used to promote the aggressive agenda and then later dr. donnel limbberg explains how electronic health care records are>> "wash. host: the president says the private sector is doing just fine. republicans say, not so fast. a suicide rate among active duty military is higher than the number of troops dying in battle. conservatives gathering in the president's home town pick their number two for the gop candidate. >we begin the program by looking at last night's announcement from eric holder air. he has appointed to the prosecutors to look into leaks

about national security operations. if you want to give us a call, here are the numbers. republicans, 202-737-0002. democrats, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. you can also reach us by social media. twitter, @cspanwj. facebook, facebook.com/cspan. e-mail, journal@cspan.org. good morning. welcome to the program. this is the way the story is portrayed in the "denver post."

host: we want to find out your thoughts regarding the announcement by the attorney- general that there will be prosecutors looking into these

leaks. our first call comes from california. our republican line. good morning. caller: thank you. good morning to you. i am not surprised. colder -- eric holder is upset about fast and furious. rightfully so upset that documents have been leaked. but i think the nation as upset and the families are upset that americans have lost their lives, putting guns into the hands of criminals. the investigation went completely wrong. -- will have papers leake issue is why eric holder is still sitting behind the desk. host: do you think it is

genuinely an attempt to distract folks from looking at the fast and furious? or is the administration really trying to find out where the leaks came from? eric? he is gone. let us look at some of the conversation starting to percolate on facebook. host: the president talked about this. he was talking about the leaks and this happened at a news conference yesterday at the white house. the president made these

comments before the attorney general made his statements last night. this is what he had to say about his attitude on zero tolerance for leaks. [video clip] >> since i have been in office, i have zero tolerance for these kinds of leaks and speculation. now, we have mechanisms in place where if we can rule out folks they will leaked, suffer consequences. in some cases, these are criminal acts. and we will conduct thorough investigations, as we have in the past. the notion that my white house would purposely release

classified national security information is offensive. it is wrong. and people need to have a better sense of how i approach this office and how the people around me approach this office. host: the headline in "the wall street journal" -- hos host: we will get to more of

that in a few seconds. florida. angela on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i wanted -- hello? i wanted to respond to the gentleman who just called. -- int to ask him why think eric holder has been a

fine attorney general and who is to say that that scare with guns and them going into the hands of the people who were involved -- who's to say that was not a scam or conspiracy because it that.sliks like you would have to be incompetent to allow something like that to happen. maybe there was something planned. maybe it was a conspiracy against eric holder. host: stentorious? caller: spirited -- fast and furious? caller: yes. the way things have been going and what i have seen, the reports of this going on and the strong animosity that has been plaguing obama since he had been in the office, i would not stop

to believe that someone inside deliberately did that. host: going to move on to joe in shreveport, louisiana. go ahead. caller: i have a comment about the situation. this is a matter of trusting the president or not. the foreign policy that the president has applied has been excellent. he liberated libya without a single american person getting killed. he die rid of osama bin laden. it is all about sabotaging his success. the republicans need to go get a life. host: before you go, jim hines

sends us a tweet -- host: with the thing? caller: i have been watching the whole thing. i have been monitoring the whole thing. ok? republicans, with excuses. -- come up with excuses. they are going to sabotage him. the president knows what he is doing. he knows he is the leader of this country. i trust him. he has his own reason for doing what he is doing. host: let us move on to oklahoma city on our line for

republicans. >caller: richard nixon formed a group of there were leaks. this president just since the walz right out -- wolves right and throws people in jail. how many people on wall street have been prosecuted by this administration? what about jon corzine with mf global? $1.6 billion. goldman sacks gets off scot- free with this administration. -- goldman sachs gets off scot- free with this administration. people are getting away with this transparent government this president promised. it is acting as if it is something on the order of solid or hitler, the way he runs this government. this president is on steroids.

host: moving to atlanta, georgia. on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: republicans who would do anything -- they would laugh, steal, cheat. they would do anything -- the leak is coming from the republicans. they have somebody in a position and they are releasing these leaks to make the democrats look bad. they have shown that they would do anything. you have people like john kennedy to sit there every night and tell lies. they do not care. this is a wicked administration -- they are seamless. they're saying. host: hold on. i want to run something by you from "the wall street journal" --

host: your thoughts? caller: this that you mentioned first? host: senator john mccain feared republican. caller: everything is coming out of the republicans. they are demons. they are sa andtanist. host: the article says that there are democratic lawmakers reaching the lies are out there. nobody is questioning the republicans. host: pat on our line from houston, texas. caller: yes, i get so tired of

people trying to define who is this president is. it seems as if the republicans and c-span are trying to demonize president obama. he has been one of the most competent presidents we have ever had. so far, this fast and furious -- george w. bush had something similar. you have heard nothing about it. the gentleman who called and talked about the transparency, where was that transparency when bush was in there? they do a double standard on president obama. just because he is a minority. i wish c-span will stop bringing all of this here say all. -- hearsay up.

host: we move on the california. caller: it is obvious from listening to the call so far that obama has the democratic vote locked in. what he needs to do to save his presidency after that terrible comment he made is he needs to come up with a plan where he needs to save this presidency. listen to clinton. get the entire simpson bowles plan on the table. cut the deficit. do something. take the republicans' offer. stop this battle. pretty soon, we will have the people -- when we hear these angry democrats, a is getting scary as to what will happen. we need to do something to stop this. the whole thing is, we have to get a guy to stop campaigning. we need him to start governing. we need him to realize that this is one country and the republicans are really patriotic.

the loops just show you you have an incompetent person. it is incumbent since he. host: -- incompetency. host: what you think about this -- -- - host: mccain and others cited several recent attempts that provided details on key national security decisions, including an article chronicling obama's approval of a kill list of terrorist targeted withdrawn attacks. caller: i had a top-secret clearance in the service.

what we ended up doing -- take those two programs to let the iranians know. look back on where obama gave that drone to the iranians so we could go and make the world one thing. my real last comment i have to say is, this treaty, no one is mentioning that the first part of the year, everybody was pushing trade. this treaty of the sea, that is not the most dangerous thing that is happening. all of these politicians, whether they are 1 per cent or not, they are trying to change us. they're trying to make us work under this panel from aruba or wherever it will be. they make us do what ever the un wants. that is terrible. we need to protect americans and allow the jobs to rain, our industry to grow.

let the country do what it does best, which is work out. we were great together. all races, colors, creeds. look at the military. there is nothing holding you back. do we need to do. you need personal responsibility and is president has shown he has no personal responsibility. he is blaming everything from everyone. the good news is, people are awakening. the first big problem are these policemen and retired guys. we get $195,000. thank you. great to talk to you. host: kuwait. stay with me. we want to be a -- let you know that the senate foreign relations has a two part hearing going up on thursday regarding the treaty of the sea. i suggest you stay tuned to keep an eye on our website for coverage details on that coming up on thursday. also, you were saying that you had a top-secret security

clearance when you were in the military? caller: i have an active secret now that is dormant because i am waiting to get into a good position. host: how easy is it for you to get top secret information and pass it onto somebody who does not have the clearance? caller: it is a very big criminal offense. host: i am not saying you did but it is possible that someone who has a top-secret clearance who works outside of the white house could be passing this information to journalists, correct? caller: true. he spoke to 30 past and present white house officials and he is trying to give a smokescreen. it is obvious who did it. it is obvious that it came out of the white house. mccain is correct. the whole problem is obama is trying to shock his base.

he is funding. it is pathetic to watch. host: we are going to leave it there and move on to the weese calling from st. petersburg, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. we would know if -- handle your business. the business of the country is creating jobs. we need them now. thank you. host: in the "baltimore sun" --

host: on the jump page, it goes into detail regarding rosen steam -- rosenstein. host: greensboro, north

carolina. independents. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. first of all, i think that obama is a great president. i think he is trying to be as transparent as he possibly can be. i think everybody wants to blame him for problems that stem from years ago. i am not doubting it did not come from the white house and i am not doubting the fact he would not have it, unlike george bush, when it came to the cia lady who did nothing. obama all will handle it. you have to wonder if everybody is so angry with this man because he is a black man -- one of the most powerful black men in the country. host: why do you think the president would be a part of any kind of leak of this kind of information?

caller: i do not think he would. i think he has people under him who might betray him. they might have killed somebody, not even thinking. i think he will handle the problem. this goes back to george bush. unlike him, and nothing ever happened. everybody wants to jump on obama for this week. host: south carolina. jim is on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: not to take anything away from attorney-general holder, his position represents self-policing, which is a very dangerous thing. i suggest that everybody realizes that self-policing -- that is what holder would be doing.

we need to get some outside of the area altogether. host: what would you suggest from outside the justice department? caller: someone outside of the presidential group. host: who? caller: the voters. host: let me turn you towards a conversation we are having on facebook -- caller: that is nonsense. we need to destroy this administration. we need to replace him. i am not a racist.

i am just sick and tired of the race card. that has nothing to do against this socialist-inclined president. host: the president responded to a question regarding leaks of classified information. he talked about the approach to the situation. this happened yesterday at the white house. [video clip] >> we are dealing with issues that can touch on the safety and security of the american people. our families. or our military personnel or our allies. we do not play with that. it is a source of consistent frustration, not just for my administration, but for previous administrations. we will continue to let everybody know that they have

certain obligations they should care about when in government or when they leave government. i think it has been indicated from these articles weathernow the information they have received is true. the writers of the articles have all stated unequivocably that they did not come from this white house. that is not how we see it. host: the attorney general main prosecutors to investigate leaks coming from somewhere. talking about national security issues. we are talking about it this morning. albuquerque, new mexico. dale on airlines for democrats. caller: good morning. i just want to say that it is inconceivable with the

republicans ascertaining these leaks. they have privilege information. the president has certain members of congress -- what the previous caller was saying about self-policing, that is what had happened through the 9/11 commission. right now, this president is doing a good job. why can we not pass a jobs bill? congress controls the president. if we do have a recovery from jobs, we will not get everything. thank you. host: well we continue our conversations regarding the announcement made last night by the attorney general to name prosecutors to look into the

leaks, we want to look at other items. this is from "of the new york daily news" -- host: the subject of that part of the news conference yesterday is the lead item in the opinion sector in of this morning's "wall street journal" --

host: you can read more of that in "the wall street journal" -- janice. thank you for waiting. caller: i believe people are being completely naive when they believe this has not come from the white house. it is obvious that the president will benefit from this. the gentleman who called republicans demons and doubles, make sure you get to church on sunday. host: before you go, let me run

a tweet by you -- host: will anybody be going to prison? caller: i believe they should. and the people of the u.s. deserve to be protected. you have this guy from the wikileaks and he should be charged with treason and taken out and shot. my son is the military. i feel for the mothers and fathers out there who worry about their children every day. host: where is your son? caller: he is a veteran of the iraq and afghanistan war. host: have you talked to him about this leak situation? caller: i think he is on the

same page as i am. host: mark is on our line for democrats calling from long beach, california. thank you. what are your thoughts about the announcement by the attorney general? caller: it is interesting. i have been listening to the calls and every black collar that has called in this morning has brought up the issue of race. as indicating that people are opposed to obama. because of his race. there is a vile hatred that is coming out of them. it is frightening. i'm a lifelong democrat and i am going to vote against obama simply because of this race for that the democrats are pumping up. this is getting dangerous. host: how do you know the colors are black? caller: you can tell by their voice. host: really? caller: i can tell you are

african-american. host: looking at me on television. let us move on to oregon. our line for independents. caller: good morning. folks honky.ite we have a tendency to talk with a nasally voice. sometimes, deeper voices -- you can tell if it an african- american. anybody that trust politicians is looking for trouble. host: what about the announcement the attorney general made last night that he will assign u.s. attorneys to lead investigations into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information? caller: i think watching the

attorney general during the fast and furious hearings -- he is not too forthcoming. it is amazing how this man who obviously is very intelligent can just not understand the presidents and he takes forever. both him and obama have a tendency to take forever in answering questions or reinvent the wheel for you. i am not -- i understand where you are at, mr. president. tell me what you are going to do. instead, you are lucky if you get answers to your questions. host: when they take their time to answer the questions, you think they are trying to come up with a diversion as opposed to trying to crack caller: a well thought idea -- a well thought

idea? caller: there is not a well thought idea in regard to past and furious. the mexican government was informed about the plan. there are huge differences. i had a very difficult time with his administration and his attorney general because of the history of the health care bill. host: we are going to leave it there. we have a reaction from senate judiciary committee chairman patrick leahy. that cannot last night on the attorney general's appointment of prosecutors to investigate the white house leaks. he says -- host: i am pleased he has picked strong prosecutors for

the investigation. that consultation with a dish. intelligence committees -- host: that to the phones in our conversation regarding the announcement last night that the attorney general will assign u.s. attorneys to investigate unauthorized disclosure of classified information. pennsylvania. jim is on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: help. thanks. sandy berger -- host: let us move on to las vegas, nevada. caller: good morning. i would like to say the republicans are serious because of the leaks. president obama is a serious warrior against al qaeda. they would really like for him

to keep the fact that he killed osama bin laden. that should be secret, as far as the republicans are concerned. in the idea that the president said the private sector is doing fine. he misspoke. he should have said that corporations are doing fine, which if you check with "the wall street journal close court or another agency, you'll find that corporate profits are making more money than ever. they're paying less taxes. they are just not hiring people because they like the situation. they can squeeze every doubled productivity out of the workers and hire only when they have to. that is why we need to have an instructor funded by the fed. host: david las vegas. the lead story in "the los angeles times" -- --

you can read that at latimes.com in the cocoa in new york times" -- host: back to the phones with

our discussion regarding the announcement by eric holder to name prosecutors to look into leaks of unauthorized disclosure of classified information. our line for independences. you are on. caller: hello. i used to be a u.s. -- i had top security clearance. my position was that i could not leak. if i did,-- host: if you were to leak something, presumably would give it to someone under some kind of a secret arrangement. how will someone know you have leaked it? caller: when i worked for the government, i could not leak. if i want to talk to somebody, i had to go through others.

that is a code of ethics violations. i never did that. obama should be indicted. [unintelligible] host: we're going to leave it there. cocoa beach, florida. in the "baltimore sun" --

host: the head table looking at folks that those folks would like to see as the vice president under president a candidate, mitt romney. the winner of a vice presidential straw poll of 500 cpac attendees was not at the conference -- host: hi back to the phones. lexington, ky. everett on our line for republicans.

caller: good morning. i am a republican. i do not disagree with everything that this administration has done. i think it is foolish to think so. host: go ahead. caller: everyone disagrees from the republican side. you cannot possibly think that obama has done everything incorrectly for the country. i am not saying it is a racial issue. they have done a lot of good. host: would you figure brought the return in the general -- would you think about the attorney general appointing prosecutors? caller: i think it was a premature decision. i hope it was the politically motivated. there has to be some answers and everybody will be pushing for

answers and they are doing what they have to do to get in line. i do not believe that president obama is involved in this. host: you say it was premature for the attorney general to make the decision to have these prosecutors? caller: house and was released? -- how soon was this released? yes, it could've been politically motivated host:. it in the "of new york post" -- host: in the "new york post" --

host: columbia, south carolina. pat is on our line for democrats. caller: yes, i am calling. thank you for c-span. i am calling to say that everything they do in congress is ratio. i think it is said they would destroy the whole country to bring down a black man. thank you. host: give me an example of why you think everything is done in congress as racial? caller: nothing ever went on in our country. host: back to the phones again. reno, tennessee. lizzy on our line for

republicans. you are on. caller: hello. my uncle was in the air force. he served from world war ii up to a the called the berlin wall. he would be turning over in his grave at everything that is going on right now. as far as obama goes, i think everybody is a little bit confused about exactly what tracie is. -- racy is. i think he is more of a white person then to call himself an african american for the simple

reason that his father was born in kenya and most african- americans are descendants of the slaves. his ancestors brought the slaves into slavery. host: we are going to leave it there. coming up, a discussion with david limbaugh. the first, we want to show you what speaker boehner had to say at the radio television correspondents association dinner last night. he was talking about himself and other house speakers and how they have performed over the years.

[video clip] >> back in 1952, cameras and microphones were banned in all public areas and public procedures were separated. the there was refusing to do any sunday shows. the like kevin smith? the media plays a largely interests of role on capitol hill. wow. whatever gave him bad idea? thibault keokham along and -- tip o'neill came on. then of course, there was newt. h

he is in a league of his own. making our operation more transparent and accountable is a real priority. pushing a legislative data on line and stuff -- carries moving. you can go live to stream and watch all of my press events at speaker.gov. the microphones and cameras already on. i learned the hard red was september when we were waiting for the president to come and give a conference. i was standing up there with vice president biden and we were talking about goals. thank god. [laughter] anything.e been >> "washington journal"

continues. host: democrat john says that -- david limbaugh gens us this morning. he is the author of "the great destroyer." where did you come up with the title? guest: the president is destroying our economy and our financial integrity. he is undermining our national defense is, our values. clearly, he has an aggressive war against domestic energy. host: you wrote that you believe that obama is heading this nation towards financial catastrophe. that is greatly undermining national the fences. what are some examples of how you believe that the president is destroying the national economy? guest: first, he promised he would keep unemployment below 8% if we implemented his $868 billion stimulus plan.

that surely shot above 8% and remained there almost ever since he did so. he said he would create 3.5 million jobs. he has lost 4.1 million jobs. 7.6 million jobs debt. he has added five trillion dollars to the national debt. soon, six trillion dollars. it has been the rest recovery since world war ii. every other recovery we have had, we have returned label art and employment to where it was. in this case, the recession began in 2007. advance for 2011, we are 4% below where the we started. -- then where we started. we have 99 trillion dollars in

unfunded liabilities. growing at the rate of 10 trillion dollars per year, paul ryan and the republicans have tried to responsibly propose structural entitlement reforms, saying if we do not do something, it will be two or three years that bondholders will have to go the way of greece. the dollar will be devalued. obama will do nothing to join the fight against entitlements. if we don't this something, we will go over the cliff. he stops republicans for doing something well demagoguing them for not doing anything. i can go on and on about this. when timothy geithner was being interrogated by paul ryan, he claimed he stabilize the economy over the next 10 years. you are adding one trillion dollars each year to the debt. astronomical.

unbelievable. unfathomable. that is called stabilization and then at the end of the 10 years, it shoots up. guide to assess yes. he did not deny that ryan's plan brings in insolvency. he said we do not like your plan because the middle class are seniors. ryan said, i beg to differ. we car about specific protections for the middle class, the lower class, and seniors. he presented medicare for those 55 years and older. on and on and on. there are no things but demagoguery. we cannot sustain it. i do not understand how anybody can vote for this guy, given what he is doing. we cannot sustain this. if the republicans just win back both houses of congress, we

cannot stop it because we are on on a pilot. unless you have the president veto or super veto the first majority in both houses, the legislation, we cannot stop it. he will lead to even talk to them. that was all for convenience. host: we want to get you into a conversation with the rest of the country. we will do that by phones. the numbers are on the screen. before we do that, you were talking about the economy . when of your captors is called "the war on the economy." while the economy has finally began to show signs of recovery, it has been too little --

host: a brief response to what guest: you: -- to what guest: you: -- to what you wrote? guest: i did not make that up. the only way i can explain this, where they think any government spending -- here is an example of the extent. unemployment benefits, if you extend them, you create jobs. stay on for chips, create jobs. -- food stamps, create jobs. host: david limbaugh is our "the here the author of great destroyer," a first call is coming in

now. caller: our president has tried to do things for the congress to pass bills, and over 9 million jobs have been started. i know every president has their ups and downs. i do not understand why they cannot comprehend -- [unintelligible] i voted for bush. i voted for reagan. because i liked their views. host: we will leave it there. david limbaugh.

guest: black unemployment is higher than it has been under president obama. he proposes to be taking care of minorities but the lower percentage of income earners is lower than it has been in years. he did not create 9 million jobs. he has lost 4.1 million. there is a net of 7.6 million jobs. this is not personally bashing president obama. it has to do with a disagreement about his policies. host: we want to remind our callers that hit the mute button on your tv because it makes the process work a lot smoother. our next call comes from robert on our line from republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning. the question i want to ask about is --

china and mitt romney [unintelligible] they're flooding the market with cheap products. american problems are not -- products are not getting a chance. guest: i respectfully think it is preposterous to tie mitt romney to solyndra. solyndra it was an problems from the get go. their problem was no chance of working. many people who were looked at, knew they would not work. the administration pressured the omb to make the loan, even though it was not a good bet. once the project was going, the administration pressure the board of solyndra and not to issue a bunch of layoffs. until after the election in november. scandals.

it is estimated we lost $40 million as a result of that new -- them properly telling them to withhold the layoffs. taxpayers lost money because obama illegally subordinated dethe loans to private investors to encourage them to invest. i do not even see if it is such an indirect connection between mitt romney and bain capital, i do not know what the caller is talking about. host: this is bruce calling -- ruth. caller: the entitlement should because that they should be in the form of trade agreements. every time this president goes to a country, they announce another trading partner. that is short for our job is going over there. our corporations are going there.

making a thousand times profit and pay no tax here because they pay minimal text in a foreign country. also, -- thank you. host: david limbaugh/ ? guest: obama has ruled against american businesses from going overseas while creating a possible regulatory tax climate here. he has gone to the companies who have most of the employees overseas and announced that we ought to keep people here. ceo who bed with ge's did not pay any taxes at all and had so much business overseas. all the while railing against companies having jobs overseas. president obama's record about creating american jobs is not

too great. to relax. he was claiming he was streamlining them. he is an escalation at a greater rate than any other president. host: in addition to being the author of this new book, david limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist. he is also a partne at the firm a firm and specializes in entertainment law. john on our line for democrats. c-span2 -- caller: when bill clinton was in, we had peace and prosperity. the that we had 8 years of bush. the country went to complete hell. romney is a point in a lot of people in his cabinet and advisers. the same people with bush. everyone knows you have to cut entitlements. i know that.

have you ever heard the republicans talk about raising taxes or subsidies for the oil companies? both companies are in bed. bush's secretary of treasury you work for goldman sachs. why do you think these people get so much money? so they can control things. it is absurd. the military is comprised of the middle class. that is the way it is. everybody who thinks differently is an immediate -- idiot. guest: the allegation that bush started this is getting old after three years. i think the liberal policy of affordable housing is the primary cause of the financial crisis. obama had his fingerprints all

over that. they sold those in secondary markets. aside from that, we talk about subsidies. we talk about bush's lower taxes. keep in mind that his lower taxes yielded greater revenue. the debt exploded. while the iraq and afghanistan war is raging and the tax cuts were well in effect, the deficits had reduced to $160 billion, which is about one- tenth of what obama's was in fiscal year 2011. it is crazy to say bush caused it and he drove us -- his tax policies and military policies drove us over the brink, financially. in respect of all of that, i wish that democrats and republicans would say, i do not care what happened before. president obama's position

should be, if he wants to blame bush endeavors such responsibilities, he ought to say, bush did all of this. even though i do not believe that. we are in such a precarious situation that i as the leader of the u.s. and going to recommend that we get our finances under control. he says that bush did it. i have an excuse to double down. we're going forward to bankruptcy. i do not understand the excuse. we have to solve that. republicans are the only party that have come close. host: florida. on our line for republicans. you are on. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to make a comment about the quote on the uneasy in economics. they are printing money into an oblivious future that will be driven by inflation. the big issue we have to deal

with this that. guest: you are right. there is a lack of sophistication, economically and a blind ideology. that is the difference between us and the europeans. that you can devalue money. you cannot get something for free. this is not a wholly or monopoly money to. aha i said that obama is an economic illiterate. aha [unintelligible]

their approach to it is government can't respond without infusion of money from the federal government and without government wisdom. so he's always recommending government business partnerships. government academic partnerships in education. he basically says capitalism can't do it by himself. he's always having to rely on government to do it. and i just think if we would allow the free market to breathe and quit smothering the free market and allow it to work we would have a robust recovery. >> we've got a tweet from a person who identifies themselves at evil bastard. >> i don't make this stuff up. >> how long does it take to dig out of the hole bush left us? you've addressed a little bit of this.

under the current economic situation is the responsibility and how much is the responsibility of congress? >> well, they're tied together to some extent but you've got during a certain period a republican congress opposing a democratic president and the opposite. but now we've got the republicans after 2010 after that she will acking you've got democratting in control of the senate and blocking the ryan plan which was passed by the congress and blocking the cap and balance plan. and so they're the ones who are obstructing any reform efforts. you can compare -- and i compare my book the chart between the plans, what bush did and what obama did and obama's plan for recovery versus the ryan plan for recovery. there's no comparesen. obama has no plan. he has deficits out and no entitlement plans are cut.

ryan brings it about in a relatively painless way. so i don't see how we can compare the two. the republican party -- and i'm a conservative more than a republican but the republican party is the best vehicle to bring principles back and economic integrity back and stability. the republican party has done better. the democratting have tried to stop obama and he just dem alberto gonzalez and says the things -- demagogues. so i don't think there's anywhere close to parity between the two. >> the book is called the great destroyer. barack obama's war on the republic. its author david limbaugh is our guest. back to the phones.

new york, indnt, kevin you're on the "washington journal." caller: hello. i am amazed -- thank you for allowing anybody with any clear view -- here's a question. what other president do you know of that from day one he was given this debt? how do you get together and say people are going to destroy this man? in the congress they said they're going to oppose everything that he does including from the debt ceiling to the job ceiling. and then they run the country into the ground and then they say well let's hang it on obama? i notice that every book this man has written has been about how democrats are destroying

everything. how about republicans who refuse even to help the country? guest: well, that doesn't help the country and that's why everything obama is proposing is in furtherance of destroying the country. he just mentioned the jobs bill. obama as we all know asked the $8 billion stimulus bill. astronomical. we couldn't have afforded it especially after tarp. and after it doesn't work, in fact has failed miserably, even that -- i'm not sure how to pronounce the name, the cbo director has said there was a negative effect on g.d.p., so obama says i'm going to double down and do it again. so he proposes infrastructure bills, 50 million. high speed rail. and then he proposes stimulus junior. ie the american jobs act, $447

billion wanting to do the exact same thing that didn't work. here's the secretary treasury under fdr that after eight years of spending more than the government has ever spent we are in astronomical debt and haven't created any jobs. why can't president obama learn like fdr's secretary of the treasury learned. republicans have to oppose him if they care about saving the nation. it's not about obstruction. obama needs to join them. but he just won't. he stedfastly refuses. >> chapter 10 is called the war on america's national security. you write, obama's foreign policy flows from his belief that america has been too nationalistic and arrogant in world affairs. that view explains why he bounces around the world apologizing for our past sins, why he wants to scale down our war on terror believing we

brought ourselves much of the islamist wrath and why he approaches foreign policy in a way that seems maddeningly inconsistent it's why he's obsessed in his way with improving our image around the world. in terms of national security, your thoughts regarding the reported leaks that have been coming out and the attorney general's announcement to investigate those leaks guest: that's very disturbing that we've got these leaks. some people suspect the administration of being guilty of those leaks. i have no idea. i've been buried in these book

interviews. but i can't impute or infer anything about who did it yet. i don't think those facts have come out. but leaks, the administration has been known to leak in various areas so i wouldn't put it past them, on national security issues. but what i said and what you quoted me in the intro of that chapter about obama's approach to foreign policy being inconsistent and inscrutible, i also stand by. host: back to the phones. georgia, amy on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i just am wondering what is all of this outrage and concern during the bush years? bush and his cronies deregulated which led to the 2008 financial crisis. where was all this concern? about getting us into iraq?

they spent billions of dollars. where was this outrage there? i just want to know that. he was being so dishonest intellectually dishonest to outh say obama is the worst thing ever. we were all there. bush created a horrible mess. host: we're going to leave it there. guest: i said it earlier, i'll repeat it just to be clear. i don't believe this led to the mess. i think affordable housing policies led to the mess and liberal policies led to the mess some of which president bush subscribed to. when he did create that if he hadn't the drabts would have created a more wasteful program. i talk about that in the earlier book. but i would also reiterate it

was not bush's wars that led us over the financial brink. we had a growing economy, we had $161 billion in debt it wasn't until the housing market exploded that his deficits went up. his deficits averaged way lower than president obama. this nonsense about comparing bush's debt with obama is prposs truss. again, i show the chart bush deficits versus obama deficits. there's no comparison. and obama is not making any effort to hold his down. none. even in his own plan where he goes to the chalkboard and in a perfect world he tells us what he is going to do. he doesn't aspire to balance the budget. he doesn't aspire to get the deficits lower than $700 billion a year. almost $1 trillion a year the cbo says. and he says i'm not adding a dollar to the national debt. we're no more -- we're not going to rack up our credit

card debt any more the same week presuming the debt that he is going to grow $10 trillion in the next years. he is he confused about debt versus deficit or is he just trying to blow smoke and deceive the people? but the facts that he presented incriminate him. it's mind blowing to me. guest: i don't think there's been a lot of entitlement reform in the last however long. so i'm not going to exonerate anyone for entitlement reform for the record on entitlements. but these are all liberal ideas and liberal projects. conservatives want to cut these back not because we have no compassion. it's precisely because we do. we've got to bring these programs to structure that is sustainable. we believe in a safety net

except for pure libertarians. we want to protect those who can't help themselves but we don't want to expand the dependency class and ruin the work ethic in the united states, ruin individualism. and that's what obama is doing. since he's been elected we have gone from 46% people not paying income tax to 49.5. it has sky roberted in the charts which i have. and the food stamp program. the charts on food stamps go vertical too. president obama has expanded this program and they've even incentivized certain states to put more people on the rolls and give them a reward for doing it. this is not the way to savelage america and get people back to work and get the economy moving again. >> we've got about another 15 minutes with david limbaugh.

rack obama's war on the republic. our next call from california. caller: good morning. first off if it wasn't for leaks, we wouldn't know how criminal our government is. and that's a good thing. obama's a traitor and a war criminal so is bush and beyond that. but let me tell you. all our money and the deficit will never be solved -- if we stop giving -- host: let's stop you right there and go back to a your comment about the president being a war criminal. guest: he took us into iraq and afghanistan. now israel. they're trying to go against syria. all these wars fighting for israel. guest: that sounds more like --

that's so ridiculous i can't even respond to that. host: let's move on to baltimore, maryland. caller: good morning. i find it amazing how the republicans -- now, i agree with you on the entitlement spending i do. i know it can't be sustained on the course it's on right now. but my argument with that is the republicans are quick to want to cut entitlement spending but yet i don't see them have the -- to break up these too big to fail banks. i don't understand why republicans have the same [inaudible]

as they do want to control entitlement spending. two, eight years with reagan, four years of bush 41. eight years of bush 43. neither one -- [inaudible] yet this is all the sputs and tax breaks -- spending can you tell us and tax breaks. i don't see how you can be saving and tax breaks when all three presidencies have been republican in my lifetime all of them ran debts. guest: no question about it. but reagan tried to cut government spending. he was up against a democratic congress. his tax cuts nearly doubled revenues in 10 years. so it's not about the tax cuts do not cost revenue. even in actual dollars he

increased revenues with his tax cuts. when newt got in there in the 86 congress they stopped clinton from his spending. clinton cannot pretend -- you look at his deficits in the early part of his term they went off the charts. he too didn't aspire to lower deficits. he ended up they fell in his lap after the republicans fossed him to be more austere and now he mass cradse as the president of surplus. but regardless, this isn't about criticizing presidents and keeping score. this is about the future. president bush spent too much domestically in my opinion too. but this is about what do we do now? we are not kids. we are in this mess and we don't say you did it. i don't care who did it. if some democrat would come along and adopt paul ryan's plan and could get a bipartisan group of people to agree in

blood to do it i would support him. this is about my kids' future. we cannot give bequitesdz them an america with robust liberty and prosperity like our parents if we don't do something in this short window of time the restructure entitlements and to get our discretionary spending under control. it's that simple. besides the fact that the banks -- that's a red herring. the democrats got their way on dodd frank and i talk about dodd frank in the introduction. it's a boon doggle, it's a corrupt monstrocity that could be bad for financial industry as obama care is for the health care industry. it will give unprecedented authority to an unaccountable board that doesn't even have to answer congress about its budget it answers to the federal reserve. the people have no way to keep these accountable. and it's not breaking banks up

but it can. banks are growing bigger under dodd frank and get back to where they were. but that's obama's solution. we're going to be in trouble because they can go in and break banks up and it's not is even subject to judicial review if it transpires a certain way if the courts keep it for 24 hours. i discuss all that. but we're getting away from legislative accountability del gating more authority to un accountable administrative agencies. let's not scapegoat these financial institutions. it's our policies that have caused this it's our spending and it is our entitlements. we're not going to solve this with the banks. we're going to solve this by restructuring entitlements. >> host: the folks have been meeting in chicago for the first conservative political action conference. they had a straw poll of 520 of those attendees and the winner

of the straw poll they were looking, they were gauging who would be the best running mate for governor george romney. marco rubio was the favorite with 30% followed by new jersey governor chris christie 14%, wisconsin representative paul ryan 9%, senator rand paul 8% your thoughts about the poll and who would you pick to be the number two? guest: i don't put much stock in pols but i love rubio. i love jindle, i love paul ryan. and so any of those would be just i would be very happy with any of those. there's a lot of factors that go -- i'm not a political strategist. the political strategists have to analyze who would be best and help the ticket the most. i just want someone who is relieably conservative. we haven't got ton that point yet where we've gotten down to narrow it but i think the three names i mentioned are relieably

conservative and i think they would help the ticket but i haven't seen analyses of it and people that know more than i do will make those decisions. host: the book is called the great destroyer. david limbaugh is our guest for about another 7 minutes. california, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i want to establish that this guest of yours is a charter member of the lunatic fringe of the republican party. absolutely unbelievable. i mean, what we are living through in america today is the last days of 30 years of the lunesy of reagan onics. tax cuts for the rich, that's all these people want to talk about and we see what has happened jobs have gone overseas, our banking system is

a joke because we allow them to do everything that they want to do. not what needs to be done. we bailed them out. they have done nothing to help this country whatsoever. they're sitting on $4 trillion that's corporations are sitting on $4 trillion waiting for some republican idea log that comes along. guest: tax cuts for the rich. thanks for reminding me about that vile charge that president obama keeps making. these aren't tax cuts for the rich. they're tax cuts across the board which were skewed more in favor of the lower income groups. president reagan's were across the board income tax can you tell us 25%. we had robust growth. i repeat other things being equal tax cuts do not result in lower revenue. so that's not what caused us to catapult into bankruptcy. it is the spending that won't stop and the proposed spnding that won't stop.

it's class waffer that's got to stop. obama talking about the buffett rule. saying that billionaires and millionaires don't pay enough taxes. they do pay taxes. they almost pay 30% now. got a chart in the book. they almost pay what obama is proposing. and to the extent that they don't it's because they've got lawful deductions, charityible deductions. they have dividend income or capital gains if they're not supposed to pay that kind of rate on. but for him to demonize them and the private jet industry when they got a deduction that he subscribed to and they originally got their deduction because after 9/11 the aviation industry was hurting. the deduction was not to put money into the pockets of rich people. it was to stimulate the aviation industry and it worked. and now obama has them costing jobs also that he can demonize the so-called rich and capitalize politically. host: you talked about the money that we want into the

aviation industry after 9/11. guest: no the tax breaks. host: compare that to the situation in detroit and the auto industry and the money that went in there. is there a comparison to be made? guest: no. because there's no money injected into the aviation industry. there's just tax breaks, tax incentives. to incentivize the industry back into growth. and it worked. people -- people clearly forget that these policies worked. the same thing with -- host: could it be said that the money that was put into the auto industry brought it back? guest: no. if you look in the book we had losses as a result. we would have been much better off. and by the way, another thing president obama always applies group and identity politics and brings -- there's reports that he preserved certain auto dealers because of their minority status and because of

their gender. dealerships that were run by minorities and females were more likely to be preserved than those otherwise. and that's not the way the rule of law dictates that government operate in the united states. host: next call for david limbaugh comes from new york city. caller: i'm so glad that someone finally wrote a book that's saying the truth about what's going on. all this stupid liberal media keeps on covering and making him look like a hero. because he's destroyed the middle class. he wasooking, all he does is make taxes, taxes, taxes, on the middle class and it goes to the poor. he doesn't defend the middle class. he destroyed it. guest: that's a very good point. he promised he wouldn't raise taxes on those earning $250,000 or more and he's broken that pledge a number of times especially in obama care.

there's 17 new taxes in obama care. and he's making it much harder. not to mention destroying the economy unemployment being consistently higher than it's been in years for -- the state of our economy now is hitting hardest the middle and lowest classes as i mentioned earlier, especially minorities. host: our last call from arizona. go ahead. caller: good morning. i was wondering about when obama was talking about the health care it was all going to be on c-span and all open cameras and all that and he took all those insurance people into the back room and for a ride on his plane. but my doctor and my -- they are scared to death of this health care bill.

what's what happened to the c-span cameras and all the rules that we're supposed to watch this on tv and he took it all behind closed doors? guest: in fact, they was called for the debates being on c-span brome promised he would do it. he broke that promise bud he even said the debates have been on tv he was talking about congressional debate but he clearly broke that promise and everyone knew it and he finally admitted and kind of laughed about it. but obama care has been a pack of broken promises and lies, promised more people would have coverage. they have less now. he promised people could keep their own health care policies. i point out something like 30% of employers are the only ones who are going to keep their plan. it's going to interfere with the patient-drr relationship. doctors are leaving the

practice. many are going to retire in 5 years. some 4 % in run -- 43% in one specialty. doctors are recommending that other people don't go into the profession. it's a nightmare unfolding. so -- and by the way, the cost curve was not bent downwards, the costs have more than doubled. we've already seen that. host: david limbaugh has been our guest. thank you very much. guest: thanks for having me. host: next up on the "washington journal," progressive and online active vism. then later in the program, electronic health records. we want to remind our viewers and listeners that on "newsmakers" this week, a look at the 969 billion dollar bill that's expected to be debated next week in the senate. our guests are agriculture

committee chairman debbie stab now and ranking member senator pat roberts of kansas. you can see the entire interview with senator stab now and roberts on sunday. could you address these amendments and why it's important for farmers to get this subsidy? >> well, first of all this is insurance. we are eliminating four subsidies. and we are saving within the commodity title over $15 billion.

15 plus billion dollars real cuts. and moving to a system where farmers get a federal discount so they can help them purchase their insurance. they're not getting money in their pockets. it's a partnership. they're getting helped by insurance. and they only receive the help if they have a loss. so if they've got a weather disaster or other kinds of disasters that qualifies, they get help. but this is not a subsidy. this is a discount on crop insurance to help them be able to buy coverage. so they've got skin in the game. the other four subsidies, no. this is out of pocket money for the farmers as well. and i would argue it's exactly where taxpayers would want it to go. there is no payouts unless there's a loss and it's to cover the loss. and so i hope that we will stay true to what we heard from

farmers all across this country during our process of putting together the farm bill. but if they're willing to give up four different subsidies that's -- they were subsidies cuts being given. if we would support them, partner with them, crop insurance to make sure they're covered if there's a loss and to me that's a fair deal. host: joining us is raven brooks, the executive director about how online outlooks like social media sites are being used to promote the progressive agenda and how social media and the web are mobilizing for this year's election. welcome to the program. guest: thanks for having me on . host: tell us, what is netted roots nation and what is its mission? guest: so net roots nation is a large annual gathering of people working in progressive

politics on line to kind of like the family reunion for the left. we have 70 panels this weekend, 30 training sessions, keynote speakers like elizabeth warren, eric sniderman was up on thursday night. and there's a lot of strategizing about what people are going to work on for the next year. host: and in an article that we picked up from the ap written by steven peoples who is also up there in providence, he writes that they're trying to be hopeful that the democratic party's most passionate voters are hoping to hide their frussstration with president obama.

is that right? guest: well, i think a lot of it is a little overblown with people looking to create division. the job of an activist is always going to be to push whoever is in power, whether it's obama or another president to enact the most progressive policies possible. and to that end, obama certainly accomplished a whole lot in his first term. there's a lot of areas where he could have been stronger. but that's really the charge of an activist is to keep pushing there. host: in u.s.a. today they chronical the story of jane betenson who is a retired home maker from washington and is right at home among the bloggers, activists and net roots nation and she's quoted as saying regarding the president i thought he was more to the left than he is.

is that generally the feeling that they support the president because there's nothing better? guest: i think that people realize that in order to get progressive politics enacted you need a friendly president, you need majorities in congress. you're certainly not going to make any of these advances with the pt romney or speaker boehner or a leader mcconnell. so you have to do the hard work during an election cycle to ensure that those majorities are attained and obama is reelected and then it's time to go to work as soon as the election is over to get some good things past. host: we're talking with raven brooks executive director of net roots nation talking to us from rhode island talking about progressives and online act vism and if you would like to get involved please give us a

call. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. we look forward to reading some of your earn mail as we will. tell us how in your thoughts, your opinions how has online activism progressed through the two election cycles that we've had so far? guest: well, it's really grown a whole lot. it was pioneered back under howard dean and then barack obama really refined it in the 2008 election to where you were really seeing a lot of stuff integrated. some of the really interesting stuff that's happening in this election cycle is you're seeing

a lot of money being spent on digital advertising. there wasn't really spent in 2008. that was a lot more tv heavy. you're also seeing obama's team work a whole lot with data so they have a very tight operation where they're looking at roto rolls and volunteers are bringing back from knocking on doors and making calls and making very intelligent and informed decisions in a realtime fashion with data. host: is there a chance that we'll see more of the focus on social media especially facebook, twitter, that folks who don't have access to those social media or quite frankly people older folks don't feel like dealing with it that they're going to get shut out of the process or does the social media allow the elect roll process to grow?

guest: i think it allows it to grow. no campaign is going to write off the traditional stuff they've been doing for decades where it's doing advertising on tv, doing traditional field stuff just good old-fashioned knocking on doors. but what it allows you to do is to break through to one new audiences because a lot of the younger folks are hanging out here exclusively or getting their news from those kinesd of places or allows you to break through kind of the gates that are out there and get your message out. if you're a scrappier candidate that can't afford big media buys, you can tell your story directly right on the web and hopefully generate support for your candidacy. host: we're talking with raven brooks executive director of net roots nation coming to us live from rhode island. our first call this morning comes from little rock, arkansas. james on our line for

democrats. caller: i would like to direct this question to you also. what i really noticed is you have a personal agenda against the president against president obama. what's the deal? you're going to come out and make statements directed toward the health care bill and people have clearly [inaudible] negative against president obama. do you have the confidence of a black man that you've got to get on there and go out of your way to criticize president obama? host: james, is that directed at me or our guest? let's move on to florida. nelson on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm here at the beginning mr.

brooks said about [inaudible] i would like mr. brooks he is wrong on his comments that just proves and name which of those that he is in favor of that mr. obama has achieved. guest: i think the question is what has obama achieved. well, he certainly has pulled the economy back from the brink. i mean, i think that where it progresses people feel there should have been a greater push in some areas. one example of that is getting some additional money to float a budget which would have led to less layoffs at the state level. but it's unquestionable that he has pulled the economy back from the breenching. we're not back to where we need to be yet but we're not in the

middle of a depression. obama care for some of its flaws is a big deal. the fact that younger folks can stay on their parents' insurance until they're 25, 26. that you can't be denied for preexisting condition. that if you get cancer you can't get kicked off, there's a lifetime limit or something like that. or if your child gets an illness from birth. those things are all a big deal. the stuff that he has done for women by signing the lily led better act is one of the first acts of his presidency. ending the wars. you know, doing things for the lbgt community are all big deals. host: our next call from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. thank you for take mig call. i have a question for your guest. we hear the term progressive

used in different ways. my question is this. what exactly are you progressing toward? what is the end game? progress by itself isn't necessarily good if you're marching down the wrong path. so what specifically are your hopes in progressing toward? guest: well, i would say that probably the easiest way to sum it up is to say that we want to progress towards a more fair and just society. where everyone truly does have an equal opportunity. people aren't discriminated against. and we have economic prosperity. i mean, just as one small example of that is the income disparity between men and women. right now, women on average make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. so one step of that progress is to ensure that just because of

your gender you're not overall as a lifetime making less than someone else. host: we've got a tweet. what kind of a message do you take away from that survival of the recall vote? guest: well, i'm not personally really all that concerned about wisconsin. we did -- there is good news it doesn't get as much reporting there which is that we did take back the senate which is going to really limit walker's ability to do much of anything until after the november elections when we have to do it all again. but recalls are kind of a funny beast whether or not people agree or disagree with walker there's always a sense among plurality of people in any

state that the guy was elected, elections have consequences. he hasn't done anything technically illegal and he should be given the shot to finish out his term and there's plenty of people that hold that opinion that are democrats in the state that are union members in the state. and that's i think part of the reason why the recall ultimately failed. host: back do if phones. st. louis, missouri. caller: what i wanted to say was that i believe that the democratic party just doesn't know how to get out the message. we don't rally, we don't act like the tea party. if we do anything, the news just kind of downplays it. demonizes it. and i don't know the statement that all the news is liberal is falls. you listen to cnn? do you listen to wolf blitzer? do you list ton candy crowelly?

i'm just so disappointed in our organization. host: hold on for a second. i want raven brooks to answer that question and then we'll get back to you with a followup. guest: well, i would agree with you. i think that when you have democrats that are giving strong populous messages it does resonate and probably the best example of that in this campaign cycle would be elizabeth warren. she is out there, she's unapoll jestically progress jive. she's talking about a populous message and it's resonating with people. and i think as activists you mention the tea party going to town halls. i think it's really important that when your elected representatives are hosting things like that that people come out in mass and make their voice heard and whether they say thank you for supportsing

this or pushing someone to support something it's important. host: are you still with us? caller: yes. host: have you used any social media to try to find out about events that are going on in your area where democrats are gathering or rallying or have you ever seen anything on line regarding net rooths nation or getting involved with that? caller: i'm 66 years old and i'm not an online person. it's what you said about how older people aren't on line. i have gone to rallies will, locally. it's just -- i am so disappointed. i just don't understand it. host: so how do you make that leap, close that age gap and keep liberals or progressives

who are a little bit older in the fold if they're not on line? guest: well, i think it's really the responsibility of organizations that are advocating for various issues whether it's lbgt stuff, women's rights, economic justice, social and racial, this kind of thing. for them to constantly be trying to reach a disparate group of people. so they will have outreach strategies for older people, they'll have outreach strategies for specific communities. they'll have outreach strategies in social media. and they need to be able to reach all the different people where they call them, where they're home and be able to give them messages that move them to action. host: we've got a chart here from marketer.com.

this shows internet users who access their twitter or facebook account at least once per month. and there has been a steady growth as you can see in the facebook and the twitter use, although the facebook users are up by about 5-1. when as progressives when you're setting out to move your agenda or to work on behalf of your various candidates and issues, do you look at things like this to figure out where you're going to target your message and how you're going to get your message out? guest: definitely. you want to work globally at statistically like but you want to look specifically at the populations that you're trying to reach. for example, there's a lot of

statistics that show if you're trying to reach primarily an african american audience for example, that they very heavily use twitter. so that would definitely be something that you want to have in your toole box to reach out to people. foosm really across the board remains the best place to get people and also if you're able to connect that to your systems you can pull in a lot of data about folks. but people are on there for their personal lives and they're also willing to get information about causes and candidates and issues there as well. back to the phones. i am old enough to remember where people like elizabeth

warren and them when they belonged to the commubist party. and that's scared people. so they then changed and went to progressive. and i just wanted the people to realize that they were the communist party in the back in the 60's and the early 70's. i remember it very well. i remember elizabeth warren very well. running around with her castro t shirts. host: we're going to leave it there. tell us about the difference between progressives and communists and are you guys selling t shirts out there this weekend? guest: first, i think that elizabeth warren was probably i don't know her exact age but probably in her early childhood years in the 60s. but this is kind of a traditional thing that happens is everyone tries to do this red baiting stuff.

when it comes to those on the left. it's not about that. it's about creating a fair and just society. that used to define what the american dream is. but i think some people have forgotten that. so that's basically i think the deal. host: we've got part of the conversation on facebook. your thoughts. guest: i think that liberals are out there putting out facts. if there's any criticism, it's that we need to more often

speak to people's emotions and to their guts than to their heads. that's one thing that conservatives do very well is they kind of have an intuition as to something that just feels right and facts aren't as important because they often aren't on their side. host: the aflcio president is participating in a panel today. guest: he should be on here pretty soon. host: tell us more about what's going on and how folks who are not in providence this weekend can access the information that you all are putting out and watch some of the activities that you are involved in. guest: sure. so we're streaming live on the internet a lot of our content today. all you have to do to find is go to net rooths nation.org and you'll find links there. some of the things coming up this morning starting out pretty soon here is an economic

keynote featuring various speakers. i think that's going to be interesting because we'll be talking about assuming that obama wins in november, what are we going to do to get this economy back on track? during the lunchtime hour we have another session that's going to be on the criminal justice issues out there a lot of people are probably tuned in and read and watched a lot of things on troy davis and some of the police brutality directed at the occupiers around the country. so we'll be talking about how that is an issue that we should all be fighting for and how it's becoming an impedment to building progressive power as well.

host: you've also got the president taped presentation tonight as well. correct? guest: yes. so that will be live streamed and then we'll also be posting that on our site so people can watch it later. host: what do you expect the president to say? what do you want him to say to try to appeal to the progressives who say they support the president may not be as enthusiastic as they were four years ago? guest: i think what the campaign needs to do is when you're running an election you have this process of you need to check all the boxes of your base. i think that what he needs to say is just enough to get people to when you come back and work just as hard in the election. i think most people are there. i've seen some preliminary results about the straw poll and the majority of people are focusing on the presidential race as their highest priority

but it's something that needs to be done. people need to hear him ask for their help and to sort of be out there november knocking on doors and making calls donating money. host: we've got about another 20 minutes left in this segment with raven brooks, executive director. he is also the cofounder of buy blue.org encouraging consumers to vote with their wallets. back to the phones. new york katherine on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm just wondering, why is it that you want to progress this country? i think this country has progressed a lot in 200 years. if you want to see a

progressive country watch greece, because greece, i am greek that's why i want you to realize what is going on there. so three quarters of that country work for the government. ok? and one third pay taxes. guess what happens. a what do you see now? because they couldn't take -- they take the money and -- [inaudible] so they have nothing. that's the progress you wanted to bring to this country? i don't think so. you're on the very wrong road. so if you like that way, like greece, you can move there, too. host: your response. guest: well that's not the kind of progress we're talking about here. i mean, just a couple of things in response. first of all, what's going on in greece really is an example

that should open everyone's eyes of bankers run amuck. and they're basically destroying that country as part of the game that they played to turn a few bucks here and there. and that's something that could easily happen in other parts of the world. and secondly, no one is talking about ensuring that everyone works for the government. what we're talking about is creating jobs right here in america, bringing the manufacturing sector back and ensuring that america continues to lead in to the 21st century as an innovator and as an economic power. host: earlier this week, republican congressional leadership called for one-year extension of the bush tax cuts. we're going to show what house speaker boehner had to say about that and then on the back side get raven brooks' reaction about whether or not progressives are being supported of that. >> mr. president, i used to run

a small business and take it from me the private sector is not doing well. listen, the american people are still asking the question where are the jobs? stopping the looming tax hikes will help job creators because they'll have more certainty about what the tax rates will be and help create a better environment for them to create jobs. we're going to vote next month on extending all of the current tax rates and the president should assure the nation that when this bill gets to his desk he'll sign it into law. host: your thoughts? guest: well, speaker boehner is completely off base here basically. it's been proven time and time again that it's supported by numerous economists, people that are won noble prizes that are respected in their field that tax cuts do not create jobs.

what creates jobs is in a time of a recession is spending. and that's infrastructure spending you can create jobs by putting people to work building this country's infrastructure. you can create jobs by ensuring that state governments don't go under therefore laying people off. it's spending is what does it. and -- tax cuts have never created jobs. they don't create jobs for the wealthy. there was even a very interesting talk that was controversial on the subject that was from someone who has surveyed quite a few businesses, and he basically said the big secret is, you know, those of us like myself that are wealthy, tax cuts don't create jobs. we don't buy 400,000 win thes whenever, you know, we have money. we're buying the same thing that someone making minimum

wage is buying. >> welcome to the "washington journal." caller: hello. thank you. how are you doing today? host: your thoughts, questions, or comments for the executive director of net nation. caller: well, i have a question for, if we talking about referral and getting some things back online the way they used to be back in the 1970's, the steel mills, you know, when we had economy really there, you know, everything went overseas. they talking about trying to get back to the united states. it was like myself that's unemployed, been unemployed now for over three years, still trying to work and can't find

nothing, and you talking about the healthcare referral. i don't have any healthcare at all, my family either. host: raven brooks? guest: well, i would say getting jobs back is absolutely the first priority at this point, and it does need, you know, some aggressive tactics there. i mean, you know, getting manufacturing capacity in this country back is vitally important. not only because it creates the kind of jobs that allow you to -- you have a major, let's say, world war ii-style conflict, we don't even have the ability to manufacture anything anymore. china makes all of our stuff, and it's not just low tech

things. it's all of our stuff. host: we have a conversation on facebook, funny that the grasp of the facts would be questioned. death panels, phony birth certificates, voter fraud, 90% of what planned parenthood does is abortion, stimulus failed, obama apology tour, affordable care act was the government takeover of healthcare, and many more falsehoods are standard republican talking points. all phony. raven brooks, your thoughts? guest: well, i guess we can just tick off the list here. death panels don't exist. that's republican fear mongering. the birth certificate thing is, frankly, laughable. it might have been something that was a tactic possibly in the 2008 election, but it's based on racism and it's laughable that it's even coming up at all here in this cycle.

there are so many, you know, kind of things out there, so much is racially based to kind of charge up and view a new century version of a strategy. it's, frankly, ridiculous, and it's something that i don't think we should be tolerating as a country today. host: we've got a tweet from joseph, who wants to know, mr. brooks, did the head of c.b.o. recently say that the obama administration stimulus measures worked? guest: i'm not aware of them saying anything. you tell me. i think the stimulus was effective. i think it could have been effective -- more effective in certain ways, but, you know, the fact of the matter is, we were on a serious decline. i'm sure that a lot of people have seen a chart that shows job losses during the bush administration and how they've

been reduced and come back under the obama administration, and that's due to the stimulus. it's not due to some natural recovery, who would have done nothing -- you know, there would be many, many more people out of work right now. >> back to the phones. texas, jim on our line for republicans. jim, you're on the "washington journal" with raven brooks, executive director of netroots nation. caller: good morning. i have two questions. i hope you can answer the first question, then i'll ask the second one. they get paid, according to what they need. but don't you see that some people have greater abilities, and then i have a second question. host: raven brooks, go ahead and answer his first question.

guest: well, i'm not sure that anyone is talking about wage equalization or anything like that. i think that what progressives would like to do is ensure that , you know, you can make a living wage by putting in a hard day's work. right now, if you look at -- there's an interesting chart that i want to say mother jones came out with that showed how many minimum wage jobs you would have to have to afford a two-bed room apartment in cities around the country. you know, in most cases, it's well beyond, you know, two jobs. so, if you think about that, that means that a family that, you know, may not have highly skilled workers, they might just be high school graduates, they might be lower income folks, they can't get by, and that's really the problem.

so we need to raise the floor. everybody shouldn't be a race to the bottom. host: jim, what was your second question? caller: mr. brooks, you've said a couple of times how productivity in america has fallen. i actually believe that productivity is higher now than it's ever been. it just doesn't require as many people. there are industries such as the oil and gas industry where we could have a real boom right now, but there's environmental regulations. wouldn't you like to see some of those obstacles to grow up in the industry? guest: i don't think that, first of all, the oil and gas industry is an industry i would like to see grow. i would like to see it shrink. i think the industry, in terms

of energy, that needs to grow are solar, wind, and other alternative fuels, because when it comes down to it, a lot of our problems from a foreign policy perspective stem from the fact that, you know, there's a vital research that we need to power the engine of america, and it's not generally found in our country. it's found in the middle east. in terms of overall productivity, certain things like innovations have increased productivity, but the problem is that certain industries, you know, in whole or in part have moved to other places in the world. we've lost manufacturing, we've lost a lot of other things because of, you know, lack of wage laws, lack of environmental regulations, lack of any kind of labor union presidents, and it allows us to get cheap stuff, but it's causing us to have poor quality

jobs, and it's going to create problems with us remaining competitive in this century. >> i want to get your response to an item that we got from reuters. can occupy wall street survive? they write, the movement's survival and continued relevance is far from assured. donations to the flagship new york chapter have slowed to a trickle. polls show that support is rapidly waning. media attention has dropped precipitously. while the movement's signature triumph has been to draw worldwide attention to income inequality in america and elsewhere, some who are sympathetic say it has nevertheless failed a crucial test of social movements -- the ability to adapt and grow through changing tactics. raven brooks, your thoughts on that? guest: well, i would say that occupy has been largely successful already, as you said, with putting income inequality on the map. we were just, a little over a year ago at this time, the talk

was nothing but deficit across the country. now our political leaders are talking about income inequality , obama saying it, and the policies that he's trying to propose are working toward that. so from that respect, occupy has been successful. whether they'll continue to have a role does ultimately depend on if they can find a new way to plug in and continue to move the debate forward. because it's not simply -- what's needed now is not simply getting people talking about it, it's actually taking action. so there have been some efforts , an example is occupy homes, which is trying to prevent foreclosures. there's some interesting projects out there that stem from occupy that have potential, but nothing's really been a home run hit yet or anything. host: minnesota, tom on our line for independents. good morning, tom.

caller: good morning. my question is for the gentleman. a little while back, he was talking -- he had a call from somebody from greece, and he said that -- his response to that person was that he wanted to bring jobs back to the united states, and then when he had boehner talking about tax cuts creating jobs, he disagreed with that. so, i'm assuming that he thinks that taxes should be high on businesses or that they should be increased, and how can he say that? he thinks that situation would bring jobs back to the united states? if i'm overseas and i have a job, and you're going tax me, from here, you're going to raise my taxes, why do you think i won't go somewhere else where the taxes are going to be less? host: raven brooks? guest: because taxes are not the only consideration. many of the major corporations

that are here pay effectively zero percent in taxes. i mean, massive, huge companies like g.e., and those companies benefit from all the infrastructure that the rest of us are paying for. you know, they benefit from roads, from air force to fly people around, from a national defense that keeps the economy stable. so there is a problem with them paying their fair share. now, with respect to bringing jobs back and bringing industries back, what you have to talk about there is us actually implementing an industrial policy like many other nations around the world have. some of the more prosperous countries, like germany, have very industrious policies that give incentives to bills in the country and they create

disincentives for businesses to do business elsewhere. you know, one example of something that happened in our country along that line is obama, early into his term, started working on alternative energy batteries. you know, we had something, when he took off, like 3% or 4% world market share on those. and he put several policies in place to encourage their production and to fund research and development and to make sure that we were competitive, and now we have something like 45% of the market share for those alternative energy batteries for things that are in hybrid vehicles. and if you think about what impact that could have across our entire economy, if we took that same approach, it would be huge and dramatic and would really lead to decades of prosperity here. host: our next call comes from la plata, maryland, susan on our line for democrats. go ahead, susan.

caller: good morning. i'd like to make two quick comments, please. as a registered nurse and a moderate democrat, i would like to say the affordable care act would have helped me five years ago when i had my son. at 3 weeks of age, he was admitted for a week into the hospital for a metabolic disease. came to find out he was allergic to milk and he had to have a special formula. the insurance company, which i have had been with and been employed for the past 10 years, said that we would not help me pay for the expensive formula that he needed, and if i could not afford it, he would have ended up back into the hospital. he also has a preexisting disease, and i used to have a certificate every time if i had to change insurance companies. i think the affordable care act was great with that. the moderate part of me says that there is an -- and i see this firsthand, an increase in suburban and middle-class young people that are becoming addicted to heroin and prescription drugs. they are also becoming addicted to being on the rolls as far as

being taken care of by the government. they're having a lot of kids without being married. and i think that the republicans need to also look at that and see how the middle class children are becoming more addicted to drugs and to the social welfare nets that we have. host: raven brooks, any thoughts on what susan in la plata had to say? guest: well, i absolutely agree that the affordable care act is vitally important for exactly the reasons that she expressed. i mean, this is what it means to families around the country, that if they have a child who's sick, they don't need to go bankrupt to care for that child. if they have something like a heart attack or get cancer, they don't have to, you know, sell their home in order to get well. and the things like the preexisting condition exemptions are really important. i've personally had several friends that, you know, had

preexisting conditions, and they would be really kind of locked into certain jobs, because they would be able to get insurance somewhere, but then if they left, they probably wouldn't be able to get insurance anywhere else. so it really creates problems for them with how they advance in their careers and what risks and they take as entrepreneurs. as far as the, you know, middle-class kids go, i'm not sure i've really seen that. i mean, certainly, you know, kids experiment with drugs and whatever. i'm not sure that it's an epidemic that merits some kind of a massive government intervention there. and i'm also not really seeing, you know, abuse of, you know, social benefits or anything like that. i think that tends to be a common charge that people level when they're trying to dismantle those programs, but in practice, there's never really been any evidence that there's a lot of waste, fraud,

or abuse that needs to be rooted out. host: our last call for raven brooks, executive director of netroots nation, comes from oak ridge, tennessee. sue on our line for republicans. caller: yes, the whole state kept a secret, we didn't like anything during world war ii. we kept the bomb a secret. people should learn from that. but it's a progressive idea that we have to make everybody equal. people are not equal. that is what is destroying us. we are spending the majority of our money on kids that will never, ever hold a job, when other countries put their kids into categories, who can be an engineer, who can be a doctor, who can be this, and try to get the most excellence from those students rather than dragging everybody down and making everybody equal. that's the progressive way. i'm glad one woman finally admitted she's a communist and people need to be aware of her record, now that she's running

for office. you know, it stands out. you can't hide. well, i guess you can hide from the media because they're not going to bring up anything about a democrat, but they'll go through the garbage like they did that michelle. thank you. host: oak ridge, tennessee. raven brooks, you've got the last word. guest: well, i would just say that i feel like i fundamentally disagree with the caller on whether or not we should strive for equality. i mean, i think that's the start of what the founders, you know, wrote into the constitution. i think that if you look at the history of how the constitution has been amended, it's always been towards greater equality, whether that's been giving women the right to vote, whether that's been things like the civil rights act, and that's the path that we have to continue down, because someone does not deserve to be discriminated against in our

society based on some immutable characteristic that we have, like the fact that we were born as a woman versus a man, or that the color of their skin is darker or their sexual orientation or something like that. if it's something that's not changeable, that's not, you know, fairgrounds to discriminate. host: we've been talking with raven brooks, who's up in providence, rhode island, this weekend for the netroots nation gathering. he is the executive director of netroots nation. you can follow them online at netrootsnation.org. raven brooks, thanks for being on the "washington journal." guest: thanks for having me. i appreciate it. host: coming up after the break -- donald lindbergh of the national institutes of health joins us to discuss the national effort to compile electronic health records. you're watching the "washington journal." today is saturday, june 9. we'll be right back.

>> here's a look at books that are being published this week. nationally syndicated radio host glenn beck argues that several issues are not getting the attention they need by politicians and the media in "cowards: what politicians, rad caleds, and meet i can't refuse to say." in "twilight of the elites: america after meritocracy," christopher hayes, editor of "the nation," analyzes why the public has developed such a

distrust of authority. author rebecca stott discounts the history of evolution and the philosophers that paved the way for darwin's theory in "darwin's ghosts: the secret history of evolution." in "the obamaians: the struggle inside the white house to redefine american power," james mann explains how the president's administration created and implemented foreign policies. the managing editor of "front page" magazine and author david horowitz argue that the democratic party represents the rich and powerful in "the new leviathan: how the left wing money machine shapes american politics and threatens america's future." in "america you sexy bitch: a love letter to freedom," megan mccain and michael ian black discuss their similarities. look for these titles in bookstores this coming week and

watch for the authors in the near future on book tv and on booktv.org. >> this talking about reform doesn't solve anything, on either the expenditure side or revenue side. you've got to get specific about it. and like i said, i'll bet everybody in this room has a plan, i could sign on to 90% of them. >> insight into the american economy from berkshire hathaway c.e.o. warren buffett tonight at 8:00 on c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: dr. donald lindberg is the national library of medicine director at the national institutes of health and is here to talk to us today about how the nation compiles electronic healthcare records, including privacy issues surrounding them and how changes in healthcare law and technology are changing how information can be stored and owned by patients. welcome to the program. guest: thank you very much. glad to be here. host: tell us, what is the

n.i.h. national library of medicine? guest: well, it's a great institution. it's actually 175 years old that was started in 1937. i came in 1984, so gotten along quite well without me for 148 years, but i hope i've made it better even since then. host: tell us, how are american health records being compiled today by individuals, by their insurance companies, medical providers, etc., and where would be the main repository for these electronic healthcare records? guest: i think the there really is no trues are repository. people who pay the bills have some record on billing, but that doesn't usually give insight into the care to help manage those cases. let me tell you, there is no central repository. host: we've got a graphic up that says electronic health record is a systematic collection of health information about an individual patient recorded in digital

format, and it can be shared across different healthcare settings. how is this supposed to work, and why would it be beneficial than what we have in place right now? host: that's a very thorough definition, but it's a very excellent kind of definition. most people have in mind an electronic health record would be kind of a hyped up thing like that's the chart my doctor has, and that's very short of what it is. let me give you an example. if you go with a complaint, very frequently the question is, what about the last time we did this measure, where you had a spot, how long has that been there, that kind of thing? that's the type of thing you want to get from the record. you want to say, ok, you tell me my bloop is too high, well, what was it five years ago when i lived in this other city, this other hospital, and so what you really want, in my opinion, is a thumb drive or some little memory stick that has all your lifetime record in

your hand, that you can find another doctor if you don't like this one, you can find another hospital if you don't like this one, and that's what it has. that blood pressure from five years ago. host: so, for example, if there was a thumb drive like you say, and i would carry that around, and every time by to see a different doctor, we plug it into the computer, and my record pops right up? guest: that's what i recommend, yeah. now, how close are we to that? not so very, but close enough that it's not a crazy idea. for instance, the veterans administration has a very good healthcare system and a good electronic healthcare system, does have a thing called my healthy vet, which says, -- they don't give you the thumb drive. for some reason they're afraid about that, but they let you call up and see the equivalent and send it to your new doctor, if you wish. why isn't that the answer? well, as i say, it's not very consistent. but nonetheless, about 35% or 40% of people in the v.a.

healthcare get care outside, and that's understandable. i mean, if you got to drive six, seven hours to get to the v.a., you're not going to do it. you go across the street to your local doctor. but what if that gets incorporated and that falls short? you and your thumb drive, your memory stick, which is really what we ought to be going on, and other things, too, are possible with an electronic record that only become aware if you worked with it, or think about it quite a lot, so, for instance, i started doing this at the university of missouri, and we had an electronic health record in 1962. it was pretty darn extensive, the laboratories and all the radiology, and the diagnoses, coding, so forth. the only other such place actually a year ahead was mass general.

so we, of course, have been friends and also mild competitors ever since. so, at mass general, they did a better job in those days on the orders, doctors' orders for drugs and so forth, and then they had a little bit more on the history of the patient, patient history. host: now, the process that you had back in the 1960's, was this something that could be transferred to various hospitals, or if i left your care in missouri and moved to california, was there a way of moving my records from missouri to california? guest: no. i think that's where we fell down, and that's what we're trying to get going now, from an interface that will actually work. lots of people sort of copied those systems, and we encourage them to do it, but his was based, for instance, just to give you an idea of how old these ideas are. he invented a language called mumps, mass general, something

like that. that is still used. that is the heart of the v.a. system and the heart of the system to this very day. so, it was a good achievement. host: we're talking with dr. donald lindberg, national library of medicine directory at the national institutes of health, and we're talking about how the nation is compiling electronic healthcare records. if you'd like to get involved in the conversation, by all means, give us a call. the number is 202-737-0002 for republicans. democrats, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. we've got a special fourth line for healthcare professionals. that number, 202-628-0184. again, 202-628-0184. that's to get involved in the conversation. you can also send us messages via twitter, facebook, and email. so, bring us up to speed on what kind of progress is being made and how much of growing

this electronic healthcare record system is part of the affordable healthcare act. guest: well, i think that assumes there's going to be an electronic health record. without that, it's all impossible. it probals comes in high-tech, which is part of the stimulus bill. but in both those cases, i will say they really are making good progress. i mean, probably 35% of doctors and offices now are using some kind of a computer-based record. now, they're not all up to speed and not all interchangeable the way that was suggested earlier, but they're getting there. i'm told that an outfit in h.h.s. keeps running these updates, and they say recently that 90% of pharmacies are able to accept computer-based orders. so that's a good deal. host: our first call for dr. lindberg comes from oregon on our line for independents. mary, you're on the "washington journal."

caller: yes, hi. i missed the fact you had a healthcare workers line. i'm a healthcare worker, been for 30 years, so i had the experience of working on total paper chart and now moving to electronic charts. it's been a freaking nightmare. guest: sure. host: why is it a nightmare, mary? caller: well, because when you're talking about a paper chart, there was a page for >> it all kind of makes sense. but the way the system -- there are bunches of them. i heard you mention ethics. i am starting to move into that. but we have -- all of them take multiple steps to document things. if you make one little mistake,

the computer shut down. and is just crazy. you know, it is not the nurses on the floor. they have to go through 10 steps. >> i am totally sympathetic. >> it seems to me, and i have worked and clinical practices. and i have worked -- doing audits. it seems to me that one of the problems with the electronic medical records is that they are not just denying to keep a record, but what the government designed in order for people to do other functions, to pull data out of the system. and it just seems to me that that they should be thinking more about helping health care workers do their job, rather than -- having a system set up

where coding is done. host: we are going to leave it there. talk was about her concerns with the different formats. guest: i am 100% sympathetic. people are expected to do two or three different things. but we all have these frustrations with using personal computers. they cause a certain amount of frustration. there is that. but also, she introduces another idea. mainly that, once your and an electronic health record -- you have to do much more than just store that patient. let me give you different ideas. mass general designed that end would give a presentation to a group. he would put on this poor country boy act.

he would misspelled something. he was getting the record correct. i was focusing on laboratories. i could tell you, we did not report results that were incorrect. we knew very well. we had a goal quality-control system behind all those things. those things are a tremendous advantage through an electronic system. so be it, you could have trouble on the managing interface side. host: dr. donald lindberg of the national institutes of health. our next call comes from tennessee. caller: hello. on our line for democrat i have r over 40 years. and it hurts the contest for over 30 years. being a medical transcriptionist, i guess you

are probably familiar with what we do. all kinds of hospital and clinical reports. with current laws and hippa issues, there are many records end the average patient man out of this, but probably about 50% of the medical records that are transcribed are transcribed offshore in india or another country. i was wondering what your thoughts were about the electronic medical records being transcribed and transmitted digitally back to the united states? what about the confidentiality of these medical records? guest: i am definitely in favor

of keeping all the jobs in the united states that we possibly can. but if you look beyond the transcription, i think you have a job for life, working very hard on natural when reprocessing. which would mean that we could just take the record in the chart the way the doctor dictated or typed it and do a better job of understanding it. in other words, we are calling for you to understand the scribble. they are trying to get out ahead. but they are not trying to eliminate your job or the persons and india. host: who would own the electronic health record? would be the individual patient, the doctor who was working on it and has to put this information into the computer to? guest: we have been asking the

question for 50 years. but think the lawyers and up saying that the institution and the physical record. the patient owns the information. the current law certainly makes it clear that the patient is fully entitled to all the information on his or her records. that is very clear. that may be contested in court. contested ining court? host: linda is a health-care worker. what kind of work to do? caller: i have been in the field for 30 years. i have a question for the doctor regarding a security -- not privacy, but a security question regarding stage to meaningful use criteria for patients -- where they will be able to view

download and transmit their own at data. in florida -- we are the no. 1 at stake for federal identity theft. how do we come if we allow the patient to download and transmit -- is out there. i am struggling with -- i am doing a presentation on the this and july. i have yet to answer that question for myself. i was wondering what you could share with me. guest: absolutely. you raise a very important question. as something that worries everyone in the field. but it seems to read their two issues. it is how you make sure it all comes out. but think the right things that are patient ought to have full access to his or her medical records. i think the faster that happens, the better.

if there is something in the record the patient so greashould receive -- what is it? an exception may be near a psychic -- neuropyshic. i think that principle we ought to stand by. now how it gets implemented -- you are saying that the patient transmits it and so forth, i think that is a serious problem on the security side. and guess we have to let the security go and and figure out how to best achieve that. the meantime, all of us are risking our entire lifelong earnings, i suppose, bank accounts and stock market investments and credit cards, and somehow or another, it

works. and generally speaking, it will be possible to make this thing work. host: according to information that we picked up from the n ih national library of medicine at -- what you can expect to find is demographics and medical history, medication and allergies, information about immunization status from a laboratory test results, the vital signs, personal staff light age and wait and billing information. back to the phones. tina is on on our line for democrats. you are on. caller: hello. i think it is a good idea that we are doing electronic records. it is better for the doctors. it is able to help the people who are abusing the system. a lot of them will turn around and go to the doctor's office

and complained about the back pain and things like this. the doctor believes them and helps them out until they get to see a specialist. the next thing you know, they go to the medical center, complaining of the same things then they get more narcotics. and a week later the same thing happens. i feel as though this is important. the pharmacies have a red flag. these people are abusing the system. the same thing with the law. it is all connected. i think it is a good thing the way society is going. the way we are doing everything now. i think it is good. guest: i agree with the view. just this morning i was talking to my wife about a friend who could not get an ordinary prescription filled. the guardedly said -- not fit

our profile. they found out that someone did an identity theft, they obtained her card and stuff like that. they had been getting narcotics and multiple pharmacies with phony orders by multiple doctors. that is totally criminal. no doubt. but that causes a big worry. it is an issue for the police. there were called and the road down the man's automobile. host: the stimulus package offered $27 million in incentives for doctors and hospitals to improve things. the funds will be released into the doctor's meet a meaningful use requirement. many doctors are opposed because in order to the trend of this, you are looking at over 100

hours of training. guest: the meaningful use is -- i did not make that role. it is intended to get doctors started using it and give them some money for it and their institution as well. and of course, meaningful use has got its own set of rules. but not unreasonable. can choose amongst things, it does not say you should do the following five things, it is as demonstrate that you are using some of them. some is writing prescriptions electronically. host: dr. donald lindberg was appointed in 1994. he is with the national library of medicine. our next call comes from

rockville, maryland. joe is on our line for independents. caller: this is a pragmatic issue. i know have privacy granted by the constitution. yet we are having all of our information sent to the government. my husband and i, separately, one for initial consultations with the primary doctor. we are on medicare. both of us were asked, can you handle your financial records? are you really confident? my husband looked very questioningly. the doctor said -- medicare wants to know. i had the same experience. what is medicare want to know?

medicare is running out of money. host: joan, how does medicare get them money? caller: because of the rationing issue. i cannot handle my affairs, i still want the very best medical care. and obama made that point. host: dr. donald lindberg, your stocks? -- your thoughts? guest: i think the doctor might have just want to know how you are doing. i would not take offense. that is probably a good thing. would not assume is as many political thing. host: there will be resistance from patients who may not want to give up this information.

like joan, she is concerned there will and a too much about her personal life. guest: i think that is foolishness. when the doctor were reading about your ability to live your own independent life. would you have to go into nursing homes? would you have to have someone appointed to take care of the new? those are reasonable concerns for a doctor to have it. are you worried about parkinsons, for example. host: our next call comes from sherry in clearwater, florida. she is in the health-care industry. am an rn. right now i am pushing for health care reform. the opening up of our health care to other petitions. doctors do not have all the

answers. i also want to mention that my records were already hacked into. and i have seen doctors -- if i did not know the patients, i could swear they were talking about someone entirely different. but times the doctors are not very accurate with their record keeping, even though it should be because they are legal records. i think the patients should have total control. doctors out there, unfortunately, i would not trust. i want a free health care system. acupuncture, herbs. we have no freedom of choice in this country. thank you doctors need some competition. we have far too many --

patients being dismissed by doctors. host: i have to wrap this up. how're you made aware that your records had been hacked into? caller: the doctor's office called me. guest: i am surprised you think you cannot go to any of those people in clear water. i would think you could go to any of them that you wanted. i agree that patients ought to have the choice of what health care practitioner to go to. i think you do have that. i think the best protection against inadequate patient records is for the patient to have access to all of them. who will be paying for all of these upgrades for electronic health care system? guest: i think you will save money. host: but you have to spend money? guest: absolutely. host: is that going to come from

the government's? the doctors? guest: maybe a little bit of both. the doctors are very ready region getting ready to cash the checks. i think it is all quite willing at the moment. the institution is strongly for its. there have been at $2 billion contracts written by health-care facilities in the last month to get into electronic record systems. host: our last call is from new york. jeanette is on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i am a doctor. why doesn't the government release de va health-care system?

it has already been made. and it is easy for us to use. guest: i agree completely. i am a great admirer of that system. it happens that they va has produced a standalone version of that system. call the vista. i taught a course just a week ago. the project for the students in the class for the whole week was to use the va system. it worked quite well. i agree completely. it is a real prize. host: fort worth, texas. susan is on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have basically been healthy. i am getting older now. after many many years of never having to enter a hospital, i had to dubbed different occasions with different issues

in the past month. they sent me to multiple specialists, trying to track down exactly what has been going wrong. it is then a nightmare to get records to each of these doctors. it would be so much better to have this already pre set up. i am so sick and tired of all of the lies about our health care. this new law. it just goes on and on and on. i really think something needs to be done about it. our health-care system has been messed up. host: we will leave it there. here is a tweet -- i trust my doctor. i will never trust the government.

guest: i am sorry. we have to do something to get you to trust the government and the doctor. -- doctors. what they are trying to do at the moment is the right thing. but these things are not always done exactly the right way. i think there is a difference between me with the objective is and we are seeing it. i think there is difficulty because going to see multiple doctors and yet not fully understanding -- i am totally sympathetic. that is exactly what this electronic patient record is all about. it is to facilitate that. and to have that some drive in your hand right to take them wherever you want. and they have all of your information. that is a very helpful thing. host: wilmington, delaware. alfonso. caller: good morning. a question about the meaning full use. one of the things about that is

the incentive. providers are getting a fair amount of money from the government. medical workers at a providers are charging way more money than the government is providing -- some of the providers are providing twice with the government is reimbursing the physician. also, medical records also have a component for patients under -- patients are allowed to download and record it. that is if they sign off with the position. you have any comment? guest: i think it is important and hopeful for the patient to a full access to the records. it is probably easier done in an institution than it is in an individual doctors' office.

that may be the case. as far as buying these commercial services, i think that is right, too. it is probably easier and more economical. for hospital or even chain of hospitals, then for a doctor's office. host: richard is on our line for independents. you are on. caller: my doctor would not give me my medical papers, because i wanted to go to the veterans. and get some pills. they do not have what i needed. they charged me more at the veterans then if i was to go and get my prescription. host: dr. donald lindberg? guest: i do not know the circumstances.

host: let us move on to virginia. on our line for republicans. caller: i am having problems with electronic prescribing. if the physician gets paid by medicare to submit all of these electronic prescriptions, and all of a sudden, a pharmacist getting prescriptions for over the counter products which the patient never buys any way. but my bigger issue is, i have more errors and now with electronic prescribing that i ever had. at -- i do 900 prescriptions a day. i am on the phone constantly. the physician does not know how to use the phone to write a prescription. they will write one a day. for the armistice, that is what we are supposed to tight. dow below you will see notes redound below. -- down below.

there are so many errors. this asp you are talking about. i would like to know who they are interviewing? it is not pharmacists. guest: how much has been decreased because of the problems you are having? caller: it is immense. i am starting at like pharmacy anymore. guest: hang in there. i think you are and the start-up phase. you didn't succeed in getting them to write a legible fashion. but i think you can get them trained to do this thing right. i can sympathize with you. host: misery, just outside of kansas city. go ahead.

>> three things. .- she now has alzheimer's when i asked -- are you able to handle your financial affairs -- i understand that completely. her background is in the county. and so i had to take over. the other thing i thought i would mention is that since the healthcare law has been passed, i have never -- i have noticed that my drugs have gone down. we are both on a lot of drugs. anyway, that is -- host: we will leave it there. guest: i am sympathetic about the alzheimer's. that is a great worry to all of us. it is completed a meeting at

nih, eightsummit. -- a summit. it was not so encouraging. they emphasize, from economic point of view, maybe a little bit over dramatic, but they said, forget about this, if alzheimer's continues this way, you will not be able to afford anything else. i think a friendly doctor inquiring about your ability to continue to handle your finances is a good thing. it is just a problem we have got to face. host: our last call comes from wisconsin. cheryl on our line for independents. caller: i happen to be in the va system just recently. and my question is -- be va is great about keeping my records.

but before i entered the va system, i had to have surgery. it was at the uw hospital. it seems that my doctors cannot get my records. and, what is it going to take to force these other hospitals outside of theyva system to comply and to make it easier on the patients, doctors and the hospital for over one week over something that if they just have those other records, may not have been so bad? guest: again, that is a terrible thing. what is going to take? i do not know. the law we are talking about right now wants that to get eliminated. is a better now or better in the old days? i practiced in new york and the old days.

it the view of exactly that. there is a patient in another hospital. and i am looking out the window at the old other hospital. and he is telling me when the snow melts and the spring, we will be able to get the records. i would say things are better off now even though they are frustrating at the moment. i am sorry that they are. host: we want to mention the nih has a magazine that talks about things going on and nih. it is published by nih and the friends of a national library of medicine. dr. donald lindberg is the director at the national library of medicine. we want to let our viewers know about the program for tomorrow. we will chirs edwards and erin joha