you become a person with a security

clearance, you have an obligation to maintain that. there are penalties. the people that are doing it need to be prosecuted because it is endangering the lives of those that are keeping us safe. it's called thank you. michael hirsh, anything about security, -- host: thank you. michael hirsch, anything about security clearances? guest: this a administration has been more aggressive than any other in pursuing leaks, attempted to prosecute someone at the national security agency that had discussed a flawed computer system. many of us thought that was in the national interest. yet, when questions are raised even by fellow democrats like dianne feinstein about these latest leaks about the central

program that we have this attitude that we do not need a special prosecutor, the do not seemed to be concerned, which only lends itself to charges made by john mccain and republicans that these leaks were for political purposes and the president wants to present himself as tough on national security. as long as the white house effects the story going away, these will be prevalent. host: we are talking to michael hirsch about leaks. let's hear your defense upper cyber war. guest: is a facetious headline,

but there has been too much human cry over the danger of cyber war in the future and what we have seen very possibly with a computer virus and other efforts against iran is a program that might have kept the israelis from doing an actual attack on iranian nuclear facilities, which could have been disastrous for all sides, the specially israel and the u.s. so, the point is if this is the only substitute, it is better than real war, and i also argue that as long as we have cyber capabilities built up by russia, china, we could have a situation like the cold war, or

where there was a sense both sides would begin a standoff. if the u.s. were somehow in tension with china, the chinese might not be eager to hit the u.s. if they thought gps would be taken out, in the same way the u.s. would if they thought satellites were in jeopardy and that might lead you to a situation where you are less likely to launch an attack, and that is for the good. host:, the hill, called this morning -- "the hill this morning. next, penciled -- pensacola, florida. caller: thank you. mr. michael hirsh and people

that hold his viewpoint seem to be very '90s. having had some experience in -- and i need. having had some experience in security is -- people did not realize what it does to methods. we had the leak in the middle east very recently. s. senator dianne feinstein pointed out, she is correct that we will lose cooperation of other intelligence agencies. this nation needs to strengthen laws by adopting something similar to what britain heads, going after these people and putting them in jail. there is a law against leaking classified information. the final point is you could pick a good argument about what should and should not be classified. i think this country over-

classified. the argument is solved. when you read the information you are breaking federal law. it is that simple. host: thank you. guest: the caller seems very well-informed and his points are well-taken -- this is a direct threat to sources, methods and a gathering of intelligence. i think the point that senator dianne feinstein was making are extremely valid. if you do not pursue weeks like this, and your covert, -- leaks like this and your covert programs continue to be exposed, the people your intelligence agencies work with will be less likely to cooperate. that is a direct threat to the way this country conducts war. i agree there should be a probe into what happened here.

host: let's listen to mike rogers, house representative, republican chair of the intelligence. [video clip] >> in publicly available comments and appears the sources of these leaks could be in position to influence investigations. we're still trying to agree on where this is the best place to happen. it must be complete. it must be in power to examine any office or department of the united states government, free of influence from those who conducted or reviewed the programs, fair and it must be non-partisan. two problems. one is we get to the bottom of a growing and serious problem. second, we put together legislation quickly that gives the tools to the intelligence community to prevent this from happening in the future. i've afford to working with the

members here to make sure that -- i look forward to working with the members here to make sure that happens. host: the chairman talking about how he hopes an investigation could be structured, but what he -- what does he mean when he says they could influence the investigation? guest: that was referred to earlier where some of the senior officials who may have been -- i do not know as i certainly do not know who the sources were for the media outlets that reported the story is -- i do know what my sources are and i've written about these programs -- but the question is whether some of those senior officials would be both in a position to leak the information and in a position to make a decision about whether there should be an investigation, but

the special counsel for example. that is an obvious conflict of interest. so, that is a concern. host: can you explain the process by which a special counsel would be appointed? this covers make the decision or the administration -- does congress make the decision or the administration? guest: the administration, and they reject that, lending itself to the suspicion that some of these leaks might have been politically motivated in an election year. the point is a special counsel is perceived as needed when an investigative body might be in a conflict of interest, may have been involved in something like a cover up, where the issue that needs to be investigated so you do not have a traditional source that can be relied on, so

you need an independent counsel. that is the argument behind it. the argument here would be that perhaps the national security division of the justice department was somehow involved and cannot investigate itself. host: this tweet. guest: again, there is a very tough line to walk. if somebody is breaking the law clearly and talking about information to someone that is not authorized to get it there is justification for investigation and possibly prosecution. you cannot simply flout the laws and expected will be observed in the future. that is the point that people like mike rogers are making.

i cannot argue with that. host: jacksonville, florida, for michael hirsch, naomi. caller: good morning. i want to speak to your guest just me and him because he is sketching around the edges, trying to protect our president. go back to scooter libri. do you remember him? guest: i do. caller: the remember what they did to this man because of some one the worst in the department -- worked in the department and how they went after him when he was not even the leaker. i'm just a normal woman looking at all of this, how different it is under this president. that was to meet a minor event.

here you have a budget that was to be a minor event. -- that was a minor event to me. here, you have a major event and mr. michael hirsch feels that he does not recommend a special prosecutor to go out and find out in this small group of people. guest: i am not recommending anything. i am simply trying to lay out the issues. there are parallels to this and the allegations of the misuse of the intelligence that led to scooter libby's prosecution. that was obviously about a war in which a lot of people died. i do not except the point that this was a minor issue and this

is a serious one. they were both serious. it is not always clear-cut. there are legitimate reasons for a serious probe into what happened here. at the same time, i think the media was doing its job. i am certainly not defending the obama administration. there is also reason to believe this may have been politically motivated in an election year in which the president is in a tough fight with mitt romney. all of this has to be considered. guest:, well, the best argument is to go back to kenneth starr and the whitewater investigation morphed into the model kolinsky -- monica

lewinsky issue that morphed into something different because the prosecutor kept looking. there are concerns of this could become an open-ended operation. host: we have a lot of people tweeting about bradley manning, the soldier being prosecuted. do you see parallels? guest: he was a soldier that was alleged to have divulged the state department cables and lead them to wikileaks and were printed and published all over the world. of course there are parallels. it is a completely legitimate question. why is the government prosecuting bradley manning, and

appears at this moment less than eager to pursue leakers who might be in the white house itself. you have to wonder about consistency. host: georgetown, mass.. dan is an independent. caller: thank you. hi country, the constitution. -- i want to go back to the foundation of our country, the constitution. it is clear that the founders were looking for to the biggest problem the people in the country were going to face and that is the pot -- the power and size of the government and that is why we could have arms to protect ourselves for an -- from an overwhelming, over-reaching government. here we are.

the government basically has unlimited control. they secretly kill people with drones. they have been authorized to use them in the domestic united states. the u.s. military has the authority to detain and shipway american citizens with no evidence, no injury or trial. -- jury or trial. people are scratching their heads, busy, raising kids and going to work, and it takes a lot to dig into this. we are losing our rights on a daily basis. host: thank you. guest: no, some of the things the caller said are not true. there are no drone strikes

authorized in the united states. the military is not allowed to detain citizens here in the united states. his larger point is a concern of a lot of people -- it is government too big, too secretive and are we not able to hold them accountable? that goes back to the constitution and is why we're having these debates. that is why the obama-care administration felt they needed to try out some of the rationale for the drone program because of these constitutional issues. this is not a country that can conduct a secret war. it does need to be debated. yet you come up against this issue of classified information. it becomes a tough issue to come down on either side. host: said antonio, texas. good morning. democrat. caller: these are good and

necessary for the country to grow. take 9/11. cia and fbi offices were in building seven. bad building fell down -- that building fell down seven hours later. of course there should be gary krist -- leaks. they should be able to speak and say how is it that our building fell down and they should be thoroughly investigated. i have never heard of anyone that had an office in power seven come out and say anything. leaks are necessary. host: let me stop you. leaks are necessary? guest: one of the issues that becomes clear as to why you need open government is because when you keep something secret it

lends itself to conspiracy theories like the one this caller outlines which persists that somehow 9/11 and what happened at the world trade senator was at least partially the result of some sort of u.s. government conspiracy, and there's been no evidence to suggest that. again, it is one reason you need a public airing of issues, and why a certain amount of leaking, not necessarily of classified information is seen as necessary. by think it is necessary -- i think it is necessary. it is a way of getting people to talk about things in a way they would not if they were on the record. it is the way that washington works. there is no getting around that. host: thank you for being here. there'll be more discussion in this town about the leaks, whether or not to investigate,

and the programs behind them, how we are confronting people who would do this country harm in the age of cyber security. thank you for being here, michael hirsch. host: we have one more segment. the house is in early. they will begin at 9:00. in our next segment we will be back to the economy with steve bell of a bipartisan policy gentle looking at what will happen to the economy and jobs if sequestration is allowed to go forward. we will be right back. ♪ >> the b-52, everyone thinks

back to the and not, the cold war -- vietnam and the cold war -- the different power associated as opposed to other long-range bombers. >> these and two soldiers that knew each other prior to the civil war and fought against each other. here they are at age 100 living on the porch, talking about the old days. the gate to the west is marked 9 03. they really reference the moment of the bomb. >> watch, the travels of c- -- localan rate content of vehicles and the for the history and culture of our next stop, jefferson city, missouri.

>> they are often referred to as the conscience of the congress, and having worked there almost two years, i cannot think of a better name. >> executive director and general counsel of the congressional black caucus angela rye on the role of today's caucus. >> it is designed for people to come together on issues that might be plaguing the community at large or their districts they come together to discuss legislative solutions and proposals to advance the causes of people that do not have a voice. more with angela rye sunday at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our final test, steve bell

will talk about jobs and the economy and what will happen if sequestration goes into effect. this town gets wrapped around big words and used them like everyone understands. defined sequestration. guest: across the board cuts. host: wire we talking about this? -- why are we talking about this? guest: in 1985 the said we need to have process, and that is the first time i heard the word sequestration as across the board cuts. we have been signed into law by president reagan, but that was the first and only significant sequestration, so for 25 years it has been dormant. host: is a useful to study what happened to the economy after the first round of cuts? guest: probably not.

we're in the middle of the recovery and not have the same problems. the united states was a superpower, so this is different. host: i am guessing that people watch this not work watch congress closely, but sequestration is discussed because of what sequence of events? guest: in 2011, the new congress came in and they wanted to cut spending, especially in the house and they passed a bill that they thought would save $33 billion. it only saves about 430 two million dollars. they were angry about that. -- 430 two million dollars. they were angry about that, especially in the republican caucus. the debt ceiling was been reached, which means the united states could not pay all of their debts on time and in full. using that debt with the vote

which is required in the house and the senate, they put together something called the joint select committee a committee of 12 the deliberated four days and days, months and months, and came up with nothing. if they came up with nothing, automatic cuts of $1.20 trillion would take effect january 2 of this coming year. host: congress often treats these as a trigger to act. in this case it did not work? guest: it is a great idea except it does not attack the national debt and our spending, which makes our debt go up. two, it takes one of the% of the cuts out of 33% -- 100% of the cuts out of 33% of our budget

and does not touch medicare and medicaid. host: your study released this week projects these automatic cuts could cost up to 1 million jobs. how does that work? guest: it is starting right now. when we say project, we need to understand it is starting now. contractors are required to tell people that sub-contract when they will get their contracts, will it be renewed? they are telling sub- contractors that i am not sure in five months i could give you the same contract i gave you before. as that goes down the line, what happens to small businesses especially, is they suffer losses and we have seen the pentagon has slowed down its contract in and procurement

schedule. if you are a budget officer and you have been told by the office of management and budget to presume you will get 5% less, the contractor slows down, you will not take any chances. host: i'm sure some will be happy to see that defense contractors are hiring fewer people. why you think it is a bad thing? guest: we are in the most fragile economic recovery since the great depression. europe is collapsing and already in a recession. china has slowed down. this does not seem like the time to cut the 1 million jobs out of the economy. host: your organization is called the bipartisan policy center. people always call themselves bipartisan and it is really just

a tag line. is your organization truly bipartisan? guest: sherer. we had a democratic congressman on the task force. we had jim jones, who was national security adviser under mr. obama, and the former head of the budget committee. we had a republican, a former obama administration official, and a former clinton department official. host: why did you put the task force together? guest: we were concerned, those of us that wrote the first sequester, seven or eight of us still alive in this town, we were concerned that this was

misunderstood by congress, put together in a rush and we will have devastating consequences at a time when our economy is really growing slowly, despite what everyone wants to say. host: the report has a longer headline. here is the official title. we will only skimmed the surface in this short time. let's get to calls. the concern that automatic spending cuts might effect as many as 1 million jobs according to a report produced by a bipartisan policy center. houston, texas. democrat. gail, you're on the line. caller: first of all, i want to

sit i apologize. i'm telling a white lie. what happened to all of the truth from the newscasters? when walter cronkite was sotheby's he presented actual truth. host: i am not following you. what is your topic? caller: lies. host: are you referring to our last section above leaks? caller: people that run for office did not tell the truth and no one is correcting them. host: we're talking about the economy.

william, republic -- marie, republican in west virginia. caller: i think that most of these government contractors are stealing the country blind because their only interest is soft interest and they don't really give a hoot about patriotism and the country as a whole. they have a selfish you point. guest: that is an extraordinary charge. most defense contractors i have dealt with including former staff that worked for me not only served in the military, but are truly deep patriots. i think to tar everyone with a

brush in the defense industry is going to far and is a little bit of a caricature. yesterday, the former national security adviser to president obama said there are lots of areas where savings could be made in the department of defense, and i think that even the most profit-oriented member of some business that is a defense contractor would agree. it is the only agency that cannot be audited because things are so messed up and everyone on our test scores agrees we could save more money. the object is to get more bang for the block. we -- balked. we are spending more money for fewer ships and tanks than we ever have. you could say that is a defense contractor problem but it is a defense contract in problem and

procurement reform has been on the table -- contracting has been the problem and procurement reform has been on the table for a long time. host: we spent the first part of the program talking about ben bernanke's testimony on capitol hill and warnings about the fiscal cliff. we showed paul krugman's column in "the new york times" where he called ronald reagan the original keynesian in this country. here is "the financial times." and this tweet . guest: austerity in a depression is wrong.

he is right in that respect. if it were that narrow, we would not have the debate. how do you get the economy started again in the short-run while the same time dealing with the dead? the cut-off line, according to most people is between sustainability and insisting ability. we have to do things going on. we are not growing ourselves into debt. we have no growth except in debt. there is no doubt in the short- run you need to have growth in the economy. the only fight has been how do get the growth. host: another tweet. guest: actually, they are cuts.

it would be equally disturbing it from defense and nondefense programs. it would take this back to somewhere around fiscal year 2010-2011. we are operating on last year's budget which was also the year before's budget. 5% beyond that is a real decrease. not medicare and social security. we're talking about appropriated programs. host: republican. you are on. caller: this is kenneth. i want to say that when i was a kid ronald reagan used a program to create jobs and get the

economy growing. we went from the dow jones been 707 to 7000. the money went directly into the economy. ashamed that so many prominent republicans would make a deal and turn around and find a way to get out of it. they have been doing this from day one since obama took office, a share obstructionism. -- pure obstructionism. you could tell me why people are making others believe there is a war instead of doing the job they're supposed to do. the way you talk and act, if it

was in neighborhoods we would be carrying knives. guest: we have a dysfunctional congress aired the far left and the far right have been able to dominate in the house and the senate. we've not past appropriation bills. we are not passed tax reform. the gentleman is right. it is been poor behavior by the congress or the last three-to- four years. it started earlier than that. when reagan was president we have terrific fights. we had some of the same dysfunction we have now. it is worse now because the country is polarized and there are lots of people who have reasons for that. the fundamental thing everyone needs to remember, the middle,

the independents are the least- represented and there are consequences to that. it's called "the wall street journal -- host: "the wall street journal" -- host: we are talking about the effects on jobs if sequestration goes into effect with steve bell, the senior director of the economic policy project at the bipartisan policy center. roanoke, virginia. marianne, a democrat. caller: good morning. i keep getting confused with

republicans saying the government does not create jobs, and here we are looking at all of these jobs that the government creates, and now the republicans are saying we will lose 1 million jobs. it gets to the point where it gets ridiculous. it seems like everyone is lying constantly. there is a show where you had every single congressman and i'm sure you could do that with obama. i am mad at the abundance and news journalists that do not absolutely say this is not what you said or this is what you said because we are busy in our lives and we really need newscasters to do their job. we cannot just search on google for millions of articles to find in the weeds with somebody really said. so, my real question is to you

about the fact the government does not create jobs, and now they say we're going to lose these jobs. can you respond to that? guest: i certainly can. fortunately or unfortunately i am what is called a rhino, a republican in name only. i worked with people that at the time were very conservative, but not with the current republican party. i can understand why you are befuddle. the government does create jobs, and if you did not believe it, but all the people that are employed by state, federal and local governments. it does create jobs. the question is how much should you take out of the economy to create those jobs and for what purpose? the fact of the matter is this, when you get into a fight you come up to eighth problem where

in a serious deflationary time where prices may start to fall you will have devastating impact on the economy. ben bernanke yesterday certainly did not signal there will not be quantitative easing in the future, and we've seen again this morning where the troubles in spain are growing and they do not have enough money to pay for that. obviously, the government needs to step in. anyone that says we do not need government is not very serious about things. host: mr. bell has worked in the private and public sector. you also worked on capitol hill in the budget committee, and during the reagan administration he was a member of the federal thrift savings board.

guest: what we did was set up the brand new retirement program for federal workers, going from a defined benefit program to defined contributions, where you put in a certain amount of money and choose the fund. it is called the thrift savings plan. host: not to take as to much of course, but there are a lot of stories after wisconsin about public sector employees pensions being targeted. guest: wisconsin is interesting, but the most interesting is have jose, california, one of the richest cities in the united states, a democratic state by registration and they voted for restrictions on pensions in the future. we talked about government being

necessary, but there are times where the government gets much too generous and the money comes from taxpayers. what we see now is simple. many states and corporations have pension funds that are not fully funded. to put it in simple terms, the our people better 45 years old working for companies or state government debt think there will get a certain pension at age 65, and in all likelihood they will not because the money is not there. what did you do if you made a promise that you cannot keep? do you say i will not be here in five years so it is not my problem, or do you say we made a promise 25 years ago and we need to start cutting back now? guest: -- host: does the same argument holds for social

security? guest: social security is interesting. people think of it as a lock box with their name on it. that is my money, and i will get it back. that is not how the system works. people that are paying social security right now, their money is not invested in a lock box right now. they are paying social security recipients who are 65 and older right now. the money is not been saved anywhere. we have a surplus of about $2.7 trillion and we estimate that will be gone in 25 years. aboutwe're talking sequestration and the effect on the economy. virginia breach -- virginia beach. guyana. independent. -- directed. independent.

caller: we are spending over $1 trillion in debt every year. i do not want to cut spending on the military. i do not want to balance it on the military, but if we just freeze spending on everything across the board the cbo would grade debt as a 7% cut in spending. are these really cuts below that? are we really going to spend less next year that we are spending this year? that is my question. guest: the answer is no. you will not spend less next year in all likelihood, but there are two different parts of the budget and the lady touched on it. defense and nondefense -- the stuff we appropriate every year, they have been pretty much flat for the last three, four, five years. the things that are growing are

the promises we made 25, 30 years ago that we cannot keep. we cannot keep the medicare promise we made. it cannot continue in the same fashion it is now or else as all the trustees said we will run out of money. social security and other pensions -- we cannot keep those promises to people that are pre- retirement. it is simple. there to the ways to do this. it is a simple equation. do you want to change now by 1% to keep these programs alive in the future or do you want to wait and cut these programs 20% when we find out we can not pay our bills? the prudent person would start with tiny changes to yield the spending. as pundits call it. host: we're talking to steve bell about the economy and

budget cuts. twitter offers this. host: rhode island. jerry is a republican. good morning. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i have a degree in political science from the university of massachusetts but i need to be reeducated a little. the term sequestering came up quite a bit. i'm wondering if you could explain that to me, and i also have an idea rejected the government's spending money in the wrong places? -- is the government spending money in wrong places? could we revitalize the economy by taking the old mill towns that were productive at one time and bring and industry back into a place in massachusetts where i grew up where they have buildings now, making innovative approaches to making

artificial arteries, and things like that. i would appreciate if you could explain sequestering for me. thank you. guest: it had never been used in government before 1985 and what it means in simple terms is this -- they are going to take for defense and domestic programs that are appropriate every year, about 37% of the federal budget, take that 37% and cut it across the board by approximately 10%- to-50% and january 2, -- 10%- to-15%, and january 2, 2013. it is going to be painful on the domestic side. let's not be cavalier. is going to hurt grants for education, medical research,

border control. we need to cut spending. this is the most productive way to do it. we have a chance over 10 years of sequestering $1.2 trillion to actually lose money because of unemployed benefits. host: scholastic my answer this question from twitter. guest: absolutely. i did not know if anyone has been able to say it with sufficient force. my family are middle-class and lower, mostly military. i have a brother and military retirement. i have a son in the military. i of parents that were in the military, and they did -- i have parents that were in the military and they get benefits. two of them are 100% of disabled. the fact of the matter is we are

spending money in wrong places. an example, we asked to go through the accountability office and tell us how many to put it programs that are owned and we asked the congressional budget office to put together some options and every year they put together options for spending cuts. every year congress ignores it. so, it is not that people are not working on the problem. it is not the people do not know there is a problem. it is that in a weak economy with a lot of people running for election five months from now, there is just not the political will in washington, d.c., as there is perhaps in san jose, california and other places -- places. host: dave. pittsburgh. democrat. caller: they just had the g-8

summit, and what we now is in 1989 at the end of the cold war the united states owed $5 trillion and the russians owed $100 billion. they listed the death of all of those countries at the g-8 and they said vladimir putin snubbed them. the action will debt of the united states is $9 trillion. they signed a $1 trillion national gas bill with china. they are not a debtor nation. russia is not. what we are doing here is saying from $9 trillion-to-$16 trillion, that is the money they stole out of the social security. we all 9 -- we 0 $9 trillion, not $16 trillion.

guest: the debt held by the public is around $11.5 trillion. the differences the other funds are inter-governmental transfers. medicare works in a similar fashion the reason i insist on saying $16.4 trillion is as a practical matter sometime this year or early next year the congress will face a big fight on the debt ceiling and the number they have to deal with is not 11, nine or 12. they will have to deal with $16.4 trillion parent while there are different ways -- trillion. while there are different ways of looking bad debt, the most important whey is the practical way. what does congress have to face and that is 16.4.

host: jim on twitter offers this -- while they hate defense spending they lob a government- supported jobs. what to do. [laughter] host: ann. you're on the air. caller: i am an independent because neither the democrats or republicans speak to me. i work for a financial institution and there is nothing said about this, the largest is to be in the united states, the financial industry and its failure. it was not large deficits that cost millions and millions of americans to lose their jobs over a period of short months and the unemployed rate to go up and it was much more due to the irresponsibility of the largest industry. i think the republicans have made the debt and the deficit

the point of the narrative of their processing is because they do not want any focus on what the financial institutions have done and continue to do. the democrats are agreeing to that narrative, which i do not understand why they miss every opportunity when you talk about the money being spent you never talk about the money used by the financial institutions, the american people's money. host: we have about one minute and a half left. guest: there is no doubt there is an irresponsible, under- regulated financial system in this country. i used to work in it for 10 years. it is different now than 20 years ago. yes, we used almost $1 trillion directly to bail out banks and other institutions and the federal reserve board and the treasury probably poured in more than that. we had a choice.

we could put $900 billion through what we called the tarp program, where we could let it collapse. -- or we could let it collapse. that was due to irresponsibility. that was due to a situation in which the government says if you lose money do not worry. we will bail you out. if you make money, take home your one and a million-dollar bonus. that is called moral hazard. the lady is right. the worst people -- the worst thing about it all is so few people have gone to jail. host: are you angry? guest: i am. we worked with democrats and republicans and what we did was we do not agree on this 20% or is