if there is less demand for our products in places like paris, it could mean less business for manufacturers in places like pittsburgh and milwaukee. the good news is there is a path out of this challenge. these decisions are in the hands of europe's leaders. they understand the seriousness of the situation and the urgency to act. i have been in frequent contact with them. there are specific steps they can take to prevent the situation there from getting worse. in the short term, they have to stabilize their financial system. they need to take clear action

to inject capital into weak banks. just as important, leaders can lay out a framework for the eurozone, including collaboration on banking policies. there needs to be a commitment to share the policies for an integrated europe. that will be a strong step. it is in everybody's interest for greece to remain in the eurozone and respecting its commitment to reform. we recognize the sacrifices the greek people have made and the european leaders understand the need to provide support if the greek people choose to remain in the eurozone. the greek people need to recognize that there are chips will likely be worse if they choose to exit from the eurozone. over the longer term, even as european countries carry out on necessary fiscal reforms, they have to promote economic growth and job creation.

some countries have discovered it is harder to reign in deficits and debt if your economy is not growing. angela merkel and françois hollande are working to put together a fiscal plan. the solutions to these problems are hard, but there are solutions. the decisions required are tough, but europe can make them. they have america's support. the sooner they act and be more decisive and concrete their actions, the sooner the people and market will regain some confidence and the cheaper the cost of cleanup will be down the road. in the meantime, given the signs of weakness in the world economy, not just in europe, but some softening in asia, it is critical we take some actions to strengthen the american economy right now. last september, i sent congress a detailed jobs plan that would have put more americans back to work.

american people. it was fully paid for. full, we would be on track to have 1 million more americans working this year. the unemployment rate would be lower and our economy would be stronger. of course, congress refused to pass this jobs plan in full. they did act on a few parts of the bill, most significantly the payroll tax cut, which is putting more money in every working person's paycheck right now. i appreciate that action. but they left most of the dow's plan just sitting there. i urge them to reconsider. there are steps -- but they left most of the drought plan just sitting there. there are steps and ideas that independent and non-partisan economists believe would make a real difference in our economy. the private sector has been hiring at a solid pace of repast 27 months.

the biggest weakness has been state and local governments, which have laid off 450,000 americans. congress should pass a bill putting them back to work right now and giving help to the states. in addition, since the housing bubble burst, we have 1 million construction workers out of work. there is nothing fiscally responsible about waiting to fix a roof until it caves in. we have a lot of required maintenance in this country. we could be putting people back to work rebuilding our bridges and schools. there is work to be done and there are workers to do it. let's put them back to work right now. the housing market is stabilized, but there are

millions of irresponsible homeowners struggling to make ends meet. as i talked about a few weeks ago, let's pass a bill that gives them a chance to save $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgage and taking advantage of historically low rates. that is something we can do right now that would make a difference. instead of talking a good game about job creators, congress should give small business owners a tax break for hiring more workers. these are ideas that have gotten strong validation from independent, nonpartisan economists. they would make a difference in our economy and there is no excuse for not passing them. if congress decides they are not going to do anything about this simply because it is an election year, they should explain to the american people why. there will be plenty of time to explain our respective ideas for the future.

there will be plenty of time for that and i look forward to it. we need to keep our economy going and keep our country strong. that requires some action on the part of congress. i encourage them to take another look at some ideas that have already been put forward. with that, i will take a few questions. i will start with karen. as we all know, she is about to get a fancy job with the national journal. we are proud of our. congratulations to you. you get the first question. >> do you think that european leaders have a handle on what is needed to stem the crisis? you talked about a number of ideas to put forth to shield the american economy. do you plan to give a speech or

that additional ideas now that the crisis seems to be escalating? >> a couple of things. first of all, the situation in europe is not simply a debt crisis. you have some countries like greece that generally -- genuinely have to spend more than they are bringing in, and they have problems. there are countries that were running a surplus and had fairly responsible fiscal policies but had weakness is similar to what happened here with respect to the housing market or real-estate markets, and that is wea and -- has weakened the financial system. it is not simply a debt crisis. what is true is that the markets, getting nervous, have started making it much more expensive for them to borrow, and that gets them on the downward spiral. we have been in constant contact with europe over the last -- in leaders - -- european leaders -- over the last three years, and we've consulted with them both at the head of government and head of state

level. i frequently speak to leaders not only in formal settings like the g8, but also on the telephone or via videoconference, and our economic teams have gone over there to consult. as i said in my opening remarks, the challenges they face are solvable. right now the focus has to be on strengthening their overall banking system, much in the same way we did back in 2009 and 2010, making a series of decisive actions that give people confidence that the banking system is solid, capital requirements are being met, various stresses that may be out there can be of torpor by the system. -- can be absorbed by the system.

i think the leaders are in discussions about that and are moving in the right direction. in addition, they have to look at how they achieve growth at the same time they are carrying out structural reforms that may take two or three or five years to fully accomplished. countries like spain and italy, for example, have embarked on smart structural reforms that everybody thinks are necessary, everything from tax collection to labor markets to a whole list of different issues. but they have to have the time and space for those steps to succeed. if they are just cutting and cutting and cutting and the unemployment rate is going up and up and up, and people are pulling back for their f -- pulling back further from

spending money, that will make it harder for them to carry out reforms in the long term. there is discussion now about, in addition to sensible ways to deal with the debt and government finances, there is a parallel discussion taking place among european leaders to figure out how do we also encourage growth and show some flexibility to allow some of these reforms to take root? now, keep in mind that this, obviously, can have a potential impact on us, because europe is our largest trading partner. the good news is that a lot of the work we did in 2009 and 2010 put our financial system on a much more solid footing. our insistence on increasing capital requirements for banks means that they can absorb some of the stocks that might come from across the atlantic. -- someo f the shocks -- some of the shocks that might come from across the atlantic. folks in the financial sector have been analyzing this and are prepared for a range of

contingencies. but even if we were not directly hit in the sense that our financial system stayed solid, if europe goes into recession, that means we are selling fewer goods, fewer services, and that is going to have some impact on the pace of our recovery. we want to do everything we can to make sure that we are supportive of what european leaders are talking about. ultimately, it is edition they have to make in terms of how to move forward -- it is a decision they have to make in terms of how to move forward and accomplish the needs of reform and growth.

the most important thing we can do is make sure that we continue to have a strong, robust recovery. the steps that i have outlined are the ones that are needed. there are a couple of sectors in our economy that are still weak. overall, the private sector has been doing a good job creating jobs. we have seen record profits in the corporate sector. the big challenge we have in our economy right now is that state and local government hiring has been going in the wrong direction. you have seen teacher layoffs, cops, firefighters being laid off. the other sector that is still weak has been the construction industry. those two areas we have directly addressed without jobs plan. the problem is that it requires congress to take action, and we will keep pushing to see if they move in that direction. jackie calmes. where'd jackie go? >> i want to know if you agree

with former president bill clinton who said in the past week that the european policies being described here today are much like those of the republicans in this country, the politics of austerity that would take us in the same direction as europe. the republicans come up for their part, have said that you simply blaming the europeans for problems that have been caused by your own policies. i would like you to respond to both of those, and also, tell us precisely how much time you personally spent on the european situation. >> any other aspects of the question? [laughter] um -- [laughter]

first of all, in terms of the amount of time i spend, i think it is is fair to say that over the last two years, i've been in consistent discussions with european leadership and consistent discussions with my economic team. this is one of the things that has changed in the world economy over the last two or three decades, is that this is a global economy now, and what happens anywhere in the world can have an impact here in the united states. certainly that is true after the kind of, we saw in 2008 and 2009. you know, if you think about the situation in europe, they are going through a lot of the things we went through in 2009, 2010, where we took some very decisive action. the challenge is there is that they 17 governments that have to court and ei -- coordinate. that makes things more

challenging. what we have tried to do is be constructive, to not frame this as us scolding them are telling them what to do, but to give them advice based in part on our experiences here, having stabilized the financial situation effectively. ultimately, though, they are going to have to make a lot of these decisions, and what we can do is prod, advise, suggests. ultimately, they are going to have to make these decisions. what is absolutely true -- this is true in europe, true here in the united states -- is that we've got short-term problems and long-term problems. the short-term problems are how do we put people back to work

out how we make the economy grow as rapidly as possible, how do we ensure that the recovery gains momentum, because if we do those things, not only is it good for the people who find work, not only is it good for families to help them pay the bills, but it actually is one of the most important things we can do to reduce deficits and debt. it is in lot easier to deal with deficits and debt when you are growing, because you are bringing in more revenue and you are not spending as much because people don't need unemployment insurance as much, they don't need other programs that are providing support to people in need, because things are going to get.

-- going pretty good. that is true in the united states and and he europe. the problem president clinton identified is that when the economy is still weak and the economy is still fragile, you resort to a strategy of let's cut more, so that you are seeing government layoffs, reductions in government spending, severe cutbacks in major investments that helped the economy grow over the long term -- if you do all those things at the same time as consumers are pulling back because they are still trying to pay off credit-card debt, and there is generally weak demand in the economy as a whole, you can get on a downward spiral where everybody is pulling back at the same time, that weakens demand, and that further crimps the desire of companies to hire more people. that is the pattern that europe is in danger of getting into. some countries in europe right

now have an unemployment rate of 15, 20%. if you are engaging in too much austerity too quickly, and that unemployment rate goes up to 20 or 25%, that actually makes it harder for them to pay off your debts. and the markets, by the way, respond when they see this type downward spiral happening -- they start making the calculation that if you are not growing at all, you are contracting, you will have trouble paying us off, we will charge you more, your interest rates go up, and it makes it that much tougher.

i think that what we want, but for ourselves but what we have advised in europe as well, is a strategy that says let's do everything we can get to grow now even as we locked in a long-term plan to stabilize our debt and our deficits and start bringing them down in a steady, sensible way. by the way, that is what we proposed last year, that is what has been proposed in my budget. what i said is that make long- term spending cuts >> let's make long-term reforms, let's make sure we have a pathway to fiscal responsibility, but at the same time let's not under- invest in the things we need to do right now and the recipe of short-term investments in growth and jobs with a long-term path of fiscal responsibility is the right approach to take four, i think, not only the united states, but also for europe.

>> republicans saying you are blaming europeans for the failure of your own policy? >> what about the republicans saying you are blaming the europeans for the failure of your own policy? >> it the trousseau the matter is we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months. -- the truth of the matter is we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months. the public sector is fine. where we see problems having to do with state and local governments, we see cuts

initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help they have in the past from the federal government. and you don't have the same kind of flexibility of the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in. if republicans want to be helpful, if they want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? the recipe they are provided are the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market.

most economists estimate it would end in slower growth and fewer jobs, not more. david jackson? >> there are some interesting books out and reports of terrorist killed that you supervise and reports of cyber attacks on the iranian nuclear program that you ordered. what is your reaction to this information to to the public and what is your reaction to the lawmakers accusing you or your team of leaking these details for reelection? >> i'm not going to comment on the details of what are supposed to be classified items. second, as commander-in-chief,

the issues you have mentioned it touched on our natural -- on our national security, a touch on critical issues of war and peace, and are classified for a reason. because they are sensitive. because the people involved may in some cases be in danger if they are carrying out some of these missions. when this information or reports, whether true or false surface on the front page of newspapers, that makes the job of folks on the front lines tougher and it makes my job tougher, which is why since i have been in office, my attitude

has been at zero tolerance for these kinds of leaks and speculation. we have mechanisms in place where if we can root out folks who have leaked, they will suffer consequences. in some cases, it is criminal. these are criminal acts when they release information like this. we will conduct thorough investigations as we have in the past. the notion that my white house would purposely release classified national security information is offensive. . 's wrong people need to have a better

sense of how i approach this office and how the people around me here approach this office. we are dealing with issues that touch on the safety and security of the american people, our families, our military personnel, or our allies. so we don't play with that. it is a source of consistent frustration, not just from my administration the previous administrations when this stuff happens. we will continue to let everybody know in government or after they leave government that they have certain obligations they should carry out. but as i think has been indicated from these articles, whether or not the information they have received is true, the

writers of these articles have all stated unequivocally they did not come from this white house. that is not how we operate. >> are these investigations going on now? >> wheat consistently, whenever there is classified information, that is put out into the public, we try to find out where that came from. thank you very much, everybody. >> can we asked about wisconsin? [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> republican leaders in the house spoke after the president's news conference on the economy.

speaker john boehner and the majority leader blamed president obama's policies for the weak economy. mr. baker also said next month the house will vote to extend current tax rates. >> good morning, everyone. mr. president, i used to run a small business. mr. president, take it from me, the private sector is not doing well. the american people are still asking the question, where are the jobs. stopping the looming tax hikes will help job creators because it will have more certainty about what the jobs are going to be and create a better environment for them. we are going to vote next month on extending of the tax rates. the president should assure the nation when this bill gets to his desk, he will sign it into law. we know the president of health- care law is making it harder

for businesses to hire and we know it must be repealed in its entirety. this morning, we learned more about the backroom deals that were made which led to its passage. energy -- e-mail's obtained show the white house got a billions of dollars in policy concessions for millions of dollars worth of advertising. the administration created and managed a super pac paid for by farma and run it out of the west wing of the white house. this is wrong and the administration must be held accountable for their actions. >> good afternoon. we just listened to the president say beef private sector is doing fine. my question would be are you kidding? did he see the job numbers that came out last week? the private sector is not doing

fine. i would ask the president to stop engaging in the blame game. it is not because of the headwinds of europe. it's not despite his attempts and his party's attempts here in congress. it's not because of house republicans. it's because of the failed stimulus policies and other items in his agenda that small businesses in this country are just not growing. we know it is too tough right now to start a small business. small businesses are struggling because of the uncertainty. they're facing the prospect of the largest tax increase in american history. they're facing uncertainty because of obamacare and a facing an uncertain because of a very hostile regulatory posture taken by the obama administration here in washington. our summer agenda will be directly focus on how we can make the environment better for

small businessmen and women to grow and create jobs. we'll take a bill to make sure taxes won't go up on anybody. will take several things to the floor hist -- yes, we are going to take to the floor a bill that calls for the total repeal of obamacare so we can start over and tell the american people we are on your side, we want quality care for many americans that they're looking for that to happen. thank you. do you think the lack of federal money is hurting the economy? >> i believe government continues to spend money we do not have. with -- these women tax hikes,

regulations coming out of washington, we have frozen employers have replaced. if we would have a moratorium on regulations and extend all of the current tax rates, we would provide more certainty so they could go out and hire american people. >> do you disagree that europe is a drag on the economy? >> europe is a problem. there's no question. it is providing a liquidity issue to the global economy. there is certainly a sense that governments on that continent are not addressing the problem and should be a signal to all of us that we should be addressing the problem. we have continued as the majority to put forth solutions and tell the truth and say we're here to solve the problems that lead. >> but just because europe has problems doesn't mean we can't begin to solve our problems.

we can help job creators by taking the actions we have outlined. there is no excuse why we should wait for the convenience of the election. >> one of the reasons europe is in the region -- in the shape there and is the austerity measures and a reason -- >> the reason europe is in the shape it is in is because they waited too long to deal with their problems. that's why i wasn't system last summer that we address our deficit and debt problems. it is why i called for us to address our deficit and debt problems. it is the debt in europe. we do not get busy dealing with our debt, we will be in the same shape. we have time to deal with it, but understand that it is also tied to jobs.

16 trillion dollars worth of debt is like a wet blanket over our economy, schering employers of all side. if you want to create more certainty, let's stop the regulatory onslaught and deal with our debt. then we'll get a job creators the freedom to go out and create the jobs they want to create. >> president obama later clarified his remarks that the private sector is doing fine. mitt romney responded by saying the president is out of touch on the economy. the clarification came during a meeting in the oval office with the president of the philippines. >> everybody set up? it gives me great pleasure to welcome the president's to the

oval office and to the white house. i had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with him during my asia trip and when we met in bali. at that time, we discussed how important the u.s.-philippine relationship was, the historic ties and 60 years of a mutual defense treaty and extraordinary links between filipino americans that have brought our two countries so close together and we pledged to work on a whole host of issues that will continue to strengthen and deepen the relationship for the 21st century. we talked about how we could work on security issues and economic issues, on people to people exchanges, and a host of

regional issues. i would like to think the president for his excellent cooperation because we have made a great deal of progress since that time. on the economic issues, the philippines is the recipient of the millennium challenge grant which is helping to foster greater development and opportunity within the philippines. we have a partnership for growth that is working on how we can make sure we are structuring a relationship, expanding trade and commerce between our two countries. i would like to congratulate the president for the work he has done on the open governments partnership which is consistent with his campaign to root out corruption and facilitate greater economic development within the philippines. on security and military issues, we have had discussions about how we continue to consult closely and engage in training

and work on a range of regional issues together, all of which are consistent with the announced pivot of the united states back to asia and reminding everybody that the united states considers itself and is a pacific power. throughout all of these exchanges and the work we have done, i've always found him to be very helpful and as a consequence of the meeting today in which we discussed not only military and economic issues, but regional issues like trying to make sure we have a strong set of international norms governing maritime disputes in the region. willi'm very confident we see continued friendship and

strong cooperation between our countries. thank you for visiting. we are very proud of the french between our two countries and we look forward to continuing in the future. >> i would like to thank president obama for all the support the u.s. has given us. ours is a shared history and shared values and that is why america is in strategic partnerships and these meetings have deepened and lengthened a long relationship, especially with our countries in the current situation. i would like to thank him for the support which led to the resolution of those things. >> mitt romney says you are out of touch with the private sector and the business climate. what do you say about that?

>> it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine. that's the reason i had a press conference. that is why i spent yesterday and today before yesterday, this past week, this past month and past year talking about how we can make the economy stronger. the economy is not doing fine. there are too many people lot of work. the housing market is still weak and too many homes are under water. that is precisely why i asked congress to start taking steps to make a difference. i think if you look at what i said this morning and what i have been saying consistently over the last year, we have seen some good momentum in the private sector. we have seen a 4.3 million jobs created. record corporate profits and

that has not been the biggest drag on the economy. the folks who are hurting where we have problems and where we can do even better is small businesses having a tough time getting financing. we have seen teachers and police officers and firefighters to have been laid off, all of which when they get laid off spend less money buying goods, going to restaurants and contributing to economic growth. the construction industry is still very weak and that is one of the areas where we still see job losses instead of job gains. if we take the steps i laid out, to make sure we're not seeing teacher layoffs and we're not seeing police officer layoffs and we are providing small businesses with additional financing and tax breaks for

when they hire or if they are giving weight -- getting raises to their employees. if we allow homeowners to refinance a they have extra money in their pockets and contribute to further economic growth, if we are making sure we are rebuilding, work that has to be done anyway that can put construction workers back to work, all of those things will strengthen the economy and independent economists estimate it would create an additional million jobs. you cannot give me a good reason as to why congress would not act on these items. other than politics. these are traditionally ideas democrats and republicans have supported. let me be as clear as i can be. the economy needs to be strengthened. that is why i had a press conference.

i believe that there are a lot of americans who are hurting right now, which is what i have been saying for the last two years, three years, since i came into office. the question is what are we going to do about it? one of the things people get so frustrated about is instead of actually talking about what would help, we get wrapped up in these political games. that is what we need to put an end to. the key right now and what i'm interested in hearing from congress and mr. romney is what steps are they willing to take right now that are going to make an actual difference? so far, all we have heard is additional tax cuts to the folks who are doing fine as opposed to taking steps that would actually help dealing with the weakening economy and promote the kind of

economic growth we would like to see. thank you. thanks. thank you, guys. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> tonight, at 9:00 eastern and pacific, mark the 25th anniversary of president ronald reagan's speech from the brandenburg gate in west germany. also this weekend, our series "the contenders -- 14 key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. american history tv, this weekend on "c-span 3." often referred to as the conscious of the congress

and after working there almost two years, i can't think a better -- i can't think of a better name. >> the executive director and general counsel of the national black caucus on to -- on the role of the black caucus. >> it is designed to ensure members of congress who are african-american it can come together on issues plaguing the community at large and districts where they can find, analogy. coming together to discuss legislative solutions and proposals to advance the causes of people who do not have a voice. >> that night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. >> this morning, on the "washington journal" the -- this is about half an hour.

host: what were you looking to find out specifically and what did you learn? the purpose of this study is to step back from the particular debates of the moment like abortion or gay marriage and talk more broadly about the american public possible values. how do they feel about opportunities, the economy, business and labour and broader values about the way our society works and where government works. tracking this over the last 25 years, we've seen a remarkable not stability and what defines the way americans look at things has not changed lot. the dynamic has been parties and partisan polarization. host: when did you notice the change? >> there wasn't that much of a

change in the 1980's and 1990's despite a lot of excitement. we had impeachment and the reagan years. you did not see this partisan way to start to open up until the mid 2000's, a first term of torched of the bush's administration 1 democrats and republicans started to get farther and farther apart in their views and that has continued and continued in the obama years were now we see republicans and democrats disagreeing about more and more, not just policy debates but broader values. >> there is a chart here about where partisan divisions are the largest. it talks about 1987 or verses today. the lighter shade here is a 1987, the darker shade is the present. the idea of a social safety net on top of the list, what are you saying here? guest: the survey asked a series of questions about how the

government has a responsibility to help people can't take care of their cells or have fallen to the claque -- or have fallen to the cracks. this has always divided republicans and democrats and as a core of political debate in this country. on the set of questions that cover this, republicans and democrats are about 23% apart. that is -- that has widened and white and to a 41% difference between republicans and democrats. that is the clearest and deepest divides. host: a huge division in terms of the environment. >> that is remarkable. as u.s. 20 years ago there was no difference as -- as few as 20 years ago, there is no difference on the environment. republicans over the past 15 years have changed their values in a very substantial way. they are not as supportive of the environment.

host: labor unions, the idea of labor unions and the government's scope and performance, and immigration. guest: as recently as 2000, there was not much difference between republicans and democrats. that is word democratic values have changed. democrats have become more open to expanding immigration and being more welcoming to immigrants while republican views have not changed. look into this? >> we like to step back, particularly going into an election like this which seems to turn on what somebody said yesterday verses what they said today and try to understand the broader landscape of american policy. in what ways do we disagree and in what ways does this country still share common goals and values? have we become so distinctive the way we think about these things? want widening partisan

differences in political values -- how we read this chart? guest: this is the summary of all those things we looked at. across all of these questions, we got the exact same way. republicans and democratic views were about 10 points apart on average. you can see that remained pretty steady all through the 1990's. but in 2003, all of the sudden, we see republicans and democrats growing apart. now 18%, there are further apart -- that they were even 15 or 25 years ago. host: are there any areas where the gap narrows? guest: a little bit.

interestingly, its views and responsiveness of politicians here in washington. republicans and democrats are equally skeptical or pessimistic about how politicians receive them. host: real clear politics has this -- congressional approval, 14.6%. what does that number mean to you? guest: it is a really historic. we've gone through times of public distrust in government. you see it in these values questions. americans are skeptical of their government and party -- and it is part of the way we think. but the views of congress right now i've got to levels we have not seen before and it is seen as a fundamentally dysfunctional institution. when you ask people why, is it the way they are structured or the rules or the way it operates or is it the people working there that are the problem, they believe the people. they think if you could just

replaced the members, the whole thing could work again. that may or may not be realistic. you talk to some of the scholars in this town, they will say there are broader institutional issues, but the perception is it's a personnel problem. host: let's go to a call from tony on the democrats' line. caller: good morning to you guys. thank you for having my call. i think there is a divide right now, but the fact is we have barack obama in office and it is the republicans who are trying to really get him on elected. theythere would not agree with added. because of the fact that they want to make you a one-term president. i'm a democrat. there are a lot of things that i agree with the republicans about, you know? such as immigration.

not union rights, because i am a carpenter union member. i think the union is good for people who do not have a voice with their companies. if you do not have a voice, they can do anything intreat you any kind of way that they want to treat you. did in the early 1980's, very seldom claimed this restroom back then. we did not even have water on the job. host: figures on labor unions. 1987. different backe in guest: it's interesting.

the divide we are seeing is mostly about changing views among republicans. democratic views have been very steady. their view is that labor unions are necessary very much like the caller was saying. the is to agree with the majority of that idea, although maybe less concretely. in the last 6-10 years, republican views have really changed. they're not supportive of the role they have played. host: more details from the pew steady. they talked about business in the gap and the way they're talking about business. they are saying it was 16% back in 1987. social conservatism 17%. religiosity, 15%. guest: religion in social conservatism is really interesting.

it is how committed you are in your personal faith, what bolide plays in your life. there were just as religious as profit republicans, just as likely to pray everyday and today, there has been a secularization of a growing number of people who no longer hold those strong faith and that has been between democrats and republicans. they are very strong in their faith and commitment and that trend has led to more of a divide between parties that did not exist. host: 15% vs. 14% in personal finance? guest: here we're looking how comfortable you feel 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 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 divides 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: 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 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 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 brought it to the realm of the more political debate than it 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. you can look at factors that 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.

disagree more and more room for these things that they come to the forefront. 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 and this month, 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 still 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 god 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. 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 in the early 1990's you did not see the same level of public anger,. 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 with 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. we have to put this aside. 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 california, san diego. he is currently associate rector above pew research center. -- director of pew. 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. racehe pull a stack of cards out and start going to work. you just have to listen to "washington journal." 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. >> he can see more on our web site, c-span.org. join us more. at 7:45, about the war in afghanistan. then at a look at drones and they're used domestically. they're used domestically. at