attorney general of the consumer financial protection peer will help outline some of the financial issues affecting older americans. host: the papers give highlight this morning for a good congressional disclosure forms. $1.8 boehner is worth eigh million. president obama plans to meet with russian president vladimir putin at the g-20 summit with topic.being the top there is a new poll out looking at stability in america, which beingth much of it

influenced by politics. we will look at that. if you want to weigh in, here's how you can do so -- but if you want to reach out to us on social media -- poll conducted, here are the findings. 81% believe instability in the government is harming america's future. 63% of those who responded said that stability was expect it --

that civility was expected to worsen. roger simon wrote a column on this, looking at that and other issues. he is the chief columnist at "politico." guest: good morning. americans perceive this as a country that is rude, that we don't treat each other politely. common courtesy has largely vanished from many aspects of american life. people don't like it.

it think it is harming the country. but they don't know what to do about. host: did the poll emphasize what part of the political process respondents had the most problems with? was it activities in congress, the provincial campaign, or other specifics? guest: the number one institution that is blamed for lack of civility is political campaigns. 76% think they are not civil. that is spurred by government. number three, you get into things like pop culture and the american public and then the media.

and schools are blamed. professional sports. the occupy wall street movement. all of these are above 50%. republicans in congress are blamed by 56% of americans. you see that, basically, the government, anybody associated with the government, politicians, especially political campaigns, are considered as behaving in a way that is detrimental to american life. host: one of the facts was the influence on 2012 voting decisions. this is rated as somewhat or very important. 86% said it was important when it came to a specific issues --

what does this mean for those running for office currently? guest: candidates received as being uncivil will not get votes. both candidates are perceived that way in many elections. many members of the public feel that there's not much of a choice. the presidential matchup, mitt romney was considered more on

civil -- uncivil than president obama, and the poll was conducted in late april. . there was not a great spread. in fact, both were under 50% in terms of the american public thinking they were not civil. it is hard to believe the presidency will turn on that issue. host: in mentioned mr. romney at 39%. do you think they perceive their influence at

large? guest: i am guessing they would say we are engaged in a zero sum game for one person to win and the other has to lose. and that negativity in american political advertising is almost the rule of the day. it used to be considered a hard and fast political roule that yu had to establish your positive qualities before you could go negative. that is no longer true. campaign's start from day one with negative ads about the other one. about your opponent. sometimes they skip positive ads about themselves entirely.

and when we see the president of the united states giving a speech to a joint session of congress and a congressman shouts out "liar," that sticks in a lot of people's recent memory. you realize how far we have dropped as a country. host: that is roger simon, political columnist writing about a poll looking at civility in the u.s. and especially the influence on politics. if if you want to find out more, politico.com. thanks for joining us. 81% believe incivility in our government is harming america's future.

if you want to do about that civility the idea of stabilior in politics, join the conversation. you can always send us a tweet, and e-mail, or reach out to us on facebook. we will read some of those comments soon. cape cod, massachusetts, or is on our democratic allies. what do you think about the role politics on civility? caller: politics is setting a trend. they're setting a new standard that we did not used to have. we used to be very respectful. despite whether we were

democratic or republican, we treated each other's positions with respect. politicians use to behave accordingly. now the media has gotten involved and media presents opinionated news. there's a focus on bad things. they immediately want to know a response. what do you want to say to him? they don't ignore the bad things or repudiate them like they used to do. even john mccain a few years ago when a lady in the audience said something negative about president obama, john mccain

said the president is a good man and a good father. the diminishing of the role, politicians can pretty much to do what they want when they get in. nobody wants that nastiness. host: 24 comments on facebook right now. one of them this morning from gloria -- if you want to reach us on twitter, joseph did this morning -- the second call this morning, illinois, chuck on the republican line. caller: i hope i have good reception. i had to walk outside to talk. host: we can hear you.

caller: it is that that our history is going to be talking about this with politicians and their incivility and not being able to make decisions, not being able -- they have to compromise but they don't want to compromise. it is just sad that they go to this extreme so that they can -- both sides say what is best for america and what is best for america is that we get things done. that is what is best for america. i am just -- it is a sad tale that our children afterhave to see that we cannot work together to make things happen. politics, whether you like it or

not, it does run the way we live in this country. host: so it is a reflection in the day-to-day process in the u.s.? caller: yes, the day-to-day process. the system, we have people in there now that will not budge because of their beliefs. they have that right, but they are supposed to represent you and me. they are not doing that. they are representing themselves and what they think. it is important that we vote for those folks who are going to be able to get things done, because they cannot get things done. the group we have in there, they cannot work together. they don't want to. host: our topic is civility in the political process. 81% say that incivility is harming the u.s. future.

you may comment. you may want to talk about the general sense of stability in the political process. -- sense of civility. los angeles, california on the democratic line, hi. caller: i just think it is unbelievably hysterical that incivility is talked about. the government is ucivil. they screw the little people. it's nothing but the wealthy landowners and we are being thrown in the river, the serfs. there's a famous saying -- "let them eat cake."

the children cannot even fix their cars or their teeth and we are having to do it for them. everything is out of control. this government has taken the declaration of independence and thrown it into the sewer. host: our previous caller said that the political process is a reflection of the people. caller: what options to the people have? big money is blasting public relations. everybody hears sound bites and they say, this is what is happening. nobody studies or listen to anything else but what is on the television. we're being duped and we have been since the beginning of civilized man. host: michael is on the republican line for michigan. caller: civility in today's

politics, we see it every day, we feel it in our pocketbooks, what's going on in the country. the choice is clear, america. romney for president, 2012. host: give us an example. caller: you have bomb throwers and you have people that brushed that off and get to the point. the closer we get to the election, the clearer the choice becomes. if anybody watched the speeches yesterday, romney and president obama were talking up their election. the choice is obvious. they were both civil. the rest of the day, you can watch whatever news channel. they are sniping at each other.

there have been a few people on there that really get nasty and then they apologized and then the start over. then it gets heated again and they get nasty again. it will calmed down after the election when president romney takes the white house and we will all get back to normal. host: that was michael on our republican line. the boston globe has a right up looking at the two speeches made by the candidates. this is the headline -- chicago, illinois, on the topic

of incivility in politics. caller: yes, i wanted to make a comment. the lack of civility can be correlated to the republican agenda and the rise of the first partisan news network, being fox news, and followed up by msnbc. those two factors have driven incivility more than anything else in the political discourse. host: west palm beach, florida, good morning, pam on our republican line. caller: regarding this matter of incivility, i hold speaker john boehner primarily responsible for the leadership role or lack of leadership.

we need congress to act. as the speaker, he has a responsibility to recognize the importance of compromise, yet you generally find him at the center at thethe incivility, surrounding himself with his hard-line tea party people and how we are going to reduce the debt at all cost. what they're going to do is destroy this country. we have a very limited time frame to take action and it is going to require leadership by the speaker to bring congress together and take the action necessary. he seems to pride himself on his background and coming from poverty and growing up to become speaker of the house, now take a leadership role and do something positive. host: in terms of what? caller: bringing people together. recognize that he is surrounded by hardline tea party people doing what they believe is correct in demanding deficit-

reduction and only deficit- reduction, but he needs to recognize that he needs to rise above that and recognize it is not going to work that way. host: your case, it would be allowing for tax increases? caller: he will have to look at revenue-enhancing and spending reduction. you are not going to accomplish this massive problem the country is having, improving economy by getting jobs going simply by focusing on reducing. reducing. host: a joint poll looks at civility in america, a specific look into aspects of politics, 84% of respondents saying politics is becoming is becominguncil. incivility 72 percent say in politics deters qualified people from going into public service.

69% said it intends political disagreement between democrats and republicans can no longer be discussed civilly. 69% off sale last year's federal budget talks broke down mainly because of incivility among government officials. you may want to choose one of those categories aunt rip on them -- and rip on them. houston, texas, good morning come on the democratic line. caller: thanks for having me. earlier a caller mentioned about the influence of money on politics. what people tried to rally around when you see these approval ratings for politicians and the numbers you mentioned is the fact that because money can have such a big influence on politics, it has become almost to the point

where politicians don't show interest to their voters as much as they do their campaign donors. that's just because the way the system is. when you allow it to have that much influence, it is the only thing you can expect. i think it is truly tough now since the citizens united case. if you're going to change it, you'll have to make a constitutional amendment, because it says it is not constitutional to restrict campaign money from having certain limits. that is the only feasible fix, if you want to fix the system. host: dave, independent line, baltimore, maryland. caller: hi. i want to take a different track.

84%, i think it is too civil. the politicians played patty cake with each other and it's all high-five's after work. kabuki theater in the senate and the house. i think the best this american public can have is that you have two sharply divided political parties or more parties. host: how would you define civil? caller: lack of physical confrontation. if you say something hurt somebody's feelings, they're not getting things done. it is a pointless kabuki theater.

everyone knows their part. there are the bomb throwers. they know what to say. they apologize. nothing is really getting done. as soon as they get together where one party can peel off a couple democrats or a couple republicans, you get things like obamacare. you get things like the immigration issue in the bush- era. it is increasingly more civil. host: that was david on our independent line. charles on twitter says -- and in arkansas, jim is on the democratic line. caller: i think that the program

misses the key point of the fact and fiction between the parties. go back to the gingrich revolution in the early 1990's. when the republicans took over congress after so many years outside of power they decided to get back for the decades that they had not been chairpersons or cochaired committees, they had not had a controlling voice with big budgets in the congress. they have done a mighty good job of that. and the media has contributed to this so-called incivility. c-span especially, because you try to present a balanced view

of an unbalanced subjects. it is not the democrats that are contributing to incivility in congress. it is the republicans. you all try to list the -- split the apple as if it is equal on both sides. it is not. it is the republicans who have an agenda of bringing this country to a point of the smallest amount of government. the only government that the republicans want in this country is the police power to protect the money of the richest people. host: that was jimmy on our democrat line from arkansas. let's continue looking at some of the papers. two stories. the annual congressional financial disclosure statements that are made by members of congress. i will read some of the

highlights. i don't have time to go into it completely. it's as lawmakers bet on stocks and horses.

another story on this can be found in the washington post this morning. they write that the senate majority leader harry reid owns between 100,000 and 250,000 in an old mining town. -- that is on mortgages. senator charles schumer of new

york is down to owning just over $15,000 on a mortgage for his family home in brooklyn -- owing just over $15,000. senator harry reid is a millionaire like more than half the senate, aassets totaling $2.8 million. mitch mcconnell is worth $9.7 million, including a money- market fund worth more than $5 million, which was part of an inheritance from his father-in- law. you can look for yourself in the papers this morning. civility and politics, robert dix on our republican line in san antonio. robert is on the line. caller: when the democrats had control, i was embarrassed at

the way they called each other names, at the way they took the whole process all the way back to the days of people shooting each other with guns. it was embarrassing. i think now we have some civility in the process that goes on in the senate and house of representatives. host: john eastman says on twitter -- empire, alabama, sandra on our independent line. caller: incivility has been going on for me since the 1990's. it got worse during the time nancy pelosi and harry reid and

all of them got together over the health care bill. they would not discuss it. they just pushed it through and said you had to sign it before you could read it. it was horrible on the house floor, like a bunch of kids had gone crazy. i'm glad to see it dodd-frank out of there. -- dodd and frank. cnbc is becoming a little more balanced. host: at what level does incivility exist today? caller: when george bush ran the second time, that was the highest i had ever seen. i have not decided who to vote

for. mr. obama has not had to go through what president bush has gone through. he had to put up with everything. host: richard smith is participating on facebook -- next call, sacramento, california, democratic line with lesley. caller: [unintelligible] mitch mcconnell said that he wanted mr. obama to be a one- term president.

[unintelligible] we spend trillions of dollars on war and cannot take care of our own people with health care. host: massachusetts, eddie on our republican line. caller: incivility it:, is ideology -- it is not incivility, it is ideology. all john boehner wants to do is try to balance the budget. the tea party is getting fed up with spending, spending. give him a break. host: florida, stephen is on our independent line. caller: good morning.

this is about incivility, it says 81% say that is harming the u.s. future, which i find humorous. every person that calls says incivility they agree says is harming the u.s., but it is the other side's fault, which is the beginning of what the true problem is. i wish people would look at what they're about to say on the show. they are talking about incivility and the same time being the most partisan country. there was a story from the washington post. host: 1 story in the washington post and another in another paper. caller: nobody finds it appeared that the only people in politics any more are lawyers or extremely rich people. on top of that, there's no

normal everyday people in politics, but on top of that, but to problem is these people are making millions and millions and millions of dollars on books, on speaking tours. newt gingrich or bill clinton is making an ungodly amount of money going to colleges or this place or that place and speaking. to be able to make the money that they want to make on the speaking tours, they have to hiked up the rhetoric as much as possible. look at how much people are making at fox news or msnbc. newt gingrich it or sarah palin had to think for two months about whether they wanted to run for the presidency of united states, because they did not want to lose their contracts with a news corp.. host: that was steven in florida in gainesville. the washington post and others have about the supreme court decision on the health care law. some say if the measure is not

thrown out entirely, house speaker's plan to force a vote immediately --

pennsylvania, christine on the democratic line. caller: the to statistics that you read about the health care law, president obama is a caring person. smaller government is cold award for an elected corporate control -- unelected corporate control. citizens united, the case has caused chaos because the corporations have purchased buyingials ansd are politicians. that has cost incivility. corporations would like low

wages, no benefits, no health care, no unions. everyone goes down to the lowest common denominator. everyone is in pain. that causes more incivility. we would reach the point of the third world country because of citizens united, because these corporations are running our country now. president obama does care. he passed health care. he has a jobs bill that is opposed by the republican party. the jobs bill would hurt the corporations. host: victor writes -- the president attended a fund- raiser in new york last night. the associated press writes --

new york, joe, independent line. caller: good morning. it is about. about who can help -- it is about the economy, who can get us jobs, who can bring us back from economic collapse. ever watch the news and there's been a mass murder somewhere and all the neighbors say he was always so nice to me and so polite and always said hello. this is not about civility. this is about competence. do we have anybody who has any answers to our economy? if so, please pick up and tell us what you have and then we will know who to vote for.

host: this is the wall street journal this morning, confusion in egypt leads the u.s. scrambling --

wisconsin, brian is on the republican line. caller: these are all things that president obama has said. punish your enemies. if republicans win, to be hand- to-hand combat. you can come along for the ride, but ride in the back. the election is over, john, i won. is this bipartisanship? i don't think so. host: fort hood, texas, democratic line, al. caller: good morning. what i want to mention is these are the underlying reasons of why there is incivility, it's because of the ability of the president.

they are going crazy over this -- they are going crazy because of the ethnicity of the president, being african american. that is the problem they have with him. that needs to be discussed. there needs to be a program about the president being who he and why they despise him so much. host: in the washington post this morning on pakistan --

boston, massachusetts, thornton on our independent line. caller: i find it ridiculous. both sides know how to fix the problem with the economy. this is one of the lowest interest rates to borrow money. but both of them want to take credit. it is ridiculous. we need more than just a two- party system. it's not working. citizens united is totally ruining our political system. it all needs to be changed. they all need to be thrown out of congress because they're not serving us. they are serving themselves. host: one more call, san antonio, texas, michelle on our republican line. caller: hi. [unintelligible]

host: go ahead. we will leave it there. those are all the calls we will take. coming up, you probably heard earlier this week about family net worth, information put out from the federal reserve earlier this week. family and net worth drop to a level of the early 1990's. that according to research from the fed. we will take a look at some of the details found in the report and see what it means for the american family today. joseph gagnon is our guest for that from the peterson institute. later, america by the numbers. taking a look at american cities, specifically how they risen in population or fallen and who is moving to the city's. marc perry and patrick phillips will be along for that. a look at the federal reserve and what it says about the american family and what it is

worth, up next. >> this weekend, follow david maraniss on his journey walking in the president's footsteps. sunday starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern, a video record of his travels. then live it 7:30 takes your calls and questions.

also this weekend, a conservative commentator jonah goldberg blames liberals for an ongoing war on ideas. >> american politics has been distorted for the last century by the idea that the further you move from the left, the closer you get the bad things. one word they use is a fascist and another is racist and another is sexist. a conservative who is winning an argument seems to be the best definition of a fascist, now. >> that is this weekend on is2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: looking at the american family and what it's worth. joseph gagnon. from the. senior fellow. good morning. guest: good morning. host: most people saw the headline saying american families are worth about what they were in the 1990's.

can you break it down for folks watching? guest: the biggest reason for this decline in family net worth has been the decline of house values in america, by far. also, if stock markets different from 2007. host: as far as home values, does that affect all incomes equally? guest: it does affect it in dollar terms, it affects richer people more because they have bigger homes and more stocks. proportionally, it has affected the middle class more because they rely more on their home from you and home values fell more. host: you said one portion was housing and the other was stocks. as far as buying stock in a company or is it mutual funds? guest: it is several ways it. some people hold stocks directly for various reasons, but they

also hold stocks through mutual funds and if they hold stocks through their retirement funds. for all three reasons, their net worth declined because all of them are based on the stock market. host: as far as the actual numbers, what do you glean from as far as the condition of the american family, how they do day today? because of the reduction in these numbers? guest: it was already the case that we do american families did not save enough for retirement. this only makes it worse. so it is not good news. host: we are talking with joseph gagnon of the peterson institute about figures from the federal reserve, taking a look at how american families are doing when it comes to their net worth it. if you want to ask questions, we have divided the lines differently today. we have divided them by economic class. if you make under $50,000, there's the number to call. if you make between

$50,000.100000 dollars, there's your number to call. if you find yourself over $100,000 and you want to call, there's the number. if you want to give your thoughts through social media, you can identify yourself what class you fall into as well. why did the federal reserve look at these numbers? guest: they have done this for a long time. they studied the economy in many ways and this is just part of their try to understand how the economy works and how people behave. one of chairman ben bernanke's interests is education and looking at what are some areas where the fed could educate people more about economics and friendly terms. host: when was the snapshot

compiled? guest: they do these surveys every three years. they are typically done over several months because people are called to do interviews and if they're not there, the nickelback, so it takes time, thousands of interviews. between may and december of 2010. host: factor in what happened in terms of housing and stocks and what has happened from. 2010 to from. -- 2010 to the present. guest: there's good news, the stock market has come back, more than halfway back to word was in 2007 at the peak. so that is good news. it has fallen in the past two weeks and almost got back to

where it was and is back again. housing has not come back, on the other hand. it is basically flat or down slightly from 2007. host: conditions have not improved greatly at all. guest: not much, especially for the middle class, which mostly rely on housing. if you are more well-off, you probably do better because of stocks. with windows the next snapshot get compiled, we would see results three years from now? guest: that means doing a survey a year from now and then it takes them almost two years or a year-and-a-half, basically, to go over everything. host: as far as who disseminates information in washington, who uses it and who could use it the most and how does it affect policy? guest: one of the biggest areas whe -- would be tax policy.

want to see if there's a lot of inequality and may be changing the tax system it. host: one of the figures said in 2007 the median u.s. family income was $49,000. when it comes to 2010, that 7,800. drops to $45,000.80 guest: median is the level at which half the income have more income than you and half the people have less than you. a lot of people became unemployed and dropped to some very low numbers. that brought down the median. these are adjusted for inflation.

those are the factors. host: calls for our guests. first is jeremy in new york city, making between $50,000.100000 dollars. good morning. caller: you mentioned that taxation been adjusted might be an appropriate way of dealing with the problem. it seems that the general feeling is based on the idea that if you increase taxation, it would increase production. i wonder if that is still legitimate in terms of an economic theory in the current world, because clearly the people earning $400 million a

year are not spending it. they are simply reinvesting. but the reinvesting is not helping for hiring. i wonder whether the curve -- aest: there's actually been study of that curve very recently in the last two years, a number of studies have come out. they do find evidence for such a -- a curve. these results suggest that taxes would have to be much higher than they are now to affect production, to have a negative effect on production. i sort of agree with the caller

in the sense i don't think that curve should be a reason to raise taxes from where we are now. some people think it would hurt if the tax rate was 70%. host: gainesville, florida, david, under $50,000. caller: i am a nurse anesthetist. i used to make $45,000. under the republican plan draining all the money out of my 401k plan and with taxes, i would be making about $42,000, meaning my son will not able to go to medical school, my home is worth much less than it was before. we will probably be forced into bankruptcy and lose our house at a much lower price than it was

before. it seems like the value of my family certainly is going down. my neighbors that i talked to are experiencing the same thing. i don't see anything positive happening if the republicans are elected. host: how does your situation affect day-to-day decisions you have to make, especially economic decisions? guest: it means i cannot put away money for my son's college, his medical college. i have to cut down on food, cut down on fuel usage, and i have to plan on putting a much larger portion of my income to my mortgage, which i eventually won't be able to afford and i will lose my house. guest: well, i'm very sorry to

hear all that bad news. i'm afraid a lot of people are in the same position. i don't know what to say. i am only here to talk about the poll one thing the administration is trying to do -- i wish they would do more and i wish congress would help more -- is to make it easier for people like you to refinance at a super low interest rate. i'm not sure if you have been able to refinance in the past few years but the rates have come down from 6% to 3% or a little over 3% lately, which would save you a lot of money if you could refinance. there is a program to enable people to do that, even if you owe more money than your house is worth. there's a program that the

administration proposed that would help you do that. but the banks and fannie mae and freddie mac have been dragging their feet about implementing this program. i think it deserves more. more host: does the survey say anything about areas of the country that might have been affected more or less when it comes to how families do as a whole, economically? guest: if you come from ford or one of the states hardest hit by the housing crash, then you are more affected. the stock market affects everyone roughly equally. -- if you come from florida or one of the states hardest hit. florida and nevada. host: this is from atlanta --

and hartford -- guest: i have long argued that there should have been more action, more stimulus, because what we know now is the stimulus -- stimulus was split over many years and basically offset all the cutting that was going on at the state level. so there was almost no stability. we really needed stimulus. the federal reserve, which was aggressive, could have done more. the recovery has been weaker than anyone in the administration or the fed expected. we are learning more about. i think it has to do with the fact that the financial crises have long-lasting effects than other types. of types

they make for slower recoveries. that's why you need more policy that was not well known before the crisis. i used to work in the international area but i was managing qe1, large-scale purchases of mortgage-backed securities. host: what is the possibility of the fed going that route again? guest: they are meeting next week and may add more to that program. it is likely there will do that in a small way. they are doing a moderate amount of purchases every month.

i think it will extend it two or three more months. what they're doing now is they sell the shorter-term treasuries they hold and buy longer-term. the interest rates are already at 0%. i think they could keep doing this for another two or three months, $200 billion worth. then they have to print money, which they might. i would have them by more mortgages and help the housing market even more. host: our guest is with us for another 25 minutes. charles makes over $100,000.

caller: 1 comment about the stimulus. he thinks we should have more stimulus. one problem was the stimulus. the government should allow more institutions to fail. you would have you companies start up and you would not have the government going to save those future corporations. allow them to fail and have other corporations popping up. rather than go with open hearts surgery. the savings of americans. a major problem is social security. the middle class and below the

middle class have come to see social security as their retirement fund. they rely 100% on social security. there is no incentive to save. the net does not hardly hold the water you need. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: we are a contractor. host: tell us about your family situation compared to five years ago. caller: we are by no means -- i would not say where the upper middle class. we're slightly above middle class. our house dropped in value in $180,000 and it was only valued

at about $500,000. it is climbing $4,000, $5,000 a year. we have a 401(k) and that also took a major hit. we're not selling our house or 401(k).gh those two have to be one of the best bets you can invest in. guest: i think the advice is correct. you are doing the right thing. in terms of your first point, if we let more companies and banks and companies fail then that makes more room for new start- ups. we try to -- that was herbert

hoover's the losses they and things got worse and worse and worse. that can work if the economy is growing strongly when the companies fail because then there is other demand for workers. if the companies failed during a time of weakness, there is already excess workers. there is nobody who has any money to spend. that is why we need the government. in which theree are not plenty of workers out there to be hired. there is no demand. that's the problem. we need to get more spending going in the economy. then these start-ups can take

root. the government needs a high roll during a recession. host: this is judy in florida and makes under $50,000. caller: my concern is why can we bring the jobs back caregiving the corporations a decent percentage rate compared to the other countries? i think most of the companies in the u.s. would love to be back manufacturing at home. why can we give them a 20% rate? we are paying more than any country in the world. i don't understand why everybody has this hate for companies. they employ people. people are so much better off when they have a job. then they can spend money.

it is not like they are taking it out of our pockets. they will be giving it back. i lived in toledo. we had 20 fortune 500 companies. somebody got mad because they were not paying their fair share. they left because they could not afford to make their products there. when you're working, your money is being taxed and so is theirs. they were giving benefits for free. i don't understand this flight to other countries other than to get away from the high tax rate that we have. question.i get your

we do have a high corporate tax rate. it is now much higher than that in germany and japan. ours is near the high end. i do not know anyone who thinks that is the main issue. i think that i would like to see more jobs in the u.s. in the sense that we have a big trade deficits. it is when you're in a recession that you want that to go way to bring the jobs back on shore. other countries are not letting that happen. countries around the world are spending about $1.5 trillion a year basically trying to push down their currencies against the dollar so that they can export more to the u.s.

if they export to us, -- they can lend the money to us. they have been determined to lend the money to us survey do not have to buy our exports. i'm not a protectionist. i do think this kind of policy right now is hurting america. i would fight this more strongly if i was the administration. china is a small piece of this. it is widespread. host: brooklyn, new york, this is paul. caller: hi. i like what your guest is saying. i have significant investments. there's too much stupid money chasing stupid money.

why can anybody tie that into the idea that there is simply -- the tax rate is too low on capital gains and the rich and there are no good investments because they have had to find new ways to invest in order to spend this phenomenal cash that has gone into investments. if you're to raise the tax rates even in a stair step method, you could -- the government could pour that in two parts of the economy where people turn around and spend it and that will promote consumer spending. we have gone from bubble to bubble. it is not doing us any good.

why don't we ever hear about that? host: how much of your net worth is based on investments? caller: how much of my net worth is based on investments? stocks.ently 50% in quite a bit of it. host: thank you, caller. guest: one point i am in agreement with you -- i do not believe the reasons for having different tax rates are very strong. the reasons are a bit stronger. it makes for a convoluted tax code. it leads to a employment of armies of lawyers and accountants. they do legal accounting

structures that do that the cost money and are wasteful because it does not help anybody live better. it is a way of sheltering money from the irs, so it is wasteful. how high that should be? i do not know of any studies think that i don't would make people be more productive. another caller thinks that may go the other way. i think a simpler tax system makes a lot of sense. host: robert ask a question on twitter this morning. guest: that's a symptom of our problems. people do not want to spend.

the federal reserve has lowered interest rates super low. that is what it takes to get people to spend more. the fed is trying to help people temporarily. we'll make it unattractive for you to save. we want you to spend. this was always true with monetary policy. the amounts, the weakness is unprecedented. host: curtis, over $100,000. caller: thank you for taking my call. two comments and a question. i work for fortune 50.

if you lower the tax rates, corporations will bring jobs back to this country. our company is outsourcing because the labor in these other markets are so cheap. you can even compare tax rates when you are paying some but a fraction of what you're paying in u.s. salary. we get the cheap labor to make a profit right now. a problem we have is we do not see our interconnection of the society as a whole. "we have to cut the government." cutting government spending equates with cutting jobs. the private sector is not going to make that up. they are in it to make profits. every month new numbers, from the fed.

these numbers are publicized. does the fed ever thing to lend to one side or the other or do they remain neutral? guest: thank you. .hat comment on your comment i agree about demand more important than tax cuts. tax rate issues are more of what is best for the economy in the long run. i think there would help stimulate a little bit of demand. on the foreign outsourcing, yes, i think cheap foreign labor is the reason. the exchange rate between the u.s. and these countries a fax

how expensive their labor is. administrations have been less aggressive than they should have been in protecting these tactics, making is more expensive so we will send jobs to them. that is something we could do more about. if we made them raise their rates -- we will never compete completely with china. closer proximity to the customers, it gives us a lot advantages. the fed and politics -- the fed tries to avoid politics. chairman bernanke has given his opinion on policies which i have a political implication.

he tries not to spell that out. he has asked for more stimulus in the short run to cut the deficit in the long run. he thinks that's the way to go and that has implications for the parties. host: your thoughts on the upcoming vote in greece. guest: at this point, i think greece is not the most important thing is going on in europe. i think it is almost a given they'll have to default on their debt entirely and possibly leave the euro area. they could possibly defaults and stay in the euro. it will be messy. they are small. they have many months to prepare

for this. the real worry is can spain and italy may ke it? would they have to restructure? that's the real worry. i think greece is relatively small and europeans have a lot firepower. i think the real issue is, can spain and italy make it. host: mark for those who make under $50,000. i fall into the second category. failure to enforce our immigration laws. let's go to the globalization and the stimulus. globalization of our companies,

taking jobs overseas and everybody is saying, let's bring them back. most of the manufacturing jobs now are competing with those companies overseas and in quantifynd you can't how you're going to pay somebody of dollarst -- to pay somebody $12 to $20 an hour. you have to make a more attractive to bring the business back here. the stimulus -- you got the stimulus going out and then you you see the whole

demographics has changed. it is not going to work. yout: what type of work do do? guest: i am not an expert on immigration. on the overseas competition, we are in agreement. dozens of countries are stand -- spending over a trillion dollars every year basically to avoid buying our exports and to buy our bonds and financial exports, which does not create jobs the way of buying our exports would. they pushed their currencies down and keep their workforce at cheap.

if we stop that, their workers would become more expensive and american companies might see the trade-off was less advantageous and they might hire more american workers. i agree with the caller on that. oregonelizabeth from pullin portland -- portland, oregon. caller: there is no benefit from having those people come in. all they do is drive down the wages of the workers here because they work for practically nothing. the guy who called at the beginning from florida who claim to be a nurse making less than $50,000 a year. i have been in surgery and know that they are very well paid.

he is either a line about what he is making or he is working a couple of days a week and blaming republicans. he should get off his butt and start working. host: tell us about your situation. caller: my situation is better. i live below my means. host: are you doing better than five years ago? caller: yes. it is a matter of managing your money better. we have market encouragement to do that. people are having to cut back and it is probably a healthy thing. that would be nice if the economy could pull out. i did nothing government spending will help that. host: people's use of credit

these days. guest: i think it is important to distinguish between personal finances and the overall finances of the economy. people have not saved enough. that was the problem all along. saving rates have gone up, and that is good. the timing is not the best because you want the saving rate to go up as the economy gets stronger, not 1 it is week -- not when it's weak. it has to be the government if the household are not saving. if nobody spends, we're all out of work. what works for a family is not what works for the economy as a

whole. what the government and what families do affects the economy. we need to get to balance where everybody is employed and they saved a good amount and the government gets back into the balance. when you have an unused capacity, it is very advantageous for the government to spend in that time and that time only. host: and consumer credit? guest: if people were willing to borrow, we would not need the government to do that for them. we want that in a context where they start saving down the road. i think it is better that households changed their behavior now. save more now. host: for those who make under $50,000, our next caller from

tennessee. you are on, sir. caller: if the lady who just called, she was talking about making all that money. i am retired. i never made $100,000. i was making money to just keep my family going. that is what i have to live off of, but social security. that is like these corporations that move overseas. if you look a product that is coming back, like from china, it is still the same price that it was when it went over there. they are setting up in the front office and they are not obligated to people, to have to pay them social security and

this stuff. they do not cut prices on their stuff, you know. and, two, it don't matter if we cut the taxes down to zero. they're not going to put people back to work. you got to have somebody buying this stuff. these corporations are not going to put the money out there and not sell it to nobody. id off?s your home page o caller: i'm 68 years old. i worked hard. host: what is the value of your home? caller: probably a couple of

hundred thousand dollars. guest: his observations are valid. host: michael, over $100,000. caller: good morning. prior to the -- some economic conditions is what caused artificially inflated values, particularly real estate in the 1990's. now the values have come back down to what was, so the wealth hasn't gone away, just the value of certain assetst. . guest: if you plan on living in

your home for the rest of your life, whether it goes up down in value does it matter to you. what matters is the instrument you get from living in your house and so you don't have to pay rent and. if you do want to move or pass some money on to your children, the value does matter. this survey is based on the idea that the guy of your home what does matter. but i take your point. host: is there a likelihood that we will see similar themes from this survey in the next survey that comes out? guest: i think you'll see some recovery. 2007 was kind of a peak.

i don't think houses will go all the way back like that. we'll see some recovery. whether the government programs pushed house prices up too much. not in the 1990's. was it true that government programs pushed house prices up? i did nothing so. we have fannie mae and freddie mac and there was ambiguity about whether there were part of the government or not. they were not the instigators of the housing bubble. they joined very late in the game. it was wall street with these new financial products. that is what has happened. that was the subprime practice.

it was the private sector, wall street. host: joseph gagnon from the peterson institute for international economics. thank you for your time and your input. we will look at how cities are growing. first we turn our focus to orlando, florida. that is for the annual conference of mayors is happening. joining us for that discussion is miriam hill. she is a staff reporter for "the philadelphia inquirer" and joins us on the phone. what is on the line for ma yors? guest: jobs and the transportation bill. they would like to see more sustained funding for fixing things like potholes.

and maybe create jobs. pretty muchobs, jobs, jobs. host: some of the things they are talking about -- have made an appeal to the federal government when it comes to resolving the jobs and transportation situations? guest: they appeal to washington about the transportation bill. they feel there is no sustainable long-term source of funding. you can ask people about what happens if obama is selected verses romney being elected. they have their preferences depending on who you're talking to. they understand that money will from washington the

way it has in the past. they are reforming their request as more investment instead of subsidy. host: how do they prepare for current economic times? guest: i think they are figuring it out as they go. the mayors will tell you that this is what they have always done. the number thing you hear is about paulot holes. it has been worse during the recession. they do not seem any more worried or desperate than in other years. i think it is always tougher cities. host: vice president biden is said to address the mayors today.

guest: not to sound one note, jobs and the transportation bill. they have decided that they will not get a lot of washington and they need to focus on this one bill which they feel is crucial. i think some of them -- ron paul was here and the former treasury secretary. totten brazil expressed desire for the president to talk about his own success -- donner braza brazil. democratic mayors feel the president has not made his case is strong enough. i suspect it would like to hear joe biden make that case. host: you are from "the philadelphia inquirer." guest: a marriage is about to

become the president of this group -- the mayor from philadelphia is about to become the president of this group. he continues to be popular in philadelphia. we're wondering where he is going. he is going to be the spokesmen for american cities. he will be walking a tight line because the u.s. conference of mayors is not partisan and he will be out there for obama every day trying to get votes in philadelphia. host: miriam hill, thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you. host: here's a look at the rest of our program. marc perry and patrick phillips will be here for a discussion

about america by the numbers. will be amphrey ii will bi guest for that discussion. we'll be right back. [video clip] >> where the quotations -- one

of the quotations i thought was inspiring -- >> some of from the white house said that he said a quotation and those who think they're crazy enough to change the world are the ones that do. >> choose carefully and execute relentlessly. that meant a lot to me. too many times we don't focus on the one thing that should be a top priority. >> students come together for a week of leadership and government education. this year brian kamoie made an impact. >> what could i share with them that i wish i had known along the way or that they will remember when they leave washington week, which is a very intense, rapid-fire experience.

if you leave a few messages at a time when you know it is easy to be cynical about politics, it is a good thing to encourage young people to pursue public service. >> more on sunday 8 eastern on c-span. >> the story behind "the star spangled banner." mark the bicentennial of the start of the war of 1812. historians and your calls on this little-known war, live on saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern. key political figures that ra and lost but changed political history. "the contenders," this week with american jennings bryant.

this weekend on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. host: we're taking a look at who is living in american cities. marc perry joins us from the u.s. census bureau. patrick phillips from the urban land institute, serves as their ceo. this information from the census bureau. here are some of the figures that they found.

host: those are numbers. what is important to know about those numbers? guest: just above 40 million americans. cities are diverse and dynamic. there are all kinds of people that live in city. growth has slowed. when we talk about the kinds of cities that are growing and declining, it speaks to the larger issues and larger trends in american population. host: the city loses and gains people -- does that affect how the city functions? guest: it does. cities grown when they have

more births and deaths and one people move in and out. they also grow through immigration and throughout miscible annexation, -- it is a bowl and exception -- municipal annexation. raw data.k about the broad da guest: cities are very diverse. cities are on the rise. a great story to tell about american cities and the recovery of the american cities over the last 30 or so years. there was a sense following world war ii that cities would be hollowed out and that they would never come back.

cities are doing pretty well. it is not an even playing field. cities are proving to be attracted to well educated people. they are driving innovation. they remain the homes of institutions of health care and cultural institutions. they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in improving their situation through and amenities like museums and performing arts facilities and a building boom in sports facilities and transportation infrastructure. the private sector has responded with office buildings and housing. cities are more vital than they have been for a long time. host: when it comes to the lead,

it highlights the reasons why people were leaving the cit ies. guest: at the top would be a sense that the american dream is characterized by relatively low density suburban environment . there were some important policy decisions that the nation made about the interstate highway system that facilitated the moves of goods and people. growth in information technology. more reliant on moving people around. the development of a mortgage finance system and the building industry that tended to emphasize single-family house dwellings that are owned by other documents rather than rented. the evolution of public school funding which tight resources

for education to property-tax levels - -which tied resources for education to proper tax levels. host: marc perry, if you take a look at the 1950's, a lot of your larger cities, you find them in the northwest and stretching westward. go to 2010, you find concentrations in indiana and in texas. what happened during this timeframe? guest: you see regional shift out of the northwest towards the south and west. you see the rise of the sun belt cities. texas has six large cities and back in the 1950's it havd one.

there are a few things going on. to not under appreciate the importance of annexation -- do not underappreciate. it did expand its boundaries in number of times over the decades. some of these cities in the northwest have not changed their boundaries in decades or centuries. growth outside of the older parts of a city like for wheat is still within the fort worth city limits -- a city like fort worth is still within the fort worth city limits. host: you can ask questions about the growth of cities. now is a time to do so. we have divided airlines regionally. 202-737-0001 if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones.

. 202-737-0002 -- we use a lot of charts for the segments. you can go on your computer and look to these charts for yourselves. finally on our website. go to the website and click on this segment and you will be able to see these charts for yourself and you can play along as well. southwest as a region. what can you add to it? guest: development regulation and zoning have a big impact on how cities grow. in the last 30 or 40 years, we have had a land development regulation system of zoning that tended to favor a single use districts and a was a more

suburban pattern. in texas, regulation tends to be lower. the hurdles for a developer tend to be lower. when a city annexes additional territory, the barriers to that relatively low density growth spreading into the new land, they tend to capture a greater proportion of household growth as a result and you see that growth in texas cities. we have seen a lot of growth in texas because of the jobs situation. they tend to outperform the rest of the country. those tend to be the city's better doing well. host: we have a comment from

jodiey. let's go to our first call. jim from massachusetts. caller: what is the purpose of having this conversation of people moving from place to place? people are moving to texas. he lowered the epa so these companies can come men and poison and litter and everything else. they have no -- slave masters the one from the -- the one to the corporations -- that went to the corporations. host: benjamin, good morning. caller: that is not for a topic

right now. how do account for legal? are there formulas? we'll see how many people live in a household? let us know. california probably has more of a problem. as far as corporations, a company move to texas because of less regulation. as far as the bigger problem as far as census, still bigger problems. uest: the census bureau's mandate is to count everybody. in the 2010 census, we do our

reach efforts for all communities regardless. it is a complete count of the population. host: as far as migration and who is in the state? guest: the caller asked about immigration, as well. bigger cities have bigger problems. bigger cities have their share of the challenges and problems. smaller cities do, as well. it is hard to generalize. minneapolis, seattle, denver -- those places have faced big challenges and have come up with big solutions. smaller cities don't necessarily get off easily. they have a dramatic challenge,

as well. we have seen that around the border with immigration challenges. the numbers are down with immigration. many of those problems still exist. the correlation between size and problems is a difficult one to condemn. host: john from pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. we live close to harrisburg. huge debt and a small tax base. that has been happening across the country. what do you guys see as the government has less and less money to spread around to the city's -- what d.c. the impact on that on cities going forward

and the migration of people where we're not having the social services and the money to fund roads and bridges, that is just a reality going forward with our debt situation. what do you guys think? i'll hang up and listen to your comments. guest: a great question. the role of the states. the federal government, the state governments and local governments are fiscally strapped. our sport is a great example of a city deadest hurting-- harrisburg is a great example of a city that is hurting. it is early in terms of how these things will play out. we could see out migration from places that are older and are more difficult to get around.

we will see the out migration from households and firms who are seeking a better situation. i think it is there to hypothesize that this fiscal stress will result in changes in decision making from firms and household about their location. it will not just be about regulation moving to texas because it could be about the state of the infrastructure in those communities. host: most of the areas we have talked about are showing growth, especially in the south. we see growth in chicago and baltimore. guest: it is hard to generalize. those cities have had varying degrees of domestic migration patterns and immigration.

chicago is an immigrant gateway. baltimore and detroit, not so much. detroit has had some economic difficulties, as has much of the state of michigan and that is reflected in some of the migration numbers. host: you see large migration numbers in charlotte, dallas, albuquerque, las vegas. guest: the other thing about detroit -- detroit's population is down about 25% and the loss of a little over 200,00. 0. other cities have had downturns and have bounced back. new york in the 197's lost over 800,000 people.

people would not have suggested that new york's population would start rising again and is at an all-time high. when we talk about trends across one decade, these are not permanent. it can be hard to extrapolate into the future. host: mike from houston, texas. caller: thank you for taking my call. i grew up in youngstown, ohio. the cost of living here, the factors no state income tax -- the fact that there's no state income tax. i drive around the state for work. people are coming here for opportunity. about detroit -- detroit was the

city in the 1950's. it was the booming city of america. there are a lot of factors. coleman young is therefore20 years -- was there for 20 years and just destroyed the city. we have growth all over in texas. office space occupancy is high. small businesses do well in texas, too. we have the world's largest medical center. host: do you own or rent? caller: i own. host: how much did you pay for your house? caller: $420,000.

host: he talked a lot about quality of life. guest: he has made a choice about where he can find a good job any reasonable cost of living. i guess he likes humidity. houston is driving -- t hriving. interesting comment about detroit. a law that has to do with the level of education and diversity in the economic base. to try was a town dominated by the auto industry -- detroit was a town dominated by the auto industry. new york city has built itself based on knowledge-based industry -- publishing,

technology. two very different strategies. guest: downtown is a great example of a city -- almost every city had a boom point in its past. youngstown was in fact a real boom town. its population is about half-- under half of what it was when it was at its peak. these trends in some cases might be fairly short lived. when we look at cities like st. louis, which was one of the barges cities in the country, st. louis is smaller in

population than mesa, arizona, a suburb of phoenix. they have the world's fair and the olympics and now they are smaller than mesa, arizona. guest: youngstown is trying to figure out how to take a land base and infrastructure and downsize it to the population that they have so teach a more sustainable. host: sometimes cities have to reinvent themselves. this is denise from portland, oregon. caller: hi. i like to know what you do know about the growth here -- where we're headed and where we have been. a lot of people are making under $30,000 a year but it is still a

thriving city. growth.w some growts some guest: they grew by 50,000 people over a decade. that is a substantial number. guest: portland is a very attractive city. it is a great brand. it is a clear identity and image in the mind of the public. that is a beneficial thing for a city to have. i'm sure there are some people that do not love at the brand that it has. portland has had a set of portland has had a set of