and erin johansson discussed the future of labor unions. later, michael dimock talks about changes in american values. washington journal is next. host: spain becomes the latest nation to seek an economic bailout, and the folks here in washington try to find the path forward on economic issues. the head of a.i.g., the insurer, says worldwide the retirement age may need to move up to 70 or even 80 years old. a possible 80-year-old retirement age, what does that mean to you? what's your situation and lifestyle, and what do you think of age of 80 would mean in terms of retirement? that according to the a.i.g. c.e.o., a story that's been making news recently. republicans, 202-737-0002. democrats, 737-0001.

independents, 202-628-0205. you can sent your comments via twitter, @cspanwj or facebook, or journal@c-span.org. this story has been getting quite a bit of traction in the press, tv, and internet, and published today in "the washington post." it's published by the head of a.i.c., the c.e.o. of that company. the story says the american international group chief says europe set crisis says governments must accept people will have to work more years as life expectancies increase. here's the quote --

host: lots of stories out there this week on all of this, and there are differences on all of this. first street online, and there's a question who is 80 years old, his name is hubert elliott. he writes, at age 67, when most seniors are planning their retirement adventures and looking forward to time with family, hubert elliott took a part-time job with north carolina's department of transportation. and 13 years later, he's working full-time at the age of 80. elliott is one of a growing number of seniors opting to work past the age of 65. the census bureau shows that the number of employed seniors increased from 11.4% in 1990 to 16.2% in 2010. that percentage is expected to significantly increase as more baby boomers approach retirement age.

so, what do you think about the potential for a retirement age of 80? richmond, virginia. kim, democratic line, you are up first. >> hi, how are you? >> fine. how are you doing? caller: i think it doesn't make any sense, because seniors work all their lives up to 65 to collect what they put into the system, where's the entitlement we saw as an investment as workers to put something away. they had no business borrowing it during ronald reagan, bush, and the other bush. they never paid it back. they a big i.o.u., and now they tell us to work another 20 years with a screwy healthcare system tt overlooks the fact that people break down at a certain age. it makes no sense whatsoever for them to raise that price when people die before they can collect their investment. host: that is kim from richmond, virginia. we're interested in your personal stories. kwame is on the line for independents from bowie,

maryland. what do you make of the potential of an 80-year-old retirement age in this country? caller: this is a first-time caller. your first call,er, they stole my thunder. i agree 100% with her. as a federal contractor in this area, i am starting to run into former colleagues of mine, i mean, from top-notch agency contractors from nasa, from g.s.a., and they are unemployed, they are looking for work. so tell me, at age 70 and 75, in a digital age that we're living in right now, how on earth are they going to compete for jobs for 20-year-olds who are coming out and who can work less, half the pay? i mean, there's no way you can compare in the digital age a 70-year-old, 75-year-old compared to a 21-year-old fresh

out of college and we're in the technological digital age. i think it's ridiculous. host: thanks for calling for the first time. glad to have you. doris, democrat, baltimore. your thoughts this morning? caller: yes, good morning. i'm sorry, you said something to me? host: i said good morning. go ahead, please. caller: oh, thank you. i'm doris, calling from baltimore, maryland. i happen to be a 70-year-old who is still working. as a matter of fact, i retired about five years ago and returned to work about 20 years ago, and i'm thoroughly, thoroughly enjoying it. i have some mixed feelings about it. i think that the work that i'm doing, i'm able to do at age 70. i'm an educator. some stand down in the classroom. host: are you full-time, part-time? caller: i'm working full-time. host: so you're 70, working

full-time. can you see yourself going another 10 years? caller: i don't know about 10 years, but i certainly need to go at least five years, because i have a young relative, a great-niece who's in college, and i'm helping her mom with her tuition. however, as i was saying, the work that i do, i'm able to do. but when i think about my mom, who expired -- when she was 9 years of age, but who did domestic work, she would never have been able to work until the age of 70 or 75, and certainly not 80. host: what do you teach? caller: i'm a nursing educator. host: thanks for sharing your thoughts. we are asking you this morning to react with the head of a.i.g., the insurer, says. his name is robert benmosche, chief executive officer of the company, says retirement age is based on the economic problems

in this country and around the world, it will have to move to 70, 80 years old. that would make pensions, medical services more affordable, keep people working longer and will take that burden off of the youth. the story's been out there for a little bit, but getting a lot of traction lately. in fact, there's one piece at first street online, they're talking with hubert elliott, "i just try to do the best i can." he hauls dirt, asphalt, gravel, and other materials. in the winter he is part of a crew that keeps the roads throughout the state clear and safe in north carolina. elliott attributes working and staying active to his ability to remain active. as long as you keep working, you'll be all right. they point out here that the federal retirement age is gradually shifting. for those born before 1938, it is 65. those born in 1960 and after have an official retirement age of 67. they write some seniors continue working because they

have a job they love. others are reluctant to leave behind the security that comes from a regular paycheck or health coverage, while still others are working because they were adversely affected by economic conditions. some were laid off, others found the economy had eroded their pensions or their retirement. let's hear from pennsylvania, bob, democrat. good morning. caller: i think that's a pretty radical statement. i mean, look at what's happened over the last 60 years. women have entered the workforce, so that's double the workforce. if you're 55 and you're laid off at this time, the chances of you ever finding another job with maybe 10%. the current social security problems could be solved if they simply removed the cap on contributions. it doesn't seem to me like

increasing the age to 80, i mean, it's ridiculous. what are these people going to do? they're not going to have the education to take in technical jobs. are you going to have them out shoveling ditches? just doesn't make any sense with me. host: one viewer agrees with bob via twitter. he said i worked until 69, that was plenty. no 80, that is nuts. more of the human face on all of these retirement issues. "new york times" has this photo of clare living in a tiny mobile home in california, barely getting by on a little more than the minimum social security payment, $1,082 a month that this woman receives. you can see her photo in the "new york times" here. the headline with the story says, forced to early social security, unemployed pays a price. they write even as most americans are delaying retirement to bolster their savings account, the recession

and its protracted aftermath have forced many older people who are out of work to draw social security much earlier than they had planned. and as you know, they receive less money for life twhe do that. according to an analysis by steve gross, chief actuary for the social security administration, about 200,000 more people filed initial claims in 2009 and 2010 than the agency had predicted before the recession, and he said the trend most likely continued in 2011 and 2012, though that is harder to quantify. the most likely reason is joblessness. front page story in the "new york times" today. new castle, pennsylvania, lorraine, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i agree that some people are able to work until 80 if they have a job that is suitable. however, there are so many people that i know, even at 62 where i am, at my age, i've

been unable to find jobs because of the job market. i would love to have been able to have a job that i can continue working in and to our society and to help. however, the job that i'm in now, i work, and it's very difficult to continue with the labor part of some of the aspects of my job, and i think that just the type of job that you have, that you can continue into, and there are some people who can physically continue to 65, 70. i've seen people that unload trucks that are physically, but it depends on your job and your health. so that's all i have to say about that as far as you limiting a person to age 80,

not everybody can work at the age of 80. host: that is lorraine in pennsylvania. florida up on the line now, mary, independent. good morning, mary. mary, include? we lost mary. we'll try roger in malibu, california, republican. hey, roger. caller: great. thank you for c-span. host: you bet. caller: well, you know, the fact of the matter is that i felt all the viewers, that folks in congress and the senate, the president, everybody is entitled to their golden clears. how are you going to spend your golden years after 80 years old? i mean, what a joke. it's really silly, 80 years old. the fact of the matter is, if the government doesn't spend our money and the unions don't gamble it on the stock market,

then you're going get -- you're going to end up getting just a few hundred dollars a month. my father went through it. my grandmother deals with it. it's not much money. you have to be conservative with your money. you have to save, and you have to save for retirement, because you can't live off -- and expect to live off your retirement from your pension from the government. it's just not enough money to live on. host: appreciate it, roger, via twitter this morning, raven, the age limit is really class war, one viewer writes, just raise the contribution limit, dealing with social security there, the threshold there. from the free press in mankato, working all the way to 80 doesn't seem right. he says it's evident that astounding success in business doesn't mean you're not a

half-wit. he writes that, yes, more people are working longer because they have to, and some work longer because they like to. but it's doubtful benmosche's idea will get many traction. people already revolt any time someone suggests raising the social security retirement age into even the mids or upper 60's, and for goods reason. he writes, after 45 years or more of punching in and out doing heavy lifting, taking orders from people who they may or may not respect, most people figure they have every right to enjoy the fruits of their lifelong labor. besides, life expectancies haven't gone up that much. that's mankatofreepress.com is the place to read more there. democrat, elizabeth, good morning. caller: good morning. you had someone on talking about this point of view, people should be able to retire earlier if they choose, but they should pay for t. i just want to point out that a lot of people barely main a living

wage. if you can barely make a living wage, then there is no money to save for retirement, because all of your money is going into your cost of living. that's point number one. when people say that you should spend for your retirement, there's a lot of people who are unable to make it. the second point i'd like to make is someone like me, i'm an accountant. i see a lot. simple things, opening a drawer, lifting a cup is extremely painful. so i'm worried about how long this is to 65, much less work to 80. so as we're working, going on 16 or 17 years old, if you put that much stuff on your body, sometimes you are not able to consider working until a longer age. i'm just trying to hold out for 65. so if people are thinking about these things, i would just like for them to consider that a lot

of the people that -- a lot of people who have to go for social security don't have a lot of money to save. and number two, have been in position to put a lot of stress on their body. thank you. host: from elizabeth, back to twitter, one viewer writes, retirement age is a personal choice, social security is not a retirement plan. it was supposed to rescue the destitute. more about the story in spain, the lead item in "the washington post," and most of the papers we're reading here today, spanish banks request bailout, as we learned yesterday mafmentdrid bends to pressure from abroad. the figure here is $125 billion. they write out of london that 2 1/2 years after the start of europe's debt crisis, spain on saturday became the fourth to seek a bailout --

host: there's the quote again, more of your reaction. savannah, georgia, republican, hi. caller: yes, good morning. love your show. i would like to ask the question here, for them to go to 80, is this going to be for firemen and preliminary? am i going to have some 80-year-old guys carrying me out of the burning building on a ladder?

i've never heard a thing so crazy in my whole life. where do these get these people? another thing, i thought we were supposed to be taxing all the millionaires and billionaires so we didn't have to come to this. what happened to that? i see a lot of nonsense here. this is absolutely crazy. it's ludicrous. i can't believe it. host: all right. brian, independent. edgewater, new jersey. welcome to the program, brian. caller: hi, first-time caller. i think the most pressing issue in actually unemployment, and the way i see it, if we have people working till 80, that only creates more job pressure on young people coming out of college or high school. if anything, i would say they would try to figure out a way to make the tension in

healthcare systems so they can retire to age 60 so more jobs open up. if anything, we need to lower the retirement age, not raise it. host: david on the line now, democrat from madison heights, michigan. thank you for calling. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. thank you for taking my call. i have to agree with the republican man from georgia. this is just ludicrous. and i'll tell you, there's one reason and one reason only, that the republicans are embracing this and they will continue to embrace retirement age at 8 owe years old. it's totally, totally ludicrous. can you imagine a 75-year-old man working on your automobile, where your kids drive in? do you imagine that oh, he forgot to put on three of the lug nuts and the wheel falls

off. can you imagine that? there's one reason and one reason only that they're going to do this, so people never have to collect social security. they work their whole life, put in social security, work till 80, they die at 81, never receive a check from social security. that's the one and only reason why the republicans would embrace this. host: thank you for calling. a little bit more from mr. benmosche of a.i.c. in this "washington post" piece. he talked about greece possibly abandoning the eye row, could be a disaster for the country and europe, they must keep that from happening.

host: let's hear from otis, independent from south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. how you doing? host: doing fine, otis. caller: the one thing i want to say is -- and i hope everybody out there on all sides, republicans, democrats, and independents -- call your congressman and tell them to quit using social security funds for anything other than social security. we've been robbing the fund since 1963 under the johnson administration, and ever since they have continued to use our money for social security for

other projects, wars, domestic, everything but social security. we wouldn't have to be worrying about cutting down, cutting people back on this social security benefits, raising the retirement age or any of that if we would just use social security for social security only. people get out there and call your congressman up and tell them it's time to stop. let's make this an issue in the presidential election, to quit using social security funds for anything other than social security. host: that is otis from a town called prosperity in south carolina. another message via twitter from justin, he supports it, retire on full salary. warner robins, georgia. you will hear from president obama. he was at the annual netroots nation conference. they've been holding their conference the last several days. we'll have coverage later this week. but he addressed the crowd via

video on economic issues. here's a look. >> we've got a lot more work to do, especially when it comes to getting our fellow americans back to work. we created 4.3 million new jobs over the past 27 months, but we've got to keep at it until everyone who's out there pounding the pavement gets a job that pays the bills. what we can't do is go back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place. what we won't do is just cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires by gutting things like education and clean energy. it's time to move forward and build an economy where everyone has a fair shot at success. at this make or break moment for the middle class, we face our most important fight yet, and now is the time to dig deep. change is hard, but we've seen that it's possible. and as long as you're willing to keep up that fight, i'll be right there with you. host: for more coverage of the netroots conference, also the online conference later this week on c-span.

here's an email about the retirement age. one viewer writes, when the current age is established based on the average life span, which is now close to 80, i think mr. benmosche is being cynical. host: fort wayne, indiana. charlie, republican, you're on the air. caller: well, i think if you want to raise the retirement age to 80, they ought to give the people the option to drop out of being robbed every week in their paycheck from the government. since i think two, three months ago i've seen a story where the people try to get on disability , which is up by 50%. i mean, it's just a scam. that's all i got to say. host: thanks for calling.

jeanette, democrat, long island, new york. hello there. caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. yeah, this c.e.o. from a.i.g., he has to be a millionaire, and he has no clue what it's like not to have and to face an retirement age of 80, i do agree with twitter that it's for profit, and, you know, i think you hear rich people don't pay any taxes, that's a sense of entitlement for them. and they talk about poor people having a sense of entitlement, when they're doing the same thing. and these insurance companies that take your premium and take whatever percentage -- which i'm sure is a lot -- and not do your healthcare is just outrageous. people need to understand this and this type of change. thank you. host: let's hear from greg in jacksonville, florida. what do you think about the potential for an 80-year-old retirement age, greg?

caller: well, good morning, and let me say again, i'm a 30-year watcher of c-span. i always enjoy when you host the program. i hope that the american people -- c-span is listening to the number of callers who have some comment about mr. benmosche's comments. one of the first things is i whole heartedly agree with the caller from south carolina, that if the congress and the president lobby the social security fund in which american taxpayers are paying into for their retirement, then social security will be very solvent into the next century, into the other younger people who are paying into social security. that call from south carolina was absolutely direct when he said that all the presidents, regardless of their political strategy, going back to the johnson administration, is responsible for the insolvency of the supposed solvency of social security. the other thing you noted when you opened the program is mr. benmosche was speaking from his villa in croatia. the problem with that is that, you know, mr. benmosche is a

millionaire. second to that, and i'll get off right quick, is that a.i.g. is one of the companies in which the american taxpayers bailed out. they bailed out from the incompetence, the fraud, or whatever the description you want to descbe about a.i.g., and you know what? they never paid the money back. i think i hope the american get get through c-span their voice of total repulling unanimous a, republican rention as to what mr. benmosche suggested about we retiring at age 80. paul, you take care of yourself. host: thanks, greg. i hope you'll come back again. to some of the callers who mentioned or questioned older folks working into the age range of 80 or so, here's one response via twitter this morning, just because someone is 75 doesn't mean they become instantly stupid. tony irvine writes, i am concerned about the effect on

the worker. second email, or second twitter message we read from him, so we'll move on to some others. "wall street journal" sunday says, get your retirement savings back on track. they write, some americans may be better prepared for retirement than they realize, about 56% of baby boomers are saving enough to cover their basic retirement costs, including uninsured medical expenses, based on a recent projection by the employee benefit research institute, a washington-based nonprofit think tank. they go on to say, bad news is that 44% aren't saving enough. and some of those people are on the lowest rungs of the income ladders so they may have little opportunity to ramp up savings as they age. "wall street journal" sunday there. michigan, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. this is nuts. this guy is millionaire, bankrupt this country. he just takes out of the coffers for his retirement, and

people have got to wise up. they have got to tax the rich a little more so that we can cover this stuff. what are we going to do with all these elderly people? you know, it's gotten to the point where nobody can afford any medical because the corruption in that. it's gotten to the point where they take the social security. we have to do something. we have to raise the cap where richer people pay more into social security so they can cover the other people. host: jeffersonville, kentucky, is up now. buddy, independent. hi, buddy. caller: ok, i have two thoughts that i would like to bring out. number one, 80 years old is beyond the life expect a of people. what are you going to do, work till you die? and the other one is, united

states needs to worry about the united states. the other people across the sea, they did not work to make this country what it is. we did. thank you, sir. host: thanks for calling. it's been out for a little while that wellsfargo.com, you'll see the results of the survey, the mortgage banking company put out, and the headline is 8 owe is the new 65 for many middle-class americans. they did a survey several months ago, and they write the concept of a made irreally vent by changing circumstances and americans now expect to work until they have saved enough to retire. they say americans say they will have to work until at least age 0 before they can comfortably live in retirement. that study came out months ago. mike, good morning.

caller: good morning. host: what do you think of 80, mike? caller: it's ridiculous. what am i going to be doing, taking my grandchildren and children's jobs? i'm going to be working at 80 and they will be working alongside me at 30? i'm a small business owner, and i tell you what, it's wreaked havoc on the small businessman. i may well be hanging around at 80, but i won't be doing any work. and we used to provide health care insurance for our employees, but business got so bad that we had to drop insurance for our employees. this country is in a terrible way as far as i'm concerned. host: good morning. caller: first of all, i want to

say i'm offended when i hear people refer to social security benefits as entitlement. i paid for my social security and pension and medicare. i am getting back money but it's worth about 10% of what i contributed to these programs. when they refer to it as entitlement. i paid for it. housing if you listen to what's on the tv shows, it destroyed the united states of america. people cannot afford houses, and we have to have more noun live on. and it causes the cost of living to go up, and that's

more and more inflation. we should also look at the contracts these people have with the government. a lot of them are politically connected with the united states government and they get all kinds of sweetheart deals and we should look into that and look into their contracts and give a little bit back. this guy from a.i.g. is a rich pig is what he is. host: the different housing stories, this one out of l.a. and the "times," bidding wars are back. they write with potential sellers underwater and investors pouncing on deals, houses are in short supply. couple of c-span program notes, our spotlight on federal financial agencies will begin tomorrow. talking about the securities and exchange commission, our guests tomorrow will be the

former chairman of that. followed wednesday by the treasury department. then the f.d.i.c. on thursday and the consumer protection financial bureau on thursday. so all this week, 9:15 eastern time, washington journal will talk about federal financial agencies and what they are doing. we'll continue this conversation for maybe 10 more minutes and then have a discussion about unions. labor unions. especially following the results in wisconsin this week. cq weekly writes what they see as eroding power a bad omen for employees. so we will talk about the future of unions at 7:45 eastern time today with your calls. san francisco,ester, republican, what do you think about the potential 80-year-old retirement age,ester?

caller: well, i think if you have an option, don't force people to work that long. i can tell you, i'm older and i do work, but it's optional. as far as i'm concerned, this company, a.i.g., the american people should know a little bit about them. this is an insurance company that started in hong kong. when we had the financial crisis, this was the company that cost us $184 billion cash. we had to bail them out, because what they did was had a hedge fund within their corporation that is worldwide, and with the insurance money they had, they were betting your money and throwing it away. wasting it and gambling it, so when they closed up the hedge fund, you wound up having to reimburse this company $184 billion, so now the taxpayer is

being asked by this company to work until the age of 80 so they can be compensated and not have to worry about paying back the money to the american people. so when bill clinton passed the glass ceiling act, banks could bet your mortgage. so you have to be very careful about this. thank you. host: as we await the supreme court ruling on the federal health care law, we're watching out for monday this month. the release date that the court puts out this rulings. one story in "the washington post" says the delay health care action pending the supreme court ruling, bills are required to set plans in motion saying 17 states have put

emmitt me menations on hold until hearing from the supreme court. an additional 13-plus have authorized their creation and many others including illinois have legislation pending in this area. also in the postpone, you hear from the president some think ohio will decide the election. but if you really want to know who will twin white house, you should ask the europeans. they are not eligible to vote but with goinching on in europe, things are looking grim for o'bama. >> i just want to say everybody keeps saying they want to keep taxing the rich, obviously they do pay their fair share a lot of the times, but i think one

of the big underlying issues is 47% of americans don't pay any taxes yet they get tax refunds. i've known several people to where they don't pay any taxes at all, but since they have kids, they will get a check for $4,000, $8,000. it's ludicrous. >> so what do you think of the concept of 80 as a retirement age? >> i don't know if this gentleman meant it literal. but the path we are going down, that could possibly be the situation that it could be. and the gentleman from south carolina was very correct. the government does need to stop taking money out of social security and spending it on other things. the whole clinton administration where they had a sur muscle of budget, it's because they took a whole lot of money out of social

security. >> ron host: ron out of milwaukee. caller: i really enjoy your show. i think this guy is sitting in croatia. his bond was probably $20 million? host: one story said it was $10 million. caller: he's not worried about retirement. i'm 53 and i have been installing furnaces. at 80 there's no way i will be able to pull a furnace up and down the stairs every day of the week. host: how long have you been doing the work? >> over 30 years. off pension. i have a 401-k. but i'm hoping i can retire at 62. it's stuff. -- it's tough. especially in the summer.

but even in the winter, it's freezing cold or hotter than you know what. so that's the way i look at it. so have a great day. i really do enjoy your program. host: thank you. a pension and some savings and social security at some point. bill, good morning to you, on our republican line. caller: i'd like to echo what i've been hearing about this gentleman and all those who made that statement about being from croatia. i am 61 and may have to work until 80. but guys like him are the reasons they mismanage their funds. my 401-k took a dump. i have very little savings. i may have to work until i'm 80, but it should not be a requirement. it should stay where it is and they need to quit mismanaging the social security system and

prosecuting guys like this who run their companies into the ground and take taxpayer bailouts. host: it's reported the 68-year-old of a.i.g. reported recently people are living too long to retire. when they are in their 50's or 60's. they will have to work until 70 or 80. when the u.s. treasury bailed the company out of a lick wittty crisis and bank rate.com states 61% of the company is still owned by -- caller: they are saying now 70,80. i mean, what kind of physical

condition do these individuals think the majority of the population are going to be in at age 80. it's not like we're assured to be living longer than in the past. but physically being able to do the jobs like the gentleman that was the air-conditioning and heating guy. i mean, really. do they really expect an 80-year-old to be doing that? it's ridiculous. the only thing i can understand or see or get out of all this is that the people that are in charge and got the money just want the majority of the population of americans to be working until the day they die and for pennies on the hour. that's basically what it looks like and sounds like to me. host: moving on to our last couple of calls. doug in staten island.

caller: good morning. i want to clarify for your listening viewers. social security is not bankrupt and has enough to give 100% to everybody for the next 25 years and after that they have enough to give up to 81%. until the next 75 years, supposedly. we have not i.o.u.'s, but we have treasury bills. those are just as good as the treasury bills we sell to hedge funds and other things around the world. they are not bonds that are dead. host: it says -- 80 years old. caller: it's a bait and switch. 80 is not doable at all. but these are the people who thrun country do. they scare the living daylights out of us, so that when they come around and say 70 or 72,

they say, wow, we sure missed -- that was a close one. it could have been 80. people do not contribute to the economy. they sell synthetic things that are worse than betting in las vegas. if you bet in las vegas, if you bet a lot. you still win. but these financial investments that the people in the investment fields which are running a large part of the economy, they get all the tax breaks, the corporations. the top 400 corporations of the top, 82 paid no taxes at all. over the last three years. and 11 paid no taxes at all over the past five years. >> we are running short of time. host: one message by twitter writes, at what point is the

age for social security retirement a death sentence? last call is from john, republican from louisiana. caller: thank you. the comment i would make and what most people don't understand is in 1935 the f.d.r. administration when they passed social security set the age at 65, and that was cynical, because the age at which most people were dying back then was before 65. life expectancy has gone up, thankfully, and i happen to be retired myself and still working thankfully but it was a cynical plan to never pay out that much to start with. host: that was john from blanch, louisiana. we will take a short break and then talk about the future of labor unions in this country. our guest will be chris edwards of the cato institute and erin

johansson of the american rights at work. later we will look at the political part of the right to work with michael dim nick. ♪ >> often referred to a as the conscience of the congress. after working here almost two years i can't think of a better name, and -- >> executive director and general counsel of the congressional black caucus, angela rye. >> it's so members can come

together on issues that may be plaguing their district and the community at large. >> more with angela rye tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. >> mr. gorbachev. tear down this wall. >> tonight at 9:00 eastern and pacific on american history tv, mark the 2 with 59 anniversary of ronald regan's speech from the brandenburg gate in west germany. also our series, the contenders, 14 key political figures that ran for president but lost and changed american history. then republican candidate james blaine this weekend on c-span three. >> the b-5 the. everybody think back to vietnam

and think of lain operation, they think of the history of the b-52, cold war. so there's a different kind of power associated with the b-52 as opposed to other long range bombers. >> these are two friends who knew each other prior to the civil war and fought against each other in 1862, and here they are at age 100 sitting on the porch talking about the old days. >> we have one another the gate marked 9:01. and this one marked 9:03. this references the moment of the bomb which was at 9:02. >> every month on book tv and american history tv and look for the history and literary culture at our next stop the weekend of july 7 and july 8 on c-span two and c-span three.

"washington journal" continues. host: at the table is erin johansson, research in motion -- research director for american rights at work. and we say good morning to chris edwards from the cato institute fiscal policy studies director. last lots to talk about here. jumping off point for us is the labor unions in wisconsin. >> i hope the future of labor unions collective bargaining is not good. i think scott walker's reforms were the right directions. i don't think we need collective bargaining in the public sector. many states don't have collective bargaining in the public sector such as in virginia where i live. i don't think you need it. police fair to. teachers have associations that

they voluntarily join and pay dues and those groups lobby, and that's all fine. what i don't agree with and what scott walker reformed was cosersive unions meaning teachers must join unions when they serve their local governments and i think that's a violation of freedom of association and so -- host: erin johansson from american rights at work. guest: first, i wanted to point out the violation of the freedom of association, it's not a right. the public employees and firefighters and teachers and the groups that scott walker went after, their rights were stripped. they didn't have that.

but on the recall, recalls are hard. this is only the third recall in our history. and tom barrett was outspent by scott walker almost 8-1, so that was quite an uphill battle. but getting to that point where you have a million voters signing a petition to actually have a recall, to me says scott walker his assault on those was not acceptable to the public. the ultimate result in the election of course are disappointing. but again, what's happened in the last year in wisconsin and thuns of thousands of people protesting to me it says that employees don't want their rights stripped. it was something that not only the people that were affected by that law but all the

employees in that area and the leaders that came out in solidarity, that it's still important to people to have collective bargaining rights. >> yes. i don't agree with that as a right. i think it's a special privilege some governments have confered on some groups and the government has left unionization issues up to some states. there's about a dozen states that had no collective bargaining -- in fact it's banned which i think is the right way to go. in virginia government workers can form voluntary organizations and that's fine and -- but i think it is a violation when you have workers -- collective bargaining in a government agency or private workplace.

51% of the workers can vote in favor of the collective bargaining but then their rights are stripped, because they are forced to give union dues to an organization they don't agree with. host: the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. lines for republicans, democrats and independents. our guests are chris edwards of the cato institute and erin johansson of american rights at work. before we continue the conversation, we'll hear a little bit from governor walker . >> tonight we tell wisconsin, we tell our countries and people all across the globe that voters really do want leaders who stand up and make the tough decisions. i've learned much over the last year 1/2. there's no doubt about it. early in 2011, i rushed in to try to fix this before i talked about it.

because for years so many politicians i've seen not only in madison but in washington and beyond talked about things but never fixed them. but i want to tell you, looking ahead, we know it's important to do both. looking ahead to tackle the challenges that face all the people of wisconsin wirks we're both going to be committed and then work together we're going to move forward with solutions that put our state back on track towards more freedom and prosperity for all our people. host: governor scott walker. victory in the "daily news." one says walking in walker's foot steps, how other states in the federal government can learn from wisconsin's example. what else are you expecting out there following the tuesday victory? guest: well, i would be surprised if what scott walker

tried to do in wisconsin if the actual issue of collective bargaining was put up in ohio and overwhelmingly voted down which would have stripped all those workers of their rights. so when you look at that, they are not for that. so i would be surprised if other governors or elected officials followed his path on trying to take away people's rights. host: chris edwards of the cato institute? guest: well, mitch daniels in 2005, he signed a law removing collective bargaining from state level workers and signed into law a right to work law and indiana becoming the 23rd state with right to work legislation. that right to work means individuals are not forced to

join unions or pay dues to unions whose views they may not agree with. host: "washington post," public workers and political bull's-eye, local and state governments take aim at pay. in michigan, curtis, democrat, go ahead, sir. caller: i talked to the lady to get through to tell you this. i'm proud to say i'm a union. i came out of the war shattered, bomb stuff in my heart. they said i was disabled and they said i can't do no work but the union said yes, you can. and the union went to bat for me and got me a job. if it wasn't for the union, ip couldn't have taken care of my family. please, don't do a union strike there. host: chris edwards, you want to take that?

guest: well, he seemed to be a proud union supporter, and i'm in favor of voluntarily joining a union but only 7% of the private sector is unionized and means over the decade american workers have rejected the unionization of their workplaces. host: erin johansson, voluntary unions, association, your thoughts? guest: well, it's not a -- what can you accomplish with a voluntary association unless your employee is willing to sit down with you and collectively bargain for things like your age wages and benefits. so it's all good and well but it's not a real right. it's not collective bargain. guest: i don't agree with that.

90% of workers negotiate individually with their employers for their wages. we want workplace flexibility and individual pay for performance. and i think collective bargaining makes that sort of thing difficult, because collective bargaining tends to impose rigid rules on the workplace such as seniority and i think that interfears with specific workplace functioning. host: on the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. i just feel unions are being scapegoated for what happened on wall street. you had a.i.g. on before which was bailed out to the tune of $184 billion by taxpayers. what this man says about flexibility, he simply means he wants to be able to fair to

people at will. and they have no recourse. he believes in help inaltism. pate imagine that, like the old system. maybe we should go back to child labor. and what makes you think that these corporations will not continue to outsource jobs? with no union protection, let's pay some chinese or indian a dollar an hour. i'm sure he has a great pension. scott walker is an uneducated bore who was a college dropout who sold warranties for i.b.m. and this college failure was man elected governor. we need protection for workers. all this man wants to do is not have unions. so that they will not vote democratic.

they will not be able to enforce their rights. host: let's hear from our guests. guest: no. the basic employment is employment at will meaning employers can leave jobs whenever they want and ultimately they can fair to workers unless they are breaking any kind of discrimination law at will. and that has created an enormously flexible workforce and i believe it's one of the strengths of the american economy. companies are not -- because they know if they have a down period and profits fall, they can fair to workers. governments don't have that flexibility in union states, so when a recession comes and ref news start falling, governments don't have the flexible to -- flexibility to cut workers.

scott walker pushed to break the collective bargaining reform because they helped correct this underfundling problem. many states have a problem where these unions have pushed for these health and pension benefits without the money to pay for it, so these union reforms are coming in parallel with reforms to pension systems that are absolutely needed.

guest: so and just to chris' point, you can lay off . .

ai >> government services which is really bad for consumers to give you an example. couple years philadelphia has a transit strike and the government monopoly union that the union went on strike and caused chaos because individuals don't have an alternative. bow single unionized transit agency so that's the sort of problem that monopoly unions create. >> wanted to respond to that monopoly. guest: sure. strikes are rare though in the public and proi viet sector now. but you know, all told from employees rights to organize and collectively bargain the benefits extend from that and from a public sector there's collective bargaining and middle class jobs and that's driving

the economy in the states and to have republicans go after them in the mass l lay-offs the economy is stumbling along. people don't have money because they're not able to get better wages that really extends out to nonunion employees in areas like that. >> earlier money by employees. public integrity. raised 45.5 million for this race compared with tom barret. 3.9 million dollars. the break down is here as well. wisconsin donors. scott walker. had much smaller percentage than out of state money coming into wisconsin. what are these financial figures mean to you chris edwards. >> i think a lot has been made that scott walker side spent

more in the recall alex. interesting the results of this election were almost the same as scott walker's original that didn't have all this money. all this money apparently on scott walker's side didn't make much a difference. one thing is labor unions are better at on the ground labor unions and the greatest example how money doesn't make a difference is the election for governor a couple of years ago. megawhitman one of the richest people in california ran for governor. spent an enormous $140 million and lost to gerry brown. money help as candidate get a message out but i don't think it as determinant. >> the wisconsin vote this viewer writes about the appropriateness of her calling a city governor rather than referendum on unions.

welcome brian. caller: i'm a member of the construction union and i'm not an employee. americans in general, are very, very ignorant of their history and don't realize what the american working class has been through and why they form unions and mr. kay or the there keeps making a lot of half truths and generalizations that all of american is just left unions that decide not to be a member of them. reality is corporations and very rich people, decided to close the plant and move it. to china or to south carolina and through all the union people out of work. that's why union membership is declining. wal-mart. successful campaign to organize meat cutters and rather than recognize a legally formed union wal-mart disclosed to store. that's the mentality american people are work against. you know why don't you put a graph up that o shows the level

of unionization in america with average income in america in constant dollars and you'll see as union membership has declined since the 1970's so has average family incomes and there's a direct correlation to that. you know, this every man for they wt themselves mentality. you have the uber wealthy like the cook brothers against the average truck driver and employee working in chemical plants and they can say. i move your job to china. >> thanks for calling from the bureau of labor stats to put the numbers out there. they talk about union members in 2011 and they write the percentage of wage and salary work members are 11.8% unchanged from 11.9 in 12010.

the number of wage and salary workers be throng unions at 14.8 million also showed little movement over the year in 1983 the first year from which comparable data are available. 17.7 million union workers back then talk further about 2011 if your interested in the split. public sector workers. 37%. more than five times higher than that of private sector at 6.9. eric johansson anything you want to add to that? . ho guest: there's a great chart the economic policy institute put out that shows the decline from the 30's. i'm sorry the uptake in yuan gl

union membership and the de clievenlt picture union membership going like this. the percentage of the richest american the wealth that they hold the chart went like this. the point where they were the closest. higher membership and since density has dropped you thsee t fewest richest americans holding the wealth mostly of the country. real impact in the last union members over the last decades to nonunion as well. that's where you're seeing this anger around occupy wall street where this in equality doesn't sit right with people and am glad this is anticipate public discourse but you can't ignore the impact that the loss of this has had on our economy. host: full page ad earlier this week. why is union leader richard

humpke angry? union leaders are mad that they fail at another election. they should be mad they're hijacked dues money was wasted. time for a new labor day. era.com. what do we know about the employee rights act? guest: i understand it goes to the issue that a lot of collective bargaining and unions in certain work place never sort of have to stand for re-election so. in certain ways union today are undemocra undemocratic because they're decade after decade and individual workers may join a union but they never even had a chance to vote for these so. unions i think this legislation is it's an effort to create a more democracy in the work place and a workers to vote for

re-election of unions? >> news these poem don't care about that. guest: you can vote to sis certify and majority can vote it out. that happens time to time. it's a union where you elect stewarts and people representing you. this legislation would mandate there be aen legislation every year. it's just more attempts from people that want to dismantle and destroy work place democracy. host: ron you're in washington. democrat, hi? caller: appreciate your call. i have a few things. i've been listening for a bit, and in my listening, i do follow chris' point of view as far as public employees having a lot

more leverage in the work place. i have to say a few things. one thing is it's really about workers in their ability to capture their work and to bar lane it out. the what it comes down so is a control or leverage aspect to it all. it's - if a work doesn't have that. let's take for instance there's the aba. a ma. they're basically unions. you can call nonunions or associations that capture the bargaining ability of professionalism in lawyers, doctors. dentists but the point is that, their leverages themselves against the economy and the point being more than anything else, what is it that you have other than your ability to make

work that makes it important for you to bargain. and in doing so, you have to you have to be able to struggle and in this struggle you have to get out there and say hey listen, i've got the ability and i've got to be able to fight for my rights. now public sector of that is hard. like reagan broke down the unions with the air-traffic controllers. very well-known fact but the thing is that, it's a matter of individual having ability to bargain for what they perceive to be their strength. >> ron, thanks from washington. response from either of you. i think he was going to the issue he's more comfortable but less so in the public sector and agree with that in the private sector there's sort of a natural

balance of individual worker who is can push for higher wages and benefits with higher but there's a natural limit they're company is going to be unconservative and they may lose jobs and competition but there is no balance in the public sector. unions can push for more. and labor that is one of the reasons why some states like illinois and california and wisconsin have got into fiscal problems because they have just give the wages and benefit this want with no sort of counter force on the side of taxpayers. guest: texas has more fiscal crisis than new york and has

virtually no rights for bargaining for public sector workers so i don't think you can pin it just on public employee unions. host: kevin, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i was a private sector union employee for 20 years and i had to quit because i just realized they're nothing bow fund raising and i'm not a democrat so i a had to get out. if you want to talk about the decline in the unions. recognize that's part of the problem too. what i really wanted to say is that workers rights. workers rights collective bargaining rights. a work is to negotiate we had

that prior to fdr the system for lay and then there were labor unions back in may. started in the late 1800's. early 1900's and they group. they expand much more. where your forced to recognize the union and that's been the down klein. that's when it became political. so i mean. these people are going to negotiate my rights or bargain for my salary. their politicians not economists. host: thanks kevin from marshall, texas. any thoughts? guest: before there was a right to form unions we had the gelded age which is almost where we are right now. where private sector

density has gone down to what is it in the 20's and 30's. prior to that right. so unions are much more than negotiate and really unions are members and members it is on bargaining commit tease and do negotiating than much more than achieve benefits for their own members in or kwlas there is a high level of union density. and the wage effects still spill over to nonunions and they benefit. unions have helped pass legislation that's benefitted union members like paid family leave and paid sick leave in new jersey. they're just out for themselves. host hose twitter question. what lesson should be learned from europe? any thoughts, chris edwards? guest: the xhern economy one of

the reasons why it's always been stronger and we've had a higher standard of liveing is because of the flexibility of the plabo market. has been a tremendous advantage to us and in europe a lot of companies are scared to hire more workers because the government imposed rules that prevent them from firing workers so labor flexibility is very important and to go back to the last callers view about unions i agree with them entirely. before the wagner act energy shrineed the system the united states did have labor unions for many decades and focused on useful services such as the first unemployment insurance was provide to labor unions to workers so i think if we want the go back to voluntary. i think union leadership would be less focused on maximizing

their own power and influence and political pressure and focus more on helping the worker ins the unions with basic grievance and those sorts of benefits. host: eric johansson? guest: yeah. we've done a lot of research in the past year trying to understand where our union members are creating invasions and benefitting people from their own members. one is the in the healthcare sector. front line union members are working with teams of management to improve the quality of care that they produced in that facility. this a study that we find by cornell that came out in february. workers have a voice on a job and not only have a voice to collectively enhance their own wages and benefits and protect themselves but to improve the

way they to the work. front line provideers in healthcare know how the work is done and how to make improvements and there are real outcomes that reduce costs and benefit these which is why management teams were happy to work with them on this so i think it's important that people understand where unions are present. again the benefits go to not only the members but to consumers to employees and nonunion employees. host: weekly standard has pieces on scott walker's victory and what it means for the presidential race. headline. when you look within the piece they write that walker rejects the advice romney is getting from retch republican strategists to make simple

referendum. consultants tell you he's down but i think he's got a run on bold plan and big ideas. romney needs a win on a mandate if you will to govern. romney has to have that background. has to say i'm a reformer like scott walker. ther has to stand for reformer not just republican. any thoughts on the presidential race and the effect on what's happening is guest: i agree with that entirely. both candidates should say in detail what they plan to do over the next four years when elected. i don't want to see a campaign based on negative attacks and broad generalizations but specifically what will they do to reform entitlements and the tax code and labor union issues. i think the piece is right that presidential candidates unless they run on detailed platforms they don't have a mandate for

big reforms if mandates. i would love to see how he would solve a budget deficit and if he wins he'll have a mandate to make the changes he promised. guest: if romney wins we'll see even more declines in union density and more false against union employees in the years that we've had president obama we've seen some with the appointments he made with the national relations board we've seen modest improvements. there was a rule they issued last fall that a judge return based on facts that they didn't have a quorum but it as minor issue the work out. these would be reform to election process that would make it easier for workers to form unions. right now in a union election. employers use and just run

intimidating making it hard for workers to the from unions to form. so these kinds of reforms are modest but will make a difference. host: get larry's voice, independent from missouri. caller: good morning. they've a question and a comment. host: go ahead. caller: either one of your guests ever sit in on a negotiation of any kind with any - with the public sector and or the private sector. host: let me stop you there. we'll get back to you but to that question either of you? guest: yes. guest: no. caller: i have. they don't know. i was a union member for a long time and negotiated several contracts and the problem is that both sides have gone too far. the unions have gone too far. my dad was a union member in a

car factories when they got no benefits all the all. none. 0 and they stood a three month strike and finally got little bit but they went too far. it's the same way with the public unions. they don't even have a right to strike. so what - how can they negotiate if they don't have a right to strike. host: chris edwards? any thoughts? guest: some do it depends on state public sector labor union law is state specific. and so in some states, again i mentioned the philadelphia transit works striking a few years ago. i don't agree the worker was touching on the idea unions can create - if it wasn't for unions we wouldn't have a lot of benefits and the like in the work place i don't agree with that at all.

i think the natural competition in the market induces businesses to hire well performing workers when the workers produce well, they get higher wages and benefits over time. natural rise in american standards of living has to do with production efficiencies. the more machines businesses have. the more efficiency in the work place. the higher wages rise overtime and unions have this marginal effect. the academic legislature shows day can push up those for union but there's no free lunch and businesses have to cut costs so if they negotiate for higher wages than the businesses have to make these tough decisions perhaps to substitute more machines to work offshore and make these others kinds of adjustments. there's no free lunch here. host: eric johansson?

guest: productive has risen over the last decade but it used to be there were more unions in place and more collective bargaining and unions had a bigger share of success and productivity. now you see that the richest one percent are reaping the benefits of that productivity and without unions, thatism unions in the private sector. worker most longer see that. host: germ my has the higher worker productivity in the world. thoroughly unionized. guest: right there's been a lot of discussion about that and i think a number of northern european unions it's true they're more unionized but they work more in conjunction cooperatively with employers and in the united states there's antagonism between unions and business. and collective bargaining and ad ver sarl relationship that

hasn't been productive. host: debra? sin si in the the? caller: i'm sitting here with nickels and in timdimes in my h. while your of having this conversation. large citizens numbers snd hours to a dictatorship. how can you sit there and say people don't have the right to bargain? we have the right, but people want to take that right away and make it illegal. i mean - you talked about the people striking for against the transportation workers or striking and what reports would you have them do? is if they're unhappy or feel they're being treated unfairly? host: question for chris

edwards? guest: workers have the right to move to companies that respect their contributions and will pay them higher. there's competition in the workforce to get the best works so theres for incentives to workers to improve their own conditions and move to dmoims that treat them well. i think the private sector union share is only 7% so seems most american work s have rejected unions over the decades. you only need 51% voting in the collective bargaining in organization drive to get collective bargaining in a work place and the unions have been unsuccessful to convince american workers to the join unions. host: there's a twitter message we'll address to eric johansson. nonunion shops are able to sell the things they produce. writes this one viewer. guest guest unions don't kill

job's. there are plenty of instances where unions, like in the healthcare sector. they're members and you're a union member you want your company to success because you want a job and do well. it's not in the union's interest to bring down a company they represent so time and time again. kaiser permanente. leader in the healthcare, they respect their unions and the unions work hard to make case another strong company. partnerships and private sector and public sector where again, union members are able to find ways to improve the way that they do work and the o companies benefit from that. >> the ap through the "washington post" remiensd us that legal battle is targeting pensions.

two california cities and san jose. overwhelming improved. retirement benefits from future hires and current employees. 18,000,000 and virtually all of the workers in united states get an old-fashioned defined benefit plan. unnortherly if you look at various estimates the plans seem to be funded at a 50% rate in other words governments only have 50% of the assets set aside to pay for them in the future. so a lot of state and local governments across the country

both gem cat democrat and repu are increasing the amount of worker contributions to pension plans and raising the retirement plans and necessary reforms and the those in san diego and the vote in san diego and san jose went straight to that problem. that the votes reaffirmed the may yors decisions in those cities to reform the pension plans. host: more about where this might be headed nation wide? guest: yes. well, yeah. it de science pension plans shown to be more administratively efficient than 401k. lot of problems you're seeing because of wall street and where they've take ten economy in declines and stock values, but by taking people out of those plans. you are making them even weaker

so that's not the solution to saving those plans and - for voters, who don't have them, you can understand how you know they may have or take issue with the it's important to sustain that benefit. those were promised made to the workers. deferred wages and they need to be saved and there's ways to do that without destroying them. >> our guests are erin joe hanson at american rights at work. .org is the website for that organization. she has a bachelors from skidmor and recent publications checking out the rise of and fall of wal-mart and recent jobs. other guests is chris edwards cato institute fiscal policy studies director and he was a form senior economist at the joint economic committee and

consultant at price water house coopers. we have about ten minutes left. water town connecticut. charlie. republican up now. hi? caller: how are you? i've been listening this morning and for the record i've been nonunion most of my life and recently got a private sector union job and we don't get the opportunity to have anything like the pension benefits that the public sector gets. i mean who - who can work for 20 years and then get a full retirement? almost full pay is what it seems? most of us i have to work until i'm 65 or 67 and still rely on my social security to get things you think done. a lot of people are retiring because they have 20 years in. that's ridiculous about pensions. we're all worth something but

why some of us more that you know there's. i'm a taxpayer ultimately in the end. i'm having to pay for their pension while i'm still having to work and pay for my own. host: charles bridgeport? hi. caller: morning. my comment about labor unions is i was in the united mine workers labor union for seven years 30 years ago. i was a paid fair wages and had benefits all according to the economy and the value of the dollar. since that time i've been nonunion and haven't made fair wages or benefits according to the economy and the dollar. unions give the individual a voice. and it's all in a matter of fairness. this gentlemen came in here saying it's unions who hurt the

economy and the people want the unions, but they've fallen back because of the consistent removal of our industrial and manufacturing base out of this country. that is a big part of the decline of the labor unions. seven years and up to now i'll take union any day. thank you. host: chris edwards? guest: i think there's a bigger rift not between nonunion but public and private sector work. especially because americans went into a recession that has slow growth and a lot of people in the private sector have been looking saying these guys have extremely stable jobs and get these incredible pension benefits and can retire early and the public sector and state local governments is about 55 and workers can often retire

with refined benefit plans so in california for example there's 12 thousand who have retired who have annual pensioned. between. not so much. but they really do seem to have action see save benefits. >> no. guest: when you look at several studies. when you compare private sector workers to public sector workers with similar education and experience levels that are huge. actually and you include compensation of private sectors join more and that's been a tremendous out source out there to divide and conquer workers between each other and people need to look at research.

host: my sense of the academic research and i've looked at the liberal and academic studys is state and local workers generally have conservative levels of wages. i don't think they're too high or low but right on average. it's the benefits though that state and local do have really - they get over paid and over prominent. retired around 55 and then they get ten years of subsidies. before medicare picks in. others don't get those healthcare benefits the if i retire from cato i don't get health sub sities for ten years. it's that type of benefit they provide to government workers that are action see save. guest: they didn't in clued that. when they looked at

compensation. these public jobs are good jobs. they're benefitting community. we're in an economy based on consumer spending. these people are propping up the economies in their communities of strip away benefits and go after them and their union rights. doesn't help sustain a healthy economy. host: dell is on the line from new york. democrat level. good morning. caller: good morning. i did so much to say. i worked general motors and ford for 11 years. hello? host: you're on the air. keep going. caller: i worked general motors for 11 years. three months on the line and the rest as a 6 level super vie vor and without the union they would have us all chaind to the line. the unions benefitted not only the hour workers but management.

if we get rid of the unions what will they do now. start nailing up the doors at the sweat shops? what are you looking forward to? cato or heritage foundation i get a shiver and change the channel. when you're talking about public union members retiring at 55 you're talk about policeman and fire man. how old do you have to be to carry a hose in a gun. these people are in jeopardy every day. i don't care where they work. host: chris edwards? guest: well most public sector workers are not police or fire. most are teachers, and other sorts of bureaucrats in state and local government. i would say that the automobile industry, united states there's tens of thousands workers that work in nonunionized mailing and

honda and toyota and many foreign companies have created a lot of good jobs that pay very well and now there's sort of - and these companies are more conservative. it allows them to expand creating more jobs for americans. there's a weird risk western conference the old line unionized automobile worker ins the united states where the long standing workers get high wages and benefits but new workers get lower sometimes than some of the nonunionized plans in the southern united states in honda and united states and those sorts of companies. i don't think ultimately that workers benefit from unionization in the long run if they push for unrealistic demands their companies lose and they end up loseing in the long run. >> to the pages ofcq. eroding power the head level. bad omen for federal employees.

republicans claim last week's election in wisconsin the scott walker held on to his job shows that public isn't buying the message of labor unions that their unfairly bearing the cost. unions and democrats that work hard to unseat walker insist they'll rebound by november. any insight on to the rebound you folks think might becomeing? guest: well when you put the actual issue to voters directly. should public employees have collective bargaining rights? overwhelming report as they did senate bill five. there's a lot of issues at play. the fact we had a recall. to recall governor walker is significant. people still - americans still care about - you look at pole after pole and they care about collective bargaining rights and support them for public employees as well as themselves. i think using recalls a a

victory is miss informed by the republicans. host: republican in virginia. brian? caller: this is actually good time for me to call in. i was a former employee of the illinois department of transportation and deal with facts and reality in contrast to your prior caller that probably had valid point as a public sector employee. that and the reality is as a degree geologist earning $$35,000 a year out of college just 12 years ago i was forced to be in the teamster union. they took the dues against my will out of my paycheck and then i'm designing bridge foundations and highway profiles and then at the same time, a high school graduate who picks up snow makes

$65,000 a year and get 1.67 times my salary at my pension. that snow plow guy, basically is unemployable gets 2.1% of the salary that's double of mine. and then i have student loans to pay off on top of it and i'm forced to be in a union that provides no protection. criminal, chicago? so that's what's happening in illinois as a public sector employee. host: eric johansson any thoughts? guest: i can't comment on his particular situation. sorry that you're not feeling you're getting benefits you should. you want to be in a union, you can out of being a member to make that clear. really, being in a union is about having a voice at your

work place and to be able to go to the table and ask your employer for mix set of demands. there's no guarantees. if you don't like the leadership you can vote it out. it as democratic institution and by and large americans poll after poll would rather be in the union than not be. host: final thoughts? guest: i think it is the opposite. collective bargain iing hurts t voice. they don't agree with the union there's nothing they can do about it. they can't individually negotiate with the public in wisconsin. scott walker one of his reforms was to essentially go right to work. public sector workers allowing them to tend forced union dues and fees that workers pay and my understanding over the last year since his went into a place where people have been leaving public sector unions in

wisconsin because frankly they don't feel they're getting their money's worth. host: eric johansson and chris edwards. thanks both of you for joining us. we'll take another short time-out and then learn about a new pew research center study that talks about the political divide in america and how it's changed over the years. we'll talk to michael dimock of pew. >> they're often referred to as the conscience of the congress and after that, after almost two

years i can't think of a better name. it's really the heartbeat of the people. >> executive director of the congressional black caucus angela ryee on on their role. >> it's sent for african-americans to coming to on issues playinging the community at large and really coming together to discuss legislative proposals to advance the causes of people that don't have a voice. >> more with angela rye tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. >> mr. gos tonight at 9 keel co eastern. mark the 25th anniversary of president ronald reagan's speech from the brandenberg gate in

germany. the series the contenders. 14 key political figures that ran for presidency and lost but changed political history. today at 7:30 p.m. james blaine, american history t.v. this weekend on c-span three. >> washington journal continues. host: pew research center. michael dimock. associate research director to talk about new information they've found out about what divides us at americans. what were you looking to find out specifically and what did you learn? guest: this is part of the study we've done for 25 years now and the purpose is to step back from the particular debates of the moment. healthcare and or abortion or gay marriage and talk more about the american public values and how they feel about opportunity. the economy, about business and labor and about sort of broader values about the way our society

works the way our government works. in tracking this over the last 25 years, we have seen a remarkable amount of stability of american values that defines the way americans look at things hasn't changed a lot. the dynamic has been part in polarization of this. host: when did you notice the change? guest: wasn't that much of a change through the 90's despite political excitement. we had impreach meant and the reagan years you didn't see the partisan wedge until the mid 2000's. first term of george bush's congratulations and then that's just continued in the obama year where's now we're seeing republicans and democrats disagreeing about more and more not just policy debates but mored values about how things operate.

host: there's a chart here about where partisan are the largest. see if we can walk them through it. 1987 the years. the lighter shade here is 19827 darker shade is present. social safety net. the idea on top of the list. exactly what are we saying here? guest: survey asks how committed people are to the idea the government o has a responsibility to help people that have fallen through the cracks in one way or another. this sal ways divide republicans and democrats at the core of political debate in this country. on the set of questions that cove this. republicans and dlem cat where is 23% apart. the republicans. that's widened now to a 41 percentage point difference between republicans and democrats. clear's and deepest divide. >> huge area in the area of

environment. >> that's unwith of the remarkable ones. as recent as 20 years ago there was no difference between republicans and democrats on the environment. about the priority on environmental protection were almost exactly the same. republicans over the past 15 years have changed their values in very substantial way they're not as supportive of the environment. >> smaller but scant differences. labor unions according to pew. equal opportunity and government scope and performance. also immigration. guest: another one immigration that's been a stark divide as recently as 2000 there wasn't much difference but the democrating values have changed. they've become much more open to expanding immigration and being more welcome and appreciative of the rolls they play while republican views have not changed. host: what's all this mean? guest: we like to step back

particularly in a heated presidential election like this where it seems to turn on what somebody said yesterday verses today and try to understand the broader landscape in what ways we agree or disagree and what ways does this country sort of still share common goals and values or have we become more distinct. host those pew study talks here about the percentage point. basically the issues we've just talked about. widening partisan in political values. guest: this is an is summary of all the things you look at. in 1987 when we first did this we've asked the same things. republican and democrat view where is on average ten points apart. they were likely to agree to different questions and that remind pretty steady but then in

2003 all of the sudden bang we see them growing a part and now 18 percentage points different. as twice as far apart as they were even 15 not to mention 25 years ago. host: areas of improvement with napa gap narrowing? guest: yes. little in views of responsiveness of politicians in washington. they're both equally skeptical about how well washington officials hear them. host: as we look at poles, real clear politics has this average from a while back. congressional approval. 14.6% currently. what's that number mean to you? guest: it's really historic. we've gone through periods of public distrust in government. it's american who is distrust governments and we see it in the

value questions. americans are skeptical of government and it's part of the way we think. the views of congress right now have really gone to levels we haven't seen before and it's really seen as a fundamental dysfunctional institution and when you ask people why? is the it about the rules and the way it operates or the people work there the problem? they blame the people. they they if you can replace the members the whole thing can work again. that may not be realistic if you talk about congress scholars there's broader institutional issue but the broader thing is it as personal problem. host: tony. democrat. caller: good morning to you guys. thanks for having my call. i think it as divide right now. but for the simple fact, you have barack obama in office and it's the republicans who is

trying to really getting unelected. and they won't agree to anything that they would agree within the past with democrats because of the fact, they want to make him a one-term president. it's a lot of things. i'm a democrat. it's a lot of things i agree with the republicans about. for this immigration and not union rights because i'm union member but think the goosed for people that don't have a voice for - with the companies because if you don't have that voice, the companies do anything and teach you any kind of way that you want to treat you. just let me say this for one second. back in the early 80's when i joined the union we seldom had a

restroom and they very seldom cleaned it. back then. you know until we negotiated that we didn't even have water on the job because they didn't have responsibilities to give us water. host: thanks again. the figures from pew on labor unions. 20% gap or difference in opinion on this country is now at 37% if for this country. guest: debates over unions, again hear the divide we're seeing is mostly about changing views among republicans. democrats have been stable with labor unions that are necessary to protecting the working person in this country. republic republicans at at least majority agree with that idea although maybe less concretely but in the last 6-10 years republican views have changed a lot. they're not as supportive of the role they play in the market

place today. host: pew saw the ditalk here about the business, the gap in the way folks are thinking about business. there's opinions at 24%. 16% back in 1987. personal efficacy. social conservatism. 17%. religion 15%. guest: those are interesting. l one is just how committed you are to religion. when we started this democrat where is just as religious as republicans to pray every day and insist of the existence of god. but today there's a secularization and growing number of people. still a minority who no longer hold that strong faith and that's concentrated between independents and democrats.

republicans have stayed strong in their faith and that trend has led to more of a divide between parties that didn't exist. host: there's a number. 15-14% in the area of personal finance? guest: here wear looking how comfortable you feel finishly and republicans have typically felt more secure than democrats. they typically be little higher income and there's consist consistent divide that speaks to a broader issue. there's a lot of talk about class and the 99% and how people see class. our the difinds remarkable stability. class is a big class divide. wealthy people and poor people take different views of roles of government. there are wide gaps but they have neither widens or narrowed. what diviced rich and poor today

is basically the same thing that divide them when reagan was president. host: the political divide will narrow if we can close the economic divide. guest guest i there's something to that. where we're having hardest time bringing not just the politicians here in washington together was the public in terms of priorities and roles. i think to the extent that income is related to those attitude west haven't seen change. what's happening is people are sorting themselves out more cleanly into the partisan categories that offers less economec middle ground. host: republican line? caller: good morning. i don't want put words in your mouth. i'm a republican, i'm a conservative and i want clean air and a water. just like everyone in american

and i don't think it's that republicans care less about the environment. i think what we care less about is the way that president obama particularly and lisa jackson at the e.p.a. are approaching utilizing our vast natural resources and this is why many conservatives and republicans feel that again, going to the role of government that we were blessed with so much coal and natural gas but it's not racial it's ideological that the whole green jobs thing, and that's where republicans say, no. we don't want more laws. we don't need more laws. we need good laws and good regulation and efficient regulation but we want to use our natural resources and not lock everything up. i think that's where republicans are coming from on the environment. not that we want dirty air and

water like the left likes to portra portray. so that's my comment. >> host: some of these issues have become more political divisive by their very nature that environmental protection is part of the a broader conversation about natural resources and energy and where this country should be invested for the future and that's brouthd it to the realm of the more political debate thant was when we first asked about it in the 9s. host: ross is on the line from kentucky. caller: thanks guys. thanks for taking my calls. the reason why i called and i'm an independent and there's democratic issues as well as republican issues. when i look at the list, the thing that i'm seeing as an independent is that the difference in how the use of

power of government is being implemented. where the left agrees that use of power should be used this way and the right says no and there's no moderate common sense put into place and there's certain things the government should be and shouldn't be doing and we're causing our own strife among citizens. one stride side is telling the other how to live.

have brought these issues front and center. it has really intensify the focus on this key divide in the nation and has brought us further apart. host: year is a question via twitter -- guest: it is a really difficult question. it is the media in byron causing people to hold more consistent ideological beliefs? or is that something that is happening in changes in the media are serving that demand?

i think you can make the case either direction. i think the timing of this the sort of overlap with the growth and development of television. you have to go back into the 1990's where you had the president facing impeachment and the arrival of other mediums to allow people to follow their views in the press. you did not see the same kind of polarization. i am not sure how much of the congestion is a tribute to to the press. host: just another detail on the bottom of the chart. it was 12% back in 1987, 15% now. optimism, the idea of optimism is 14% now. 11 percent and back then. government responsiveness, anything about those numbers? guest: of the core questions in american political values is the

sense of optimism. the american dream. hard will all pay off. everybody who applies themselves can get ahead. there have been divided this country throughout wealthy and poor, republicans and democrats. those issues have not grown for their part. americans remain an optimistic population. we think the future can be brighter than the present. even at the individual level, hard work will pay off. that has not become one of the fundamental issues. we have to think of the accumulation back of the polls are -- they asked about whether the country is on the right track. at 34% say yes. 58% say no. general like gin, it pulled between late may oand this mont, tied. obama up by 1%. the president. president obama's job approval

is 47.7%. as of later in may, early june. anything about those numbers? guest: this election is an election about these fundamentals. about the role of government. and what role it should play in this economy and the tough times we are facing. whether the government needs to be doing more to try to help people who are feeling like their fall into the cracks or to try to turn the economy around or whether the solution is to get government out of things. to stop the spending of government and reduce the deficit as a way to solve it. that will be the fundamental debate of this election. in that regard, the cleanest measure of that -- if you could have your way, would you have a bigger government or a smaller government? that basically split this country 50/50. there really is an even difference of opinion when you get down to it. >> -- host: there is a

difference of opinion concerning the federal government and local is government. here is the chart. guest: i find it is remarkable. the darker line is favorability of the federal government in washington. it is falling. we are at 33% right now. that is higher than the favorability rating of the congress, which is particularly low. what is remarkable to me is state and local governments have not suffered. there favorability rating dropped a bit when the downturn came in 2008 and when people got strapped in concern. they will hold somebody accountable. state and local governments are the governments that have had to deliver a lot of the deals. they have had to make a lot of the cuts. the public thstill respects those agencies. we tend to trust the government

closer to us more than the one for their way. even during austerity where state and local governments have had to do a lot of tough things, the public has maintained a fairly positive view. host: we go to florida. steve. republican. go ahead. caller: hello. thank you for having me on. my thing is that ever since mr. obama has been elected, it has been so obvious that democrats don't want go din oud in our country. republicans have woken up. i think that there is so much obviousness and that is clear

how many people are frustrated with this president. i work for the middle class and the super rich. those people -- they hired guys to work for them. nobody is speaking for us. the problem is, for these people who invest their money in the stock market, their money is not growing and they are not hiring. let the rich get richer. it allows us to get rich, too/ gue. guest: yeah. interesting point with respect to the way people view this leadership. we first release of this in 2005

where you saw democrats said that point becoming extremely angry and frustrated with the president and the broader government. they were angry about the way things were going in politics. we had had seen that level in recent history. even going back to a tough time in the 1990's with the downturn you did not 1990's see the same level of public anchoger,. that completely flipped once barack obama became president. whether it is the actions he took before or just the sense the country was moving in a direction that people felt uncomfortable with, you saw a very strong immediate polarizing reaction to the president. that seems to be the cycle we're in right now. whether it is obama or mitt romney. will we just see that same kind

of immediate reaction going from politics? host: 1987, you have been doing this -- how often? guest: every three years. 14 times over this period. we have tried to attract via the inflow of political values. host: how do you go about it? guest: we interviewed 3000 people. it is a telephone survey. it covers cell phones and land line phones. we are reaching people of all kinds of walks of life. it is designed not to get you to talk about the issues but to try to step back and basically throws 65 statement and ask you whether you disagree or agree. you think that will take forever but once it starts going, it is like a gut check. you just react to these statements. we do not take you too fast and firm on any one question. we're looking at the broader patterns of your answers.

your immediate reaction to these issues. and trying to get a sense of where people are in all of these different facets. host: what surprises you? guest: partisanship. stability. i mean that in two ways. one, our values have not changed. we still believe in opportunity and have the same views of most of these values. we are religious nation. a faithful nation. we have concerns about this as though we still believe that our country's success is based on business. most of our values are very consistent. what tell struck me was out insistence of the gaps are. the party divide it is the exception. the other divide that exists has not changed. when we started the study in 1987, men and women differed on most of these values questions

by 4%. it is 6% today. men and women differ over a few things but they are pretty minor. they have not really change. the income divide is the difference between higher income folks and lower-income folks, nine. back then and 10 points today. race, fascinating to me. the differences in white and black values are substantial. particularly rwith respect to government and issues of equal rights and what role the government should play in providing equal rights. those of whites are almost exactly the same today that they were 25 years ago. -- divides are almost exactly the same today than they were 25 years ago. this partisanship is a one dynamic. host: boston. nick. independent.

caller: good morning. you made a comment that republicans were not in favor of immigration and democrats were. were you referring to a legal or illegal? guest: the questions in your cover both. one is just about overall, how much legal immigration should we allow? the other question is about whether immigrants -- they are both about immigration in general. whether they contribute to our culture or detract from it. caller: i just wanted to say that you should clarify that because it does lead to misrepresenting republicans. there against illegal immigration, as i am. i am against anybody that breaks the law in this country. if you break a law, or i break the law, we pay.

guest: that is fair. the issue of illegal immigration is a concrete aspect of the immigration issue. one that is public literally -- particularly political. these are linked to the broader views of the diversity of our country. and how people view that. this is not something that is all black and white along republican and democrat lines. all we are seeing is a growing difference of opinion along those lines. that difference is driven more by changing views among democrats. republican values are pretty much where they were 10 years ago. part of that reflects the democratic party has become the verse. barely half of democrats are white. nearly half of the democratic

party in this country are minorities in respect of one form or another. you have not seen that diversification in the republican party. host: san jose, a democratic caller. welcome. caller: good morning. i am glad to hear lamichael say that we're looking at a political divided the u.s. and he hit a social and economic divide in the u.s. it has been going on for decades. if you look at the 1970's until right now, the amount of millionaires is astronomical compared to decades ago. with that point being made, it is not a matter of the rich get richer. it is a matter of where is the point of accountability? there has been no accountability. we have allowed politicians to run rampant. now, we are upset when only 30%

of us to show to vote. aside.e to put this we have to work together or we will never going to bric -- we are never going to break the trend. guest: by many measures, our country is experiencing an economic divide. american views on that have not changed much. people believe that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. we have always felt that way. we're not seeing any real growing resentment of wealth. that goes back to what the previous caller said -- the wealthy are the wealthy. a lot of people believe they help us. there are resentful of what the rich make. resentment of the poor has been coming up. people who think those are freeloading off of society. you do not see a change there and american values. you do not see a growing number of people concerned are skeptical of the poor and that

they are not trying. most americans are sympathetic to people who are poor. they think they have fallen through hard times not through any fundamental personal failing but just because we are facing hard times. the majority of the country wants to see it coming together. republicans and democrats are growing for their part in the way they look at the country and society and government, the desire for coming together and reaching compromise has not changed. the vast majority of americans want to see people come together and work together to get things done. that is also part of this consistency i was talking about in american values. host: we have mentioned the approval rating of congress and you talk about government responsiveness in general. guest: i think folks on the hill

read this study. they have plenty of their own folks telling them how that people are right now -- that things are right now. some of that is hard wired in the re americans think about government. it has gotten more extreme recently. the implications of that and are hard to know. the one thing we see is when confidence in government goes down, the number of people who get voted out tends to go up. you saw that in recent elections. 2010 and one of the largest turnout in modern -- turnovers in modern history. that is clearly linked to this frustration people have with politicians and politics in washington. the problem is that that instability almost -- the more unstable it is, the more the leaders want to stick to their

guns and for about the threat of somebody saying they have compromised too much or that they are giving up the core principles. as the risk goes up, the political leadership of most dense to polarize even more. that just exacerbates the problem. host: our guest is michael dimock, director at the pew research center. pewresearch.org. he has a ph.d. from the university of secalifornia, san diego. he is currently associate rector above pew research center. he joined the center in 2000. here is cape cod, massachusetts. republican. good morning. caller: [unintelligible] i'm retired. i have the luxury of watching c-

span. especially "washington journal." it is the heartbeat of america. you only have to listen to "washington journal" for a few months and you will see what the big elephant in the room and the country is -- the ethnic divide. it is not just black and white. it goes deeper than that. this election will be based on ethnicity. group is pitted against another group. it is to bed. -- too bad. we both get out of bed and say today is sunday. other people say, i am black.

the police deck of race cards out. -- they paul a stack of race cards out. no matter who wins this november, when group will feel ostracized. the other group -- will not play race card. even if you take the situation with people who are not black but are from cuba or aruba or puerto rico, every time they hear the term african-american and how african-americans are left crumbs on the table -- this country is in serious trouble. i think race is a bigger element

that you are giving it credit. host: michael dimock? guest: race is a factor. folks of different background have different views of values about government. there are uncomfortable aspects of race and people have to come to grips with the diversification of the country and the trends in the nation. while i have said most of the american values have been stable, there is one exception. that is american attitude about race. about half of the people we spoke with since 1987 said it was an acceptable for blacks and whites to date each other. that has diminished to a minuscule proportion. your point is well taken.

a lot has changed as well over this time in the way people look at race. host: it is good texas. hello. caller: hello. i have been working in the trenches for two years with the general public. trying to get the benefits and things like that. i see a section of those who want to be taken care of and have tha tdon't bt don't but to be. is that a problem or do you attribute that to this problem? guest: it is a big issue. would we track the value is

about the social safety net and responsibility of government to care for people who cannot care for themselves or who do not have the means for fundamental housing and food, we see a shift in reactions. republican commitments to those seeking a items have shrunk. that does not mean that republicans turn cold-blooded. and what to throw people in the streets. i think it gets back to the broader debate about the role and scope of government and the growing concern that many have that the government has gotten too expensive. even when they hear a question related to this, their reaction is to say no. i want less government. specifically to the question of poverty, we made an extra effort to look at how people view poverty and why they are poor. do you think they do not want to work or they cannot find work? for the most part, american views are pretty positive about

poverty in the sense they do not think of most people in poverty as folks to are just coasting along and wanting to be taken care of without trying. i think our instincts as americans is to assume the best of most of our fellow americans. whether poor or rich. and to not necessarily hold that against them in any way as a personal failing. we see division. we see divides between wealthy and poor. we do not necessarily think they are growing or shrinking in terms of the values that we share. --d as you get its- where does pew get funding? guest: a lot of places. the research center is a separate entity from that. they support and contribute to

their editorial independence in terms of choosing our research products and reporting on them in the best way we see fit. our mandate is to research what is going on in this country, not to take sides on anything or try to advance any agenda or put any issues on the agenda but just to try to observe and study and bring some understanding to trends, whether it is pulling or demographic analysis. we do a variety of those kinds of things. host: situlas. democrat. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i have a point to a previous caller who said that the rich working for them makes life better. that is true. it probably does. however, for the vast majority of people, there are only -- poverty was more rapid back in the day. the rich were insulated from the

downturn. if you give everybody enough money, how many flat screen tv's can they possibly purchase if you are somebody like this compared to if you have 300 million people making minimum wage. second thing is this -- they have -- the republican party has gone after democrats and bill clinton was elected. it developed a whole new strategy. i blame it on the milton friedman school of thought. they had a meeting of january 20, 2009 where these people in the senate and house were determined to bring down this president. we have seen legislation that has been agreed to on both parties to get to the final step of it. the republicans walk away from it. this can only be because they

want to sabotage the economic plans of the country. i do not want to go back to the aristocracy. i want to stay with a strong middle class and a country that does not engage in voter suppression in order to win. at about a battle of ideas should be played on a level field. we have this money being poured into because of citizens united and we are ending up with a country that is dysfunctional and going to correct the government to the point that they fail to believe in the government and the people involved in it and it leads to chaos. we do need not -- we do not need to have this. this is a battle that the people need to realize the government is theirs. guest: while there is instability in values, the other area we have seen ships is in use of government and fundamental views on the

electorate. people -- elected officials care what people like me think. fewer and fewer people agree with that sentiment. i think it is a troubling trend. the implications are not entirely clear. it seems to almost reinforce the gamesmanship in washington and the high stakes that elections -- every election seem to be close. when you are in an environment, it leads to political leaders focused more on winning the battles and not necessarily thinking about all longer game. i think that is part of the time we are in. a change in politics and political conversation in this country is being reinforced by the elections. in some ways, we are a 50-50 nation and that issue has come to the forefront and that has exacerbated that tension.

host: last caller.

we better face that. america has no culture of its own. it is about laws. i did not see anything in the q results the talk about that ever. -- in the pew results. host: we get criticized from democrats plenty. -- guest: we get criticized for democrats plenty.

to your point, we have done plenty of survey questions that show a lot of americans sir -- concern about illegal immigration. your views on that are not enforcing the laws on illegal immigration in this country. i think the broader question in general on the nation and society is weather has been more of a shift. there is more among some segments of the country. host: anything else you want to add about people have not talked about? guest: the question that comes to my mind, where are the in between voters? is there anybody going in with their minds not completely made up? there are polls out there. most have a clear sense of where

they want to go. some are listening to the conversation. that will be determined. host: pewresearch.org to read the latest study. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you. host: when we come back, we will do a segment of open phones. ♪ >> the b-52, everything's back to vietnam. they think of the history of the b-52. the cold war. there is a different kind of power associate with the b-52 as opposed to other long-range bombers. >> there are two.

women and confederates. we fought against each other in the battle of 1862. we're sitting on the porch, talking about the old days. >> we have one to the east marked 901. the one to the west is marked 903. they really reflect a reference of the bomb which was at 902. >> watch for the c-span local content vehicles. and look for the history and the literary culture of our next of kin in jefferson city, missouri on the weekend of july it seventh-8. "washington journal" continues. host: we will round of this segment of the program with open phones. you can call in or tweet us. we will start the phone numbers. the number to call for our

republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. you can continue the conversation we have had here about the divide in america. it find us online as well. cspanwj is our twitter address. or, "the communicators -- how are you doing this morning? caller: i would like to say that people are not reading about history. history is bound to repeat itself if you do not learn from it. immigrants are a good thing. instilling hate because some is a liberal or progressive, we

share this country, too. thank you. host: michael from the pew research center talked about how emigrants were the largest in this country. what that means is that is for the partisan division over labor unions is at this point in time. 20% back in 1987. in minnesota, an independent. good morning to you. caller: good morning. this whole movement, the immigration movement and all of that was nothing but a plot led attack on african-americans because of their asking to be equal to the other part of this country.

that is why illegal immigration has not been stopped. white america brought in the illegals, the simoleons, and all that. -- some mullions some of them cannot speak english, but they are employed. they call for equal rights. i see them deteriorating. the young ones, deteriorating. walking around with the pants hang off of their behinds. and not getting what they marched and fought for and then replaced by other immigrants. host: touching on immigration. one earlier caller speaking

about how he thinks ethnicity will make the difference. this headline. they talk about a pattern of sitting out. the have a front-page photo here out of denver.

the help of latinos become citizens and register to vote. this is from the front page of "the new york times." good morning. caller: how are you? in a seven-year-old -- i did some computer research. a the thing you'd want to look at is mainly how all the different categories have been voting the same for 25 years except the one that is the most important, at the role of government. he started this in 1987. if you think about its, the news media was completely flat.

if you think about it, rush limbaugh chemlawn. in 1995, he came on. he gave the other side a voice and started educating the people that way. a chance to speak up. that is one of the biggest reasons you have this divide. talk about the fact that all you have to do is look every morning and you will see with the problem is. he was clear. he was talking about a racial thing. 97% of the alaskan population vote democrat. sure. i am not against president obama. i love martin luther king. ideology.t his

this is not a socialist country. that is what the democrats in 2006 started moving this country. if somebody stands up in congress, we to stand up against that, we are racist or we don't care about the country. i don't believe in big government. the sea has not changed? host: we get the point. a democrat, thank you for hanging on. caller: unions. your guest was chris edwards of the cato institute. koch re funded by theykoc brothers. they're the biggest contributor to stop -- scott walker's campaign. they gave millions. >> what does that mean to you?

caller: i think you should have disclosed that. host: anything else you want to say? caller: it is pretty obvious. you bring in the spokesman for the koch brothers to speak about unions when they want to destroy unions. host: a ok. you're on the air. caller: i'm glad you got me and after that guy who is a republican. host: you there? caller: i am here. the main thing is the education. rush limbaugh has miscommunicated people. as an african-american and a veteran, you hear the conservatives talking about freedom. they do have a clue what freedom is. we as african americans have

lived in this country without freedom. we have done it by serving in the military and protecting the freedom they have enjoyed. how this country was founded and how the republican party was founded, the republican party was founded in wisconsin in 1854. and they were liberals. the republican party was founded by liberals. as far as the 1964 civil rights act, they always want to tell you that the republicans were the majority. they were not. 46 democrats voted for the 1964 civil rights act. 21 did not. every democrat outside of the south voted for it. it was the conservative and dixie class that voted against it. only 27 republicans voted appeared they had to be dragged,

kicking and screaming. host: the l.a. times talks about how the money race is altering the agenda. the president spent just two hours on the soil. given that those prices are expected in the election.

in the "sunday star ledger" the talk about governor chris christie. and a college mergers he foley admits. he cannot stand being governor in june when budget battles bring trenching politics to a fever pitch. in mississippi, a republican, good morning.

caller: good morning. i would like to respond to the last call. the african-american who called in. i would just like to make a comment to african-americans. i can understand why they have the feelings that they have for what happened in the past. but i feel about enough time has passed and enough effort has been made to rectify what we did all those years ago. it was terribly wrong. but how long will it take them to get over it? there have been given every opportunity. they have been given more opportunities than whites now and other races to excel in their career. they are doing it to their own herself now. they're killing their own people. young people are killing each other. and now they continue to want to blame what happened 100 years ago.

host: the words of a republican from mississippi. we have diana on the line. would you say? host: i just wanted to make a comment from the lady from mississippi. i've just wanted to make a statement that about these questions. i was raised in a very democratic family. although my father was a reagan democrat, i do not believe we have had a good republican president since ronald reagan. i'm not sure that anyone in the repartee today, with the republicans the way they are going after reagan, in a little concern for the future. i see them being pretty much scared of the liberals today. i think people are a little more open minded today. maybe in the next 20 to 30 years, i'm not sure where the

republican people will be. i am concerned with their policies going back to the 1950's end of 1960's. we need to move forward as a nation. even now i am a barack obama supporter, i was concerned about him not being there in wisconsin. i was hoping i would see barack rally around the union workers there. i was a little concerned about that. i am supportive of him. i am concerned that if romney does get in office, and you think that will have to do with the super pacs and all the money. i think we should give barack obama for more years -- four more years. i think it will take another few years, maybe four years or five years to get this economy back.

host: the president yesterday vi a video talked about the middle class and jobs. and that sort of thing. he addressed them via video. [video clip] >> will have a lot more work to do, especially when it comes to getting our fellow americans back to work. we have got to keep at it until everyone who is out there penn -- pounding the pavement is a job that pays the bills. would you can't do is go back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place. what we will not do is cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires by getting things like education and clean energy. it is time to move forward and build an economy where everyone has a fair shot at success. in this make-or-break moment of the middle class, now is the time to dig deep. change is hard, but we have seen

that it is possible as long as you're willing to keep up that fight. i will be right in there with you. host: what a difference four years makes. there is written by the man who served in the legislative branch. there is a chart as part of this piece. they do ask the simple question. that famous question. are americans better off than they were? the talk about the federal deficit. $459,000,000,000.30 years ago. $1.32 trillion today.

federal debt up from 10 trillion dollars -- $10 trillion. distillate to a bit more than $50,000. the sources for this chart are various federal sources and commodity prices. we will take the next call. sharon. an independent. caller: the three single most important things in the american economy going forward is gas, technology, and education. i cannot support the local consumer or business because it cost me $75. when clinton was in office, gas prices were a little over $1. now i have to make a decision whether or not out to go to a local business, or fallen to find a cheaper price online.

technology is what is killing our jobs. every time we do online banking or we go without talking, that somebody's job. we get to start putting the blame on how we want to do this. do we want somebody working behind the front desk, or do we want to be quick and fast. look at people whoare unemployed. was it better for us because we wanted to have a quick and simple? finally, education. we're not putting any money into the sources in education. all the while, china and other countries are doing it. lookit 10 years from now. facebook and all these the things out there, you cannot simply read a book to get a job.

we have to blame ourselves. at the end of the day, we have to stop looking at congress and blaming president obama. we have to look at our own insight and decide what issues makes a difference. host: exception to the "the washington post." it is been a while here. the talked-about the five wars of watered it -- they talk about the five words of water did. -- five wars of watergate. it is in the outlook section of the post. woodward and bernstein writing today. a republican, good morning. caller: i guess this is why we

do not have to overthrow our government. it is called a voting them out of loss -- out of office. i'm glad our democratic process works. our commander in chief speaks of tightening your buckle and pulling your bootstraps up, yet their spending lavishly on vacations and people are losing their homes. people don't have jobs. yet these folks are looking up to the president and saying nothing but regulation, no growth. i think if romney gets in, he will set an agenda of certainty. i think that is what the folks are looking for. there are desperate people and desperate times. we have a government that is growing. you have folks at the helm who

are blowing money left and right. details for obama's wife on vacations. and folks are ready to hit the streets. i think we need a commander-in- chief who will lead us out of this recession pretty much. host: thank you for calling. you're on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: here is what i would like to say. the cato institute, a conservative institute that promotes doing away with government regulation, the people who were quite anxious to pass a bunch of legislation that might be in their best interest. there are many people who are scared of joining labor unions because of fear of losing their livelihood to feed their families.

but thirdly, it seems like the free enterprise system is quick to put pictures and the paper of struggles, groups of lawyers, doctors, get together and form corporations for the benefit of their livelihood, which is a good thing. we all agree. if a group of people decide they want to sell their expertise for a price, they take the risk of going out on a picket line. they are somehow 30 communists or labor bosses while the businessmen get their pictures in the paper and they are entrepreneurs and a job creators. host: one last call.

last word on this show. caller: i have to agree with that young fellow right off the bat. the freedom of corp. is all rights, but in the first place all they do is take away the rights of the people. corporations have more rights than people now. ors about corporations right people's rights. you all have a good day. host: thank you everybody this sunday morning. we hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. i want to tell you about tomorrow's program. john nagl will join us. he is retired and with the center for security now. the age of unsatisfying wars, he will talk about afghanistan and compare it to vietnam and i iraq. drones.so talk about

unmanned aerial vehicles. ,e'll find out how they work how much activity there is. we will begin a week-long series on "washington journal" regarding federal financial agencies and enforcement. the rule's impact in the u.s. financial system. we will look to the securities and exchange commission tomorrow. and then the rest of the week we will look at several other agencies including a commodities trading commission. and then on wednesday, treasury. thursday, the fdic. a relatively new outfit of there. 9:15 each day starting tomorrow on c-span. enjoy the rest of your day.

we will see you back here tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] today on c-span, "newsmakers." then, federal chairman ben bernanke. bernanke.