22nd, 2012. today the house and senate are both out of session. lots going on in the capitol city, including the outcome of the supreme court review of health care law, the student loan debate with the deadline looming, and also the stand off between the house and the white house over eric holder and the investigation with fast and furious. this morning on "washington journal" we're going to talk about budget in a number of ways. our first dugs is going to be about groveer norquist's

discussion. he was up on capitol hill with staff members to talk about the anti-tax pledge. we're going to give you a list of people who are signed it and people who have not and some of the discussion and ask you if you were running for office would you take an anti-tax pledge? here's the phone lines. 202-737-0002 for republicans. our line for democrats 202-737-0001. independent 202-628-0205. if you are running for office, would you take an anti-tax pledge? good friday morning. let's look at a few of the several hundred headlines of grover norquist's trip to capitol hill. anti-tax pledge author meets with house gop. above that, grover norquist dissents anti-tax.

and the "los angeles times" above that. grover norquist meets to reinforce anti-tax pledge. if you are not sure, and you've heard grover norquist and about the anti-tax pledge, let's show you the language of it. this is what it says. and that candidates are asked to pledge. i, insert your name, pledge to the taxpayers of my state and to the american people i will one in -- host: sorry. took a while for the page to catch up.

reducing tax rates. now according to americans for tax reform, 250 representatives and 41 senators have all taken the pledge in the 112th congress. there's a list of a number of republicans, both house and senate who are nonsigners. we'll show that to you later. there are a couple of democrats in the house and one in the senate who have signed the pledge. our question for you this morning is if you were running office, would you take a no-tax pledge? tell us yes or no and why or why not? let's listen in to the senate democrats as they reacted to the news that grover norquist was on capitol hill. >> the leader of the republican party is up here today on the hill. but you may be surprised to learn it's not mitt romney, john boehner, or mitch mcconnell. you know who it is, it's grover norquist. nearly every republican in

congress has signed grover's pledge. mitch mcconnell signed it, mitt romney has signed it, and he's sticking to it. mitt romney. >> harry reid yesterday, along with a group of his colleagues on the senate democratic side expressing their concern reaction to grower -- grover norquist on capitol hill. let's look at a list of nonsigners. these are the nonpledge signers in the house. new york, richard siner --

host: okay. that's current situation in the congress. grover norquist is talking about how many people running have signed. we'll show you that later. would you take an anti-tax pledge if you were coming to town with all of the discussion and the debate about the economy, budget deficit, and the like, tell us why, yes or no. let's begin with jacksonville, florida. stuart, independent, you are on the air. caller: no, i would not sign -- i'm sorry, can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: i would not sign the pledge. these politics -- the senate and the white house both seem a -- it seems apparent that they are

owned by the multinational corporations. i'll fell you thad buchanan had it right. you impose an import tax, and at the same time, you give any company that hires american workers, give them tax exemption. there's no taxes on any corporation that hires american workers in this country. that would create more small businesses, that would create tax revenue by the billions, because we have a $500 billion tax deficit -- or trade deficit in this country. if we legalized regulated and taxed marijuana, there would be millions of dollars in tax revenue. it would take the nonviolent crime away and free up the jails. all kinds of solutions they are not even talking about because they don't want to do the

things. because they are doing what their corporation and public masters tell them to do. host: thanks. bill, you are on from virginia. caller: yes. when people regard what state they are from send a representative to capitol hill to represent us, well, whether they are to the house or to the senate, they are obligated to us not to one man, the grover norquist, whoever he is and whoever he has over the people. they -- he's not obligated to him. he's obligated to us. when -- whoever the representatives is or are maybe -- well, when he signed that

contract -- he's obligated to grover. he's not obligated to us. no one goes to capitol hill without compromise. and when you say that you are not going to compromise, well, then you are going against the contract. that's all i have to say. host: thanks. we've posted this on facebook. let's check in with the facebook and see some of the reactions there. who does he think he is anyway? that's what i want to know. the economic stability at the most powerful nation is at hands of one individual. this is true representative democracy. host: next call from lakeland. jim, you are on. caller: nice to talk to you this morning. i appreciate you taking my

call. but it's bad reasoning -- we have a bad deficit, and somebody has got to pay for it. somebody has got to be on some pain. and every economist and every person said something has to come from the revenue side. and something has to come from the spending side. there's nobody says they've got -- got all medicare and social security and medicaid and stuff like that. we've got to get some both sides. and anybody that takes a pledge other than the pledge of the united states of america is not worthy of being in congress. host: thanks. jodie on twitter says i wouldn't sign it. because they did sign it they have limbed their actions.

now they don't have room to pivot, hard politics. next up, compton, california, you are on the air. caller: yes, thank you for the "washington journal." good morning. host: good morning. caller: you know, common sense will tell you, ma'am, that the nation needs tax. we need the roads fixed, we need things taken care of. that's plain and simple. i was at a high tax bracket in my 30s. i was making over $100,000 a year. i was at 48% tax. i just think the nation is getting over taxed. i could see where the gentleman is going with no new taxes and read my lips and all of that. we have to have taxes. we can't have the over spending by the politicians. i mean what nerve harry reid and pelosi have parading around washington when they have such high unemployment and problems

in their state. we have to hit bottom before we start fixing the country. i mean it's pretty sad. but we can't tax and spend our way, you know, out of this problem. you are going to tax and spend your way into a bigger debt. host: thank you. let's listen to reverend norquist in his own words. he was at the table in the past couple of weeks talking about the economy and tax and also explaining the hill philosophy behind the pledge. let's listen to his description. >> the pledge was created about 25 years ago. in order to make it possible for a candidate for office to say to the american people i'm not going to raise your taxes, and to do it in a way that's believable. for 3,000 years politicians, school board members have been running for office, asking for power, but they tend to break their word once they get elected. but having it in write, the pledge is a simple commitment,

and jeb bush and harry reid misunderstand. that is the people of the american people and the people of your state. >> grover norquist talking about the pledge. and this article recently he mentioned jeb bush who has been critical of the pledge recently. and harry reid suggesting that with him on capitol hill the pledge is beginning to work. it's growing in popularity among congressional candidates in all 449 incumbents and challengers signed in 2010, including 241 challengers and 108 incumbents. this time around, 544 have signed the pledge, including 255 challengers and 289 incumbents. next to wisconsin. this is kim who is a democrat there. kim, you are on. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. host: sure thing. caller: i would not sign the

pledge. i took a pledge to the u.s. constitution. their duty is to the betterment of this country and their constituents and the country as a whole. we all have to pay for our services. everybody deserves a decent living. so there are raises incorporated when you raise taxes, because the pays have gone up. they are paying more into their -- all of their services whether it health insurance, car insurance, the standard of living has gone up. a gallon of milk is almost $4. i spend $4 on a half a gallon of milk and i live in wisconsin in the middle of dairy city. i'm surrounded by farms. i'm paying $4. anybody that takes a pledge like this is hurting the countries themselves and their family. thank you for their call. host: thanks for making it.

appreciate it. you too. twitter writes the tax reform is at all participated on equal value whether 10 percent or 20 percent. terry, you are on. caller: hi, susan. well, anybody that would sign any kind of a pledge that they absolutely will not do that or the other thing is just cutting themselves off from any kind of compromise of any hope of coming to some conclusion. i don't care whether you are a republican, democrat, or whoever, somebody in the other party is going to have some kind of a good idea, just the law of averages tells you that. i really agree with, you know, those who are saying that just to cut yourself off from any

type of hope for a good resolution is just ridiculous. i hope i would never have to to -- to see my representative do that. >>host: thanks for your call. senate tom coburn who talks a lot about the budget and national debt was on the program and talked about pledge and what he thinks it's done for washington. listen. >> i think two things. one it's been highly exaggerated by the press because it's a good fight. which is really disappointing. it's not the truth. it's not accurate. if people stood up, he doesn't have the resources to affect hardly any elections, other than to complain about it. i would tell every republican, if you think in the time of government we're not going to come to an agreement without some revenue increase, you might as well find another country to live in. there's no way to solve the

problems without compromise. host: tom coburn on "washington journal." back to phone calls. richard, you are on. caller: good morning. i think grover norquist -- first of all, i wouldn't sign the pledge. but i think grover norquist should go ahead and concentrate on the cities and counties. because they are spending us into oblivion, the property taxes here are so high you can't live in the city. they are driving people out of homes and then they blame it on other things like whatever they try to blame it on. it's because of the high property tax, and they try to blame it on the banks. i think grover norquist, nobody elected him. he's a drip, or to me. nobody elected him. i think the congress and senate should get a backbone and not have another showdown like they had last year on the budget and get the country moving again. in other words, the senates and

congressman should get it back and forget about grover norquist. he's a drip. thank you very much. host: thank you, richard. here's and mail from don who writes to us. host: here's another e-mail from david in seattle, washington. host: next is a call from david in cincinnati. you are on. caller: yes. i would just like to put this conversation in perspective. the first thing is the bible tells you it's going to be -- it's hard for a rich man to get in heaven as it is for a camel

to walk through the eye of a needle. also 256 of the 534 members of the congress and senate are billionaires or millionaires. they are not working for the american people. they are working for their own interest. these multicorporations, these tax breaks that they are giving, it's for themselves. they are serving themselves. if they are the richest people in the world, this is the reason why you cannot get no tax break. it's not only the republicans, but what we must think about, this debt, these wars were brought by us. we are putting this debt on our kids. we must raise taxes to save our kids and grand kids. we must pay this. this is a tragedy that the people in congress have signed the pledge. thank you. >>host: similar theme is raised by sasha on twitter.

host: i'm going to show you a couple of stories out of washington regarding federal spending. first from the "wall street journal" the farm aid. they passed a farm and nutrition program that -- host: let's go back to calls.

we're talking about the anti-tax pledge and whether or not you'd take it if you are running. you are on, good morning, independent. caller: yes, my concern is that in 2010 during the election these people told most of the independents and the white male voters, vote for us, we're going to go and we're going to help create jobs. that's the promise they made to the voters. then they left the voters maybe with a smile on their face and with suckers -- with sucker marks on their forehead, norquist kneel down and yes, we're here. we're going to take the pledge and not do anything for those people. that's what bothers me. that the man could be so bold in the trying american economy. you know what?

we have had so many tragedies in the country. it always brings us together. the lord is going to give us more and more tragedies until he brings us to our knees, because we have not learned. i hope it does not happen. that's the direction we're going in. host: thanks for making the call. next up is archie, a republican watches us. you are on, good morning. caller: yeah, i look at it really simple. you have to cut by at least 50%. and you have to cut the government spending programs all of these entitlement programs need to be cut. we're not -- we, as the american people, are not entitled. we need to bring the government back to heal and back to the places that it by the constitution is allowed to go. it has the right to declare war, it has the right to make the money, and it has the right to

help businesses protect themselves from their competition. that's basically the commerce clause. on that, the government should not help anybody get rid of the entitlement programs. let the people govern their own lives. and instead of giving entitlement programs, put the money towards the debt. host: thanks for your call from washington state. rick on twitter. host: back to the newspaper. "washington post" this morning.

host: on the other side of the aisle, mitt romney yesterday was speaking before the association of hispanic elected officials in florida. many headlines out of that suggesting a change in tone from the candidate. let me show you one from "new york times"

let's listen in to what he had to say yesterday. >> if president obama had delivered a real recovery, a reagan recovery, we would have five billion more jobs today. five billion more. the unemployment rate would be about 6%. and our economy would be at least $1 trillion larger. now tomorrow, president obama will speak here. that's the first time he's spoken here since his last campaign. he may admit he hasn't kept every promise. and he'll probably say that even though you aren't better off today than four years ago, things could be worse. he'll apply that you don't really have an alternative. i believe he's taking your vote for granted. i've come here today with a very simple message. you do have an alternative. host: as he referenced, the president will be traveling to florida to speak to the same organization of hispanic elected

officials. c-span will provide live coverage at 1:15 p.m. eastern time. when we talk about hispanics and politics and the state of the nation, let me tell you the final segment. we'll be looking at the size of the hispanic population in the u.s., how it's trended over the past decades, and some of the economic and policy issued related to that. america by the numbers at 9:15 eastern time. back to calls. memphis, tennessee, hello, marty. caller: this is just a way for republicans even if they lose elections to cripple democrats ability to govern. it goes all the way back to -- at least 30 years ago when reagan said if we can't keep them from legislating, we can stop the beast. basically that's all it is. host: thank you. john on twitter writes this. host: back to newspaper.

on sequestration which is the process that c-span viewers know this of the agreement that came out of last summer's budget debate, if there was an agreement reached there would be automatic spending cuts. here's one from "the new york times"

host: back to your calls. georgia is our next caller. this is leah. caller: yes, ma'am. good morning. thank you for the opportunity. i'd just like to say no, i would not sign this pledge. no responsible person would or should. i'd like to ask the american people to stop for a moment and think how are you supposed to have it both ways, say no to any new taxes or revenue, but also go to war in two different places or also create a brand new program in medicare part d. those things need to be paid for. how are we supposed to pay for them if you can't have access to new taxes or revenue in?

that just makes absolutely no sense. host: thanks. dave is on twitter. he writes -- host: this is laurie montgomery. host: next is a phone call from

texas. fred is out there and watching us. you are on, fred. caller: good morning. i would to say that any member of congress that signs this pledge has in my opinion committed actually a crime. it's against the interest of the united states. first of all, they all have taken an oath of office to carry out the duties that are outlined for our members of congress and the u.s. constitution. and the republican members of congress are not doing that. they have signed a pledge that says they will not do that. one of the things that bothered

me so greatly about this is that a number of the members of congress have served in the military. some of them are actual heros. in the military had they decided that they were not going to carry out their duties, they would have been court marshaled and probably imprisoned. now that they have won a position in washington, one of the most important situations in our nation, they can -- or they are getting away with this. it's nothing but a -- it's a conflict of interest for them. and almost all of the republican members of the house have signed that pledge.

and i understand that a couple of democrats have signs it. i know that every member of congress from the state of texas have signed that pledge. which in my opinion means every member of congress from the state of texas is carrying out an un-american situation. the problem that our country has when we hear most of our people that are in the news and telling the news, they blame congress for the fact that no progress or very little progress is being made in stopping and turning around our situation. well, it's not congress per se,

it's the republican members of congress. host: thank you. next up is a caller from philadelphia independent. caller: yeah. thank you for the taking the call. have a good morning to you. host: good morning to you. caller: anybody that signs the pledge to a group of people that half of the people don't even know of some one person, if i send you to washington and you go to another group, you need to be fired or locked up. thank you. host: next up a republican in youngstown, ohio. good morning, you are on the air. caller: good morning. first of all, we sent those people to congress to cut taxes, to cut spending, second of all, nobody is stopping democrats from sending in more money. you could send a whole paycheck,

if you think that's going to help of but i don't know why you people seem to think that you are entitled to my money. that's not the government's money, that's my money. you don't -- i barely have enough of my own. why don't you try to make your own and stop trying to depend on some nonexistent hand from washington to save you. people don't pay income tax. why don't you people step up to the plate and help the country. all you people who are saying how horrible it is that the republicans won't raise the taxes. we have too much spending. and it comes down to this, it's baseline budget. the problem with spending in the country is the baseline budgeting. there are automatic increases in government spending is automatically put into the budget. instead of a program costing, say, $100 billion every year, every year it goes up to $110 billion automatically. if you say, no, we're going to

keep the $100 billion, you are accused of cutting the program. host: thanks. dr. duncan on twitter writes host: next is mobile, alabama. this is bill. caller: good morning. no, i would not sign such a pledge. it's giving up a tool in advance of what the condition of the country is. you know, i think that grover norquist coerced that republicans by telling them that he would campaign against them if they don't sign the pledge. they don't have the spine to resist. i give a lot of credit to george hw bush when he campaigned for office. read my lips, no new taxes.

then he saw the country was in need of raising taxes, he raised them much to his own disadvance and lost the presidency. he saw what the country needed. it took integrity. it's ridiculous to have this sort of campaign of signing in advance a priority, a technique, a tool of government and then tieing one hand behind your back, so to speak, before you even get into office. of course, i would not sign that. i think it's ridiculous. thank you for your time. host: thank you. from mobile, alabama, that's bill. chris in greensboro, north carolina, as we talk about the anti-tax pledge. would you sign it? what's your answer, chris? >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the answer is no, no, no, and no, no, and keep on no, no, noing opinion this is why i would not sign it for a couple

of reasons, number one, greed is really the issue of the country, the word of god, the first chart and verse 10 for the above of money is the root of all evil. but the bottom line is this pledge, what it has done is tripled the u.s. from governing, why it keeps giving money to the people at top who don't need the money. i've heard a few people that said they will stop taxes so forth, no cuts in spending, but they are not realizing when you take someone paying $50 million, that's only 10, 12, 13%, that's spending itself. it's tax spending. we've forgetten about what the republican is all about.

it's for the people by the people. some callers have said grover norquist has no power. he's a lobbyist that's greedy, corporations that are going to put people to work. greedy corporations and jobs, having goods and services manufactured in china to bring all of the manufacturing and prizes over here for us to buy them and then when they make these billions if not hundreds of billions, they don't want to pay taxes. you can't have it both ways. the bottom line when you get rid of the greed, it don't matter. this is our country. if you want to have your freedom, your thoughts, think about the truth, to keep this country where it is from us. host: thanks. i'm going to jump. thank you for the call.

host: supreme court's decisions yesterday, three. there are now seven more that people are waiting next week. monday is typical decision. sounds as if there will be additional decision days. the course is scheduled to end the session at the end of june. here's a story in the "financial times" about one the cases decided yesterday. u.s. supreme court with a blow to make sweeping changes to the way dues are collected. the 7-2 decision could -- host: next is a call from georgia.

as we talk about the anti-tax pledge. sharon is a democrat. good morning, you are on. caller: good morning, dear. i love c-span. host: thank you. thanks for watching. caller: this is the only time we have a voice, apparently. no, i would not say this is. if we lived in england and had a king or queen that ruled over us. as abraham lincoln said, we cannot stand taxation without representation, that came from england. and this attitude, let them eat cake or have a safety net is about a joke. because they are trying to take that away. i have a daughter that's disabled and worked all of her life. she was in a bad car wreck. needless to say, she's had a lot of hard times since then. i hope and pray that nobody else has to go through what we've been through with her. if she didn't have her social security and disability and food stamps to live on, which nobody

can live on anybody, mom and daddy still have to help, do they realize that there's people out here that are really hurting? or do they care? host: sharon, thanks, from georgia. next is a call from alabama. and linda, tell me how the towns name is pronounced. caller: virginia. host: i pushed the wrong button. welcome. you are on sir, welcome. caller: okay. i was calling on the norquist thing. i noticed that i wouldn't take the pledge, but i know what the problem is it's not the -- it's not the taxes causing the problem, we have a regulation here. and one the biggest coal companies is 750 people. he pledged that he would shut the coal mines down and i

believe other business who he was going to shut down that he thought was putting out the emotion. and he's running the country. too much regulations. we need to get a new president. if we don't, the country is going to be in bad shape. it's not the taxes. it's them shutting everybody down. with the pipeline, he don't want no jobs. host: let's try alabama next. arab or arab? >> caller: arab. host: thank you. caller: on the northwest pledge, i would like to be able to understand this myself. he's asking the representative to make the pledge to the constituents which is us. i also want to say this, if we

raise taxes on the wealthy, many of them own corporations. and all you are going to do, folks, is raise your prices. the rich just pass it on to us. you cannot legislate that. you cannot look at the bottom line. all we are going to do is see the prices. all of you who keep saying the rich can afford it, let's get more money from the rich, all you are doing is asking for your prices to go for the goods and services. i would sign a pledge to keep that from happening, folks, i really would. host: thank you. couple more facebook comments as we close out the section. mark mcgee writes they should be removed. they take an initial pledge to uphold the constitution. any other pledges should be done away, and anyone describing the loyalty should be removed from office and charged with

treason. mark canter writes -- host: back to telephone calls. just a couple of minutes left. you are on the air. caller: hello. i just wanted to let everyone know that, you know, throughout history, all throughout history in china, and all over the place, taxes had to be increased. and it's very important that we do this responsibly. you know, and it's wrong for people to sign something that says they are not going to do what their responsibilities are. you know, we do have a responsibility to take care of

people who might not necessarily have a lot of money, you, or who are struggling. it's not fight for this to happen. the main oil company and people stood on a panel and said they didn't need the subsides they were getting. then they are going to turn around and take some people who need it the most. they are going to take more food stamps from a lot of people which isn't fair, when they should be taking it from oil subsides. the people said they didn't need it. as far as the pipes, that's going to bring half as many jobs as mr. obama's plan would do. it's ridiculous to treat people that way and to just be for corporate. the corporate power is set to take over because how many money the congress is given.

congress isn't our congress anymore. they are congress for the rich. host: we only have a minute left. you are on. caller: i would like to say that no way would i take a pledge, and no way would i vote for someone that would. i have voted across party lines, i have a democrat, but i have voted republican. and i will not vote for someone who has made a pledge that i did not ask for. we have already fought a revolutionary war that said we had taxation with no representation. i think that's what we're having now. they have taken a pledge of no taxes. some of them have gotten into office. they don't know what they are getting into. they've made the pledge to somebody out there, but not me as their constituent. i would not vote for the person that did, i do not like it.

host: thank you. you can continue the conversation. we've gotten lots of twitter comments. if you are on facebook, they are talking about it there as well. facebook.com/c-span is how you reach us. you can continue to talk about the pledge on the budget negotiations and on our economy. speaking of the economy, that's the focus for the next hour. marilyn geewax, and jim tankersley later on in the program. host: we'll be back.

♪ ♪ >> this weekend on american history tv, the movement to end slavery. >> as one of the fascinating aspects of the ash abolitionist, when lincoln, the self-described abolitionist are still the tiny minority. what transforms abolitionist into respected critics of the american scene?

>> also this weekend on key political figure that is ran for president and lost. the contenders. and a look at eugene debs, five time socialist candidate for president. american history tv, this weekend on c-span 3. >> this weekend on afterwards, fast and furious. >> it was something that was left under the rug, and kept not only from the american people, but the mexican people. there are hundreds of mexican citizens who have been murdered as a result of this. the only thing that we knew outside of the government program was that american gun dealers were going into mexico and causing the problem when really the sanctioning the sales and sending them into mexico. >> she's interviewed sunday night at 9:00, part of booktv

this weekend on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back for an hour. i want to introduce you to our two guests. senior business editor, marilyn geewax. we've known marilyn for a long time. jim tankersley this morning. in addition to "national journal" the atlantic picks up. before we get to events of the week, you've both written stories. let me show them to the audience and ask you both for your big picture view of where the economy is and going. here's jim tankersley. obama and romney offer few economic proposals. this one is three frightening

phrases about the economy. what kind of shape is the country in right now? guest: i actually put together a series for npr about looking up. it was about the strength in the economy. so many things were looking up. agriculture was still doing well, energy had perked up a lot. technology, a lot of good stories there, the parts of the strength that were starting to pull it forward. growth this year could be around in the ballpark of 3%. but oil prices went way up, europe has not pulled itself together, china is doing a lot worse, and all of the sudden all of that optimism that we started with -- this is the third time it's happened. that was true in 2011 and 2010,

we start the year with high hopes. now it's precarious. there's still the nodes of strength in the u.s. economy. but there's just more and more bad news piling up, especially coming out of europe. this ongoing uncertainty. and, of course, the stalemate in congress. host: there are many ways to reach us. you can call us, tweet us, and we'll take all of that as our two guests continue. beyond your headlines, what is your analysis and the resources tell you about save the country? guest: my office is sort of done. this is not going to be the most optimistic. i i'll start on an optimistic note. the housing market is doing better and maybe it has bottomed out and timely starting after having been a huge drag on the

economy. to look like it might be a little bit of a positive going forward. there's not -- oil prices are falling. those are the two big pieces of good news. there's a lot of pieces of bad news. the first is that we went through a huge recession of financial crisis. and they turned out to be hard things to recover from. the other -- the second thing that we probably over estimated, myself included in the winter, the strength of the economy. it's nice job numbers and probably what remains very week consumer demand. then as they are pointing out, the confidence aspects, and it's still a difficult time to get investors to move on to anything, or anyone to hire. it all adds up to a picture of an economy that is growing, but not fast enough to grow jobs to put people back to work and make up the damage that the recession

inflected on the economy. host: let's turn to one big event. ben bernanke defining "operation twist." would you define it? guest: sure. the fed buys treasury bonds. what it's doing here, it's going to take shorter term bonds and sell them and buy instead longer term bonds. it's a net in terms of own. but the long term interest rates. we are seeing a bunch of unconventional monetary policy, the fed would cut interest rates. they are basically at zero. this is a modest attempt to do that by twisting. host: the question before the clip, what does it do for the bond market? guest: what it does is it adds a bunch of demand for the longer

terms bonds which makes them, you know, makes the yields go down, which is the ultimate goal. host: let's listen to ben bernanke this week, hit meeting with the press and talking about the view of the economy. >> well, we've taken a step today which is a substantive step which will provide additional help for the economy and we have stated we are prepared to take further steps if necessary to promote sustainable growth and recovery in the labor market. we are prepared to do what's necessary. we are prepared to provide support for the economy. host: first of all, are you getting used to said press conferences? it's a new concept. guest: it is. there's long been a complaint that the fed is too opaque. ben has tried to be more forthcoming to explain what the fed is doing. they still do the fed speak.

there's a lot of jargon. even when they are talking, it's not entirely clear. host: question that relates to this. let me put that on the table. this is from the tweet, the recovery of which you spoke was qe2, which drove up food prices worldwide. guest: i'll go from fed speak to english. he's talking about the qe2, that's quantitative easing, which related to the idea that the fed is going to take a predetermined amount of money and shove it into the economy creating electronically more money for banks to be able to lend, it makes things easier to lend. they did it once, now twice, that's where the qe3 comes from. that's what the numbers are supposed to mean. back to the concept of quantitative easing.

if you put a lot more money into the system and you don't put a lot more goods and services into the system, then maybe what you are doing is spending. that's what the critics worry about. they are afraid we have too many dollars facing too many goods and services is the idea. at least so far we don't so much inflation. i know that people saw some good prices spike, there's been meat prices, but gasoline in march was awful. that was a scary experience. really that has kind of passed. oil prices have been plummeting since march. down to $78 a barrel. we've seen a big drop in oil prices. that should help with food prices. the argument is maybe we're setting the stage for inflation

in the future. right now we don't have inflation, and we have a really lousy economy. we're going to do what we need to do now to get this thing growing again. bernanke insists he'll be able to walk it back, do the whole thing in reverse, soak up the money, and put things back. really it's a big gamble. he's doing what he feels he needs to do. but there are critics. host: jim tankersley, another headline from morning. moody's downgrade hits 15 top banks. a viewer asked moody's just downgraded banks in europe. what impact will it have on another round of stimulus? >> it's probably unlikely to have a big impact. we were expecting it more or less. a lot of banks were on watch. first off, i don't think anyone expects a round of fiscal stimulus in the united states. at least not until after the

presidential election and probably not after. maybe if at the beginning of next year things are still really bad and we have a new president, you can see a push for fiscal stimulus. i just don't see it any time now. frankly, europe is having a hard time also. host: by the way, dr. boom, mr. glom, is that your view with all things in life? guest: no. i'm a happy person. host: clifford, democrat, you are on. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: we're well. what's your question for us? >> caller: my question is i'm not trying to ask anything but one question, what do -- if either one of you was in the president's position, how would you turn that situation around

where economist and everything. what would you do? guest: i think that -- first of all, i'm a journalist. i don't have opinions and i don't give advice. i'm going to have to pass on that. but if we talk about what the president and his point of view, you know, part of what's tricky about this is so much of it does seem to be not just out of his hands, but out of everyone's hands in the united states. we're talking about a hard landing in china. not that much you can do to influence whether or not china goes into a recession. they are just not that many steps that can be taken by the congress, bit white -- but the white house, by anyone to try to get the bubbles under control. a little bit out of our hands. the same thing with europe now. certainly the united states is an important, you know, key player in the world. so we have a little bit of influence, but not really. this eu crisis is something that

europeans are going to have to work out on their own. when you look at the big risks in the world right now, and is it slowing down dramatically, and is europe going into a deep recession? those are issues that are very tough for people to deal with. especially in the political cycle where you want to be able to say these are steps that are taken and the reality is two big chunks of things are overseas. >> there's one thing that is a big danger to the global economy right now that we do have control of. ..

not solvet wouldno everything. host: on low inflation, a tweet -- guest: there is two prices that everybody see. es. grocery prices have gone up. there is a lot of factors going

into food prices and problem with food prices is may be it is monetary policy but maybe it is other things. this is a global market for commodities. we to keep that in mind. host: from "usa today," coverage to gas prices. what are the effects of lower gasoline on the overall economy? caller: who doesn't love seeing gas prices falling at the gas station if you come back, you feel better about that. you have money to spend on whatever.

you can see a little more money in your wwallet. it is like getting a raise. it is nice to save a little money. it would be great if those prices were falling for good reasons. they are falling for bad reasons. everybody is afraid global demand is receding. this feeling that bad times are coming. people might take that vacation. maybe now you can afford to visit with some relatives and you can pack up the car because it will cost you 25% less. host: mike from norman, oklahoma . caller: thank you for taking my call.

i want to talk about the housing industry. committees expanded -- communities expanded. all that construction, housing, commercial. all the materials that went into construction. that made the state's fleis usher. they built schools and so forth. that added jobs. new dentist offices, teachers, doctors. that was road hard and put up dead. loose money loo

conditions. economists say every recovery is led by the housing industry. it is still dead. that is a major impetus that takes the country's out of recession and it is not there. host: let me turn to charles tiefer. guest: i think it has hit bottom in terms of prices. we will not see new home building on the scale during the housing wbubble. we were overbuilding. we're down 2 million construction jobs. we will not see that return anytime soon. it drove economic activity.

is been a huge hindrance to recovery. people are under water. they cannot borrow to start small businesses. this will help the recovery even if they are not building new things again. we need to get back to a point where we're building again. host: bob is up next, a republican. caller: gas prices are going down because of the demand. we hire a leader that leads to congress when we hire a president. i thought truman was a good man. with this president, the buck doesn't even get around.

you have two left-wing people. before the work opposing views on c-span. two left-wing organizations, "national journal" and npr. i do not know what is coming over c-span anymore. thank you. >> there are other voices in the discussion this morning. do you want to talk about the characterization of your news organization? guest: i am somewhat bemused by that. host: what is your own approach to covering economics? guest: it is remarkable. i wish our staff meetings could be aired on c-span.

npr is focused on the facts and telling interesting stories in the fairest way we possibly can. we're committed to not being a part of the opinion journalism. we try to tell people what is happening in terms of analysis and facts. host: when you hire a president, what we should be looking for. few new economic proposals. let's move to the campaign trial. what are they saying that is concrete about what they would do to turn the economy around? guest: you have two different approaches.

mitt romney believes the government should get out of the way. that we need to be taxing businesses and individuals less and that we should be balancing our budget. the president believes more in education. these are different roles. a fairly liberal point of view, even though the administration will not call it that. few specifics about how they would get the economy moving right away. governor romney has a plan and says he will cut taxes and close some loopholes. president obama has an american jobs act. he has not offered any new solutions beyond that.

he was talking about the buffett rule, which is a way to raise taxes on the rich. we have worked in ohio. ohioians have heard about this. they want to hear specifics and something other than the same old stuff. host: a different question from a viewer on twitter. guest: well, there are some people who would argue the president has the power to ignore congress and to continue to pay our debts because that is part of the job.

the debt ceiling debate is agitating theater but is not going to affect the treasury. they would not default. that would cost a court battle -- that would cause a court battle. an interesting day at the courthouse if they had to debate that. all these fiscal issues -- the fed deals with monetary policy. congress is supposed to deal with fiscal matters -- budgets and taxes. people keep using the term " fiscal cliff." there are all sorts of issues -- the payroll tax holiday expiring.

all these things are coming together at the end of the year. the fiscal matters are up to congress to deal with and the president to work out. with the election, and none of the fiscal issues will be worked out until after the election. guest: you could find out balance the budget. that is almost impossible right now, just from the state of the economy. you would have to raise a lot of taxes or cut a lot of spending. we're talking about social security and medicare and defense spending. it is revealing that neither governor romney or president obama has a plan to balance the budget anytime soon. it would be a dramatic shot to

the economy to balance it right now. that would be a way of defaulting on the debt. host: next up its florence -- next up is florence from new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would hate -- sit down and realized that we need to do something immediately. one of the things -- you talk about the government's. ; . they need to create jobs. i think that would be real. when people have money, they spend money.

they will spend money if they have it to spend. if you take and tax the rich, they will only go up on prices. prices are going up anyway. they are going up now. anyway the rich want to do it. they cannot take money with them when they go. a revision in taxes is one thing. they need to start to teach about economics at the early age, in elementary. it was my last year in high school. we need to have people understand how are our economy works. host: thank you so much.

guest: that is an initiative that we work very hard on at npr, addressing financial literacy. we had a series called "family matters." people need to learn more to prepare for retirement. trying to get people to understand the importance of saving money over time. look at the rocky economy. it is hard for people to save. that is part of our mission at npr. guest: the collor outlined a basic idea ---- the caller outlined a basic idea. that has been the president's view.

he has been trying to advocate for the. the republicans are saying that that has not worked. the republicans do not believe we should be spending any more money, the president and the democrats believe that we should be. host: a question on twitter by boringfileclerk. guest: i think there is more that can be done. we're headed toward another recession. guest: i would not be surprised if we look back in a year and say we were falling into deep recession in the summer of 2012. it would not surprise me. i would not be surprised if we look back and saw it was a soft patch and we got through it.

there are things that happen in the economy that we are totally missing. it is hard to see all that is happening. ben bernanke was on the hill testified about the economy. they asked him that policy is starting to slow down. his answer was, "i don't think it will be a major factor. we are fine. he was looking at data that were showing all things were good. if he had walked to the window, realtors were starting to panic. housing sales were dropping dramatically. they were down 20% from the previous year.

the smartest guy in the room was in the middle of housing meltdown and did not see it. months later we realized it was something bad. we realize just how bad late in 2008. you're not entirely sure what is happening. we might be in a meltdown moment and maybe we should be allowed to people to find out what is happening. maybe those industries and sectors have held up very well and pulled off forward, or not. it could go either way. host: we get to electronically open the window every day. here is a question.

guest: you would like slow and steady growth because it is higher. you would like growth that is linked to job growth. the economy can grow by what has been healthy levels. job growth has not been there. the lowest job growth we have ever recorded dating back to the great depression. that was in the midst of some fairly healthy growth. it starts with, we need strong, steady growth and right now we have weak growth. host: we have a comment.

let's go back to calls. mark from new york. caller: good morning. i am a small business owner in construction, doing additions and working in people's home. host: what part of new york state? caller: south of rochester, east of buffalo. host: how has business been? caller: as the gentleman said, the loss of jobs in 200 was really the beginning of the mess that we're in. i call it the fake economy. all that money was available to

just about everybody, people were spending money like it was free. that entire bush administration -- that duration was a fake. people were spending money like it was free. entire eight years was good for everyone. in reality, it was misleading. suddenly this economy drops off a cliff into thousand eight. in reality, the collapse was long before the great depression or recession. so we have to start from the

beginning in order to fix the real problem. but ultimately, if people had better wages -- the average person is what spurs the economy. you do not make jobs -- you cannot create jobs. host: do you have a question? thank you for your call. guest: he was making an interesting point about creating jobs but the economy overall was not creating a lot of jobs in the last decade. that is something that some economists that are strong supporters of the innovation economy -- they say money should be poured into research and

development and new ideas. we poured too much money into housing. that created the illusion he calls fake jobs. the construction jobs were tied to the real estate markets. we were not growing at a lot of other jobs. we were left with revealing this slow growth in the jobs out some of the housing sector. one of the policy initiatives that a lot of people believe is that we should be doing more to create jobs that are not tied to housing. being led out of recession by innovative companies that are coming up with new ideas and new industries. there is some reason to believe -- there are all kinds of things

happening with technology -- cloud computing which makes it easier for people to start businesses. expensive have to buy mainframe computers. there are all kinds of technological things that could create new jobs. host: do we have a work force trained for those jobs? guest: will we have people willing and able to do those jobs? look when the internet was expanding. there were few people with those degrees. companies trained them. maybe we should focus on corporations. "i will train you."

host: this question about housing from maverick. guest: there is a little bit of indication that investors buying housing is helping. miami has a lot of investors buying houses. several metro areas in florida are seeing this. phoenix is seeing this. this is a big debate. half believe what the governor is saying. the time to intervene in the market has passed. right now you need to get out of

the way and let the market clear. this is a more conservative market. chief economicy's adviser has been a fierce advocate to help underwater home owners. there's still a lot you could do. refinancing and write-downs could help to get those losses of the books. they become engines of the economy. a sizable debate among smart people. host: the miami housing markets -- some of the big investors are chinese. guest: absolutely. host: michael is a republican in

phoenix. caller: thank you for taking my call. off with ag quotation from winston churchill. "the further backward you can look, the further forward you can see." this whole discussion about what has been happening today -- this is the greatest recession since the great depression. no. this is the greatest recession thte jimmy carter recession. ronald reagan came into office, the unemployment rate was 11.5 %. i bought a house in 1983 and i was lucky to get in interest

rate at 13%. 13%. right now these just rate is 3%. the unemployment rate is 8%. you look at it. what did reagan do? he cut taxes massively. brought in industry and through the economy within two years. what did obama do? he raise taxes -- no, he did not raise taxes, he raised spending. "let's raise more." when obame came into office --

guest: i think the early 1980's recession is instructive. it was shorter. it was in a lot of ways solved by monetary policy along with fiscal policy. yes, interest rates got really high. once they had stopped that, that helped the country recover. people give president reagan a lot of credit for that. this has been a different recession. the big thing that is similar between the great recession and the great depression, a huge financial crisis, and that is harder to dig out of his starkly. -- his startocially.

host: chris is a democrat from springfield, missouri. caller: i think everybody forgets technology is a double- edged sword. i have seen my industry decimated with anti piracy which has eliminated a lot of jobs. auto industries that were built in the south are being done by robotics. it used to take 100 people to build a car and now it is 20. computers have taken over a lot of jobs for people. those jobs are not coming back. technology is great those jobs

will never ever returned in publishing, music, movies, retail stores have closed because of it. there's a lot to say about technology. lots of jobs are not going to come back and we need to start -- getting the country and realize that that will be the change and i think people should start looking at it. guest: i have sympathy for technology in the digital age wiping out jobs. i used to work in this building as a newspaper reporter. the digital migration stomped over me and the bureau was closed. i know how much it can hurt to

lose your job. but we have to look forward and there is no way to make time stop and say that we will not have the technological advances. the technology is going to go forward whether we are part of it or not. the key is to have a workforce that matches what jobs are being created. i had to retrain myself. i have had to learn to become make digital journalist. i have to tweet and get stories out through facebook. we have had to go through uncomfortable changes to keep up with the economy. trying to hold it back is not the solution. we need to move forward with the job training.

we have 3.7 million jobs open in the united states right now. we need to have the workforce and the job openings matchup a lot better. host: did you spend some time without a job? guest: i started looking for a job before they turned the lights off. it was a very stressful time. we've all known lots of people that have lost jobs. whether it it is the music industry or the book industry, we're all swimming in the same dangerous water. the key is lifelong learning. host: certain technologies -- guest: a lot. host: a question for you.

maybe this is a comment from twitter. guest: we didn't have that during the last decade. people started treating their houses as an atm and as an investment. we're seeing a return to levels that do not suggest that is the case right now. it is hard to get a loan from a bank right now. if you were wanting to do that in the past, a way to do that was to borrow against the value in your house. we want them to be innovative

and entrepreneurs. it is hard for them to get the credit to make those investments. one way they used to be able to do that was through their house. host: good morning, paul. caller: i can believe 20 years i have been calling. host: and the lions were pretty busy -- and the lines were pretty busy. caller: we own a boarding kennel. we have become a luxury in hard times. two weeks ago was the first time we've taken in no money at all. we have had to cut back on our groomers, $10.99 employees.

i have written congressman, people -- e-mailed people trying to give some indication about when this will be over. no one listens. it is frustrating. i'm a frustrated republican. i don't think people in washington have any clue on how to solve these problems. host: do you have some clear-cut solutions about what would turn the economy around? caller: i do not in my own mind. one thing we did, we get rid of all of our debt. now we pay the mortgage and utilities.

we have tried to do everything we can to modernize our capabilities to appeal to our clients. we do pick up and delivery. we do everything we can. the business has continued to go down. we had 75 reservations in 2008. in 2011, we had 10. it will be interesting to see how we, this fourth of july. this business is barely holding on. host: i hope this is a turning point for you. thank you for sharing your story. guest: it is and absolutely horrible situation that you are in.

it is a common story across the country. i do nothing congress and the president are spending a lot of time on talking to folks like paul and understanding the depths of pain. what paul is describing is a bottoming out of demand in the economy. there are not people spending money on services that he is providing. we have to help people have the kind of money, whether it is disposable income or business investments, to be able to spend on small businesses like his. this is the big challenge. guest: there is kind of a consensus that not much is going to happen with any kind of issue

on tax and spending during this election cycle. the congress is largely shut down until late november with a lame duck secssion. thank you for running a small business, paul. we need those small businesses. for a person with a small business that is waiting for more certainty in the economy, greater clarity these-- this is why congress' popularity is so low. people are looking for answers. it may be months before there are any resolutions of these big issues. host: remember the caller that talked about bad times during the carter years.

we have a response. guest: i will uses as an opportunity to talk about the fed. woodlake and economy where interest rates can be higher than at rock-bottom so people can get returns on their savings. we may need to go down before we go back up. the fed has so targeted and made sure inflation does not get above 2%, their target. that they have not done more to spur growth. the fed should be trying to push rates back down to try to spur more economic activity.

only then we get up from this slow but stable growth and get to a faster growth place where we can start to raise interest rates and you can -- all of us can start getting a much better return than 0.5% on their c .d.'s. caller: good morning. there used to be a place called the soviet union. the central planning did not work out real well for them. my suggestion is the united states constitution gave certain powers to washington, d.c., and wanted the majority of the powers to stay with the state and the power.

we have become a regulation nation. if somebody were to follow you around, you would probably not be able to go through a day without breaking it regulation that could be a felony. there are all these regulations out there. we have to have access to cheap energy. we have huge amounts of coal and natural gas. i believe we have untapped petroleum. we should get back up these regulations and allow us to develop the resources that we have in this country and become energy dependent. that lowers the price of energy worldwide. host: thank you.

the regulations being an impediment to the economic recovery. guest: this is one of the great questions for the candidates that is not being ask. we're seeing a boom in fracking across the country. cheap gas is flowing out of the ground. the obama administration could do more to regulate fracking in a way that would reduce that. the president has not said yes or know whether he would direct the apa to regulate fracking more. that could be an important question for the economy and also for the environment and for the questions that have been raised about t environmental

sensitivity. guest: i'm from youngstown, ohio. they have been coming back to life because of natural gas. i ask people how positive people are about natural gas, this fracking process. to some degree they are thrilled about it. they had 11 earthquakes in an area where there had never been earthquakes before. that is tied to the extraction of natural gas. the people i spoke with were very divided. this is the kind of regulatory issues that political leaders have to sort out. the things that lead to

environmental problems like polluted water and earthquakes. host: thank you for being here. we appreciate it. meetnext segment, you will nee charles tiefer. we will talk about executive privilege and out recent presidents have employed it. we'll be right back with that.

>> howdy approach book interviews differently than news interview -- how do you approach? >> i think of interviewing as gathering information on the news side. >> how difficult is it to remain impartial? >> i will try to give people as full an understanding of what is happening in this campaign. it is not that difficult to put your biased to the side. >> has social media changed your work? >> twitter is now a primary new

source for anybody who pays attention to politics. twitter did not exist four years ago for all practical purposes. >> an interview with dan balz. sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: charles tiefer is a professor at university of baltimore law school. aboutlearning once again the concept of executive privilege. what is executive privilege? guest: a doctrine by which the president can claim it. he says for the discussions to go on freely, "i cannot turn

over to congress everything it wants." when the president says that stuff cannot be turned over, that is invoking executive privilege. host: what are the roots of it? guest: the term has been used since the 1950's. discussions go back to george washington. at the time, the big action in the congress was from senator joseph mccarthy. he was asking so much that president eisenhower started to use the term saying i will draw some big, broad lines and i will not let you get stuff. host: to give you a snapshot of how infrequently modern presidents have claimed

executive privilege, here is a graph. ronald reagan, three times. host: the circumstances under which presidents used it very greatly -- vary greatly. guest: some presidents' use it not that often. this is the first time for president obama. president clinton was faced with a number of special prosecuting investigations and congressional investigation that were large scale. he claimed it quite often. host: we invite you to be part of our conversation about executive decision.

our phone lines are open. 202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-628-0205 for independents. you can send us an e-mail or a tweet. guest: we have a relatively recent court decision in the previous administration, a claim of privilege about the skin of u.s. attorneys being fired for partisan reasons. a judge decided that the bush administration had been wrong and they had to enter questions from congress on this. that was a startling departure. host: did it limit the concept of the powers?

guest: i would say it was particular to that case. the bush white house took the position that it did not even have to show up in congressional hearings. empty chair hearing. eric holder has come to help many times to enter questions. host: what about executive privilege during the watergate years and richard nixon? guest: those were the glory days of executive privilege fights. president nixon in the years before -- even the years of watergate claimed it again and again because he did not want to let congress looking at the nixon white house. he claimed it again and again and broadly. urt review about core revie

of it? guest: the supreme court took the case, the united states obverses nixon. it was about a jury investigation of watergate. executive privilege was not absolute. host: jim is a republican in cleveland. caller: yes. span. -- ie c- love c-span. executive privilege is another word for the parties to do what they want. the ability -- washington was badgering his troops when they didn't have good food are good clothing. the same thing from the 1800's

and the 1900's. i did not vote any more personally. host: thank you. guest: executive privilege is sometimes invoked in partisan context. sometimes it is invoke when the congressional inquiry is bipartisan. a vote over the attorney general eric holder in contempt with 20 republicans and 17 democrats. sometimes the democrats and republicans agree with each other. that made it hard for the president to resist. host: here is a question from john from north carolina.

guest: that is a good question. the privilege is being claimed for documents that are solely in the department of justice. they are attorney-general holder's documents. the subpoena for those documents comes to him. no one below the level of president is allowed to make a claim of executive privilege. host: can you talk about how the process would play out? guest: well, i can say but there is no such thing as a typical way. it may go to the floor of the house. there have been some statements that as soon as next week in by go to the floor of the house for a vote.

the house could say, we want a civil case to be done. that's what happened with the claim for bush. in my not lead to prosecution. host: hello to larry, an independent. caller: my question is a comment. i started a while back in mexico there was a lot of violence. the obama administration brought regulations for gun control and blamed the violence in mexico in large part on the gun running. this gunrunning was sanctioned by this government. he has invoked his privileged to keep this from coming to the

american people at a time when he is up for reelection. what is wrong with my logic? guest: pieces of what you're saying make perfect sense. the election year contest is not really a matter for president obama to choose. he has been the target. the house republicans on the committee have chosen to do the regulation. this was a congressional decision and that is usually the case. you can see why they would be willing to have the fight this year. host: there is an editorial in "the washington post."

here's a little bit of what they write. host: getting to the question of oversight. guest: the list of categories brings out that one of these fights goes on on the one hand the executive branch turns stuff over so that it will not be fighting on weak ground.

so when they talk about the category of deliberative documents, that is where the line has been drawn. one category is still in issue. host: this question from gary on twitter. guest: oh, that's a very good question. so many of them are partisan. host: the one from the bush administration? guest: oh, not the most recent bush administration. it has been partisan the last 10 years is so. 2002, 2003, i testified as a

witness. there was democratic and republican support when the chairman wanted documents about the misconduct of the fbi in boston. that was bipartisan. host: this is a comment on twitter from don ritchie. is that correct? guest: let me honor the question. he is an historian. host: this is a different don ritchie. guest: sleeping late this morning. i think that is someone right. when you have somebody whispering in the president's whispering in the president's