correspondent talks about deported people from the united states. all that was yorkt calledwee,ts and e-mailed "washington journal. " is net . ♪ host: good morning. welcome to "washington journal." we're waiting for a decision from the supreme court this week on big cases. the court begins announcing decisions that c-span will bring you live. good to our web site for details. we're expecting the decision now through thursday of this week. a lot of speculation about what's it could mean.

1/4 of voters say they're undecided between barack obama and mitt romney. we would like to hear from undecided voters this morning. what are you still thinking about? here are the numbers to call if you're an undecided voter. 202.737.001. 737-0001. -- 202- look for c-span and join the conversation there. or you can e-mail us. here is a story from the associated press. one-quarter of a voters are undecided.

host: reading a story from "huffington post." a week that could decide obama's future. it is the most important week.

host: a lot of issues and playwright now. things to be watching this week to see how they play for president obama and also mitt romney. we're talking to undecided voters today. caller: i had watched then- senator obama very closely. i was not thrilled with him. i had to go with the program because there is no way i could vote for hillary clinton because of her and iraq war resolution vote. i got behind him and worked literally hundreds of hours. i know he has done a lot.

i know he has had road blocks with the republicans, but i still have very serious questions with regards to lack of accountability wall street folks who committed crimes. the lack of accountability there is a big issue for me. on that issue, he had republicans, democrats, and republicans behind him for accountability. i question him on that. also, i will be watching romney and president obama because we certainly don't want to make any more moves based on unsubstantiated claims that get repeated about iran. i will watch that issue again. wall street, lack of accountability. and also, on the israeli-

palestinian conflict. there is a great website for folks called ifamericanskne w.com. host: are these issues in play? are they part of what will make you choose which can't it to vote for? or will they determine whether you go to the polls at all? or would you just a home? caller: i'll definitely go to the polls. whether i will work for either candidate is a big question. with obama, i ran it get out of the vote campaigns. there were republicans, democrats, and independents alike. if romney were more diplomatic and focused on negotiations, on other issues, i don't know if there's eight big huge

difference between obama and romney. whether i will be putting it is a huge question at this point. zogby's 's look at weekly report card.

host: along those lines, "usa today" has a poll. whogg let's hear from joins us from phoenix, arizona. caller: good morning. i am going to vote for the

candidate who strongly supports the simpson-bowles plan. i do not believe any president is going to magically wave a wand and start creating the jobs. so, i have not heard either candidate come right out and really say that they would support that. i believe that is the only credible plan going forward. host: let's hear from maryland. a good morning. thank you for drawing us. caller: [unintelligible] most undecided of voters either

lean one way or the other. they are pretty sure where they might vote. as the election gets closer, i think an example was last election when mccain [unintelligible] if the president decides to make a comment, that makes the voter begin to have a feeling or a doubt. at this point in time, we're just morally sure. -- we are just not really sure. the combination of feelings.

denver,t's here from colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. both candidates have similar plans on health care. if the supreme the court knocks this one down i will definitely support the president. i cannot see a country where we say we are christians and health care is such a huge part of our deficit, get we're not going to share it as americans. as christians, we will not offer to the sick. as pro-lifers, we're not going to make sure people of quality of life. host: have you heard in the republican plans related to health care that you support? caller: i like purchasing between state lines. that might help bring down the

cost. i think keeping the children on the health care. those are good ideas as long as we all stick with that, think we're on the same page. host: we heard on "newsmakers" yesterday that he thinks republicans would go back to the drawing board and recycle some ideas that had in the past. there will reach back to get some of the ideas they had before that they felt could be popular winners and move on forward on those. here is how the caucus is in the new york times weighed in on this.

from and thatar in at chicago. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i will vote only for president obama. host: you do not sound like you are undecided. you sound quite decided. let's hear what brad has to say. we are talking to undecided voters this morning. why they have not made up their mind yet and what they're hoping to hear from the candidates. what do you think? caller: i am undecided for a

couple different reasons. most, it is a lesser of two reasons -- lesser of two evils kind of thing. the reason why i am a little concerned about folks collecting romney is because of all the changes he has made since he was a governor in massachusetts. at the same time, i don't want obama to win. i do not know if romney is conservative enough for me. if we wait for four years we could have rubio. that would be a better choice. i decided feeling that california does not matter anyway. romney probably won't even come out here. the only reason obama would come out here is to raise money in hollywood. my decision is undecided, but it

is more for what is good for the country. i understand the urgency of changing things because of our debt. when you're a barings are $40 cents on the dollar, that means you can only spend -- when you are borrowing $0.40 on the dollar, that means economic spend the $0.60 on the dollar. we should be -- there is no reason is to be $16 trillion in debt. that is where i come from. host: thank you for sharing your perspective. that's a good facebook page.

unbacked host: oklahoma city, scott. are you an undecided voter? caller: i probably will not vote for either one like 12,000 other people in 2008. host: what does that mean to you? caller: that means they're both for more government. oklahoma is the only state in the union -- we do not have any other choice. other states can write in candidates are have party alternatives.

oklahoma cannot because the republican and democrat party do not want any competition. about obamacare, everyone is holding their breath. in oklahoma, we have legislation that hopefully will make it down to it next year's pocket again. we will be able to declare any bureaucrat who wants to come to oklahoma to enforce any constitutional dictate like obama does this care to be a felon. host: let's look at some other stories in the news. the egyptian elections are all over the newspapers this morning. joining us to talk about this is the middle east and north africa correspondent. thank you for talking with us. guest: it is my pleasure. host: what is the reaction?

guest: i beg the country is divided. the election was very close. on the one hand, there are people who were absolutely jubilant that muhammed morsi was elected. on the other hand, there are people who are very upset. there are a lot of signs of trying to give this guy a chance. he had almost all the right notes in a long speech last night trying to reach out to people who did not bode for him, as laws to assure international investors that he will not do anything drastic. host: it was a close of vote. guest: many people are upset, despondent. they see bad things,

potentially, happening. on the other hand, others are very-much against him. you can see that in their reaction of the egyptian stock market. stocks went up with the political stability. the muslim brotherhood is rather pro-capitalist, pro economic policies. host: tell us more about him. he is 60 years old. tell us about his background and how he did appeal to the voters. guest: like many egyptians, he hails from the nile delta region between cairo and alexandria. this is a very important agricultural region.

he has a for kids. -- four kids. he studied engineering at university of california in northridge. he served briefly in parliament. he did a stint in prison as many people in the muslim brotherhood. he is not known as a charismatic guy. he became the candidate after their preferred candid and was disqualified from running in the race. host: i am reading from "the washington post" today that he comes from the brotherhood debt. tell us about how the u.s. is reacting to this and also the rest of international communities. guest: he has said many things in the past. we have seen this before with other islamic leaders. you go through their past, you

can find anything they said in their youth. they kind of moderate that their town. i think they have grown comfortable with the muslim brotherhood. i remember john mccain and a lindsey gramm were here in cairo. they're telling the journalists have had met the leaders of the muslim brotherhood and were pretty satisfied what they heard from them. there is a certain comfort level that was not here before the revolution. i think people will be watching closely. for example, there will try to torpedo be tipped's the long- standing peace treaty with israel. he has said he will not do anything drastic, but he is also said that he will review the decades-long peace between egypt and israel.

host: our guest has a story in the financial times. as a someone who covers the middle east and north africa, how momentous does it feel? how significant is this moment? guest: i think it is an important moment. i think it marks a milestone in egypt's development and the general tenure of the arab spring. an illegitimate morsi win, which is what this appears, is a much better outcome than an illegitimate and fraudulent win by his opponent, which is what many feared.

i think the maturity of the egyptian people, despite this candidate's flaws, and there are many, they chose to go with him, more than likely, because he represents last year's resolute -- revolution than the opponent who was in the entrenched interests of the former regime and era. host: thank you so much for taking the time. we will go on now to our topic this morning which is how americans are feeling about our alexian. moving from the egyptian elections to the united states election. one-quarter of of voters said they are undecided. we're asking undecided voters to give us a call this morning. call us. babbitt let's go to press got,

arizona. a good morning. caller: good morning. i have called many times but never got on air. it is really thrilling to be an air. god bless america. i will point out something that i feel is important in this conversation. it is a very simple. not now, because people are watching c-span, but i promise you this is true. it might in flames and people, but check it out for yourself. all one has to do is google -- not now -- to vote republican national party. a basic website. what you will see could be quite inflammatory, but it is true. the three stars above the elephants have been turned

upside down. it is an inverted a five-point star. host: why does that matter to you? caller: this is delivered. why would somebody of the republican party change the logo on purpose? it is the only pitch -- and unpatriotic and american, but to my christian friends, an inverted 5-point star is, of course, the sign of satan itself. host: let's go to tacoma, washington. caller: good morning. i am undecided to the point of maybe not voting at all. what is more important to me between the two tendance.

if we're going to put that kind of money in other countries, they need to pay it back to our stimulus package, which was a disaster. it will keep a lot of people broke. thank you. host: have you felt this way before? in past elections? caller: yes. host: have you gone ahead and voted? caller: i did not the last vote, but i have before that.

host: good morning. caller: i have a problem with the corruption and people bringing a fake paychecks when they really couldn't afford a home. i am concerned that the government wasn't there to check that. if we're going to move forward in a good direction, can reach really trust the government to do their job and check out the facts. i do not know if anyone in that office as president will have the ability to stop corruption. host: what do you do about that? caller: stay quiet. there is a lot of money on the line. but but i cannot think about what people want. i did no correction is that good.

moving a forward, the kind of problems where people were bringing in fake paychecks, that should have been checked a long time ago. i do not understand that. i understand the government is now reporting there are problems. i don't understand why they didn't have anything in place to make sure people were doing correct deals. host: here is a look that printer. -- twitter. tom, good morning. caller: good morning. one of the reasons why i am undecided is the fact that i

have not seen any presidential candidates yet who can take the time and help people with getting disabilities, considering the fact i have been trying to get disability for 4.5 years now. i cannot work or anything. host: have you had anyone respond to you? any candid on the national or local level that you feel are appealing to your needs? caller: not necessarily. i just don't think that the government, any more, it is for the working people. it is all for the higher ups. i just do not feel that the government is for the little people anymore. i have felt that for years.

i'm in a small town 90 minutes out of washington. host: have you thought about running for office yourself? caller: i would not have enough education to run for office appear. we have had it to people and they passed away in the past. but i do appreciate the thought. host: let's go to minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning. there are two things that would take me to one candidate or the other. the first would be to share the leadership skills. how they reach decisions. their preferred method of soliciting input from others. the second one, which to me is more important, i would love to hear one of them discuss their perspective on the limited role of the federal government based on the constitution.

issues come and issues go. but i think the framework is, what is the constitution and what are their roles? thank you. go to columbus, ohio. to the woman who called earlier about the republican elephant, the three stars are right side up. unless she is standing on her head or there is some other criteria. host: ok. tell us your thoughts and the presidential election. caller: i wish there was a third

party. i hate to vote for barack obama just because he is better than the other guy. i really find it hard to vote for somebody who thinks corporations are people. host: on facebook, your concerns are shared up next, john, good morning. caller: good morning. a the reason i am calling, i am in the military. what we think about, one of the are overseas, we protect this country.

we do what we do because we love this country. i have had this conversation several times. if it is a necessity, i understand it. friends that i have had for years, we all had the same belief. we joined out of high school with the belief that the president cares more about you and your family. just about everyone else. the normal people.

we need a candidate who believes in those values. obviously, i met the points where i do not know which one of these guys is telling the truth or if they even know what they're saying. that does for a lot of people in my division, which i will not say. we need someone who will support us. the everyday people who join the military. not so and who will turn around and give us the booth. but not create the programs that ensure jobs or some type of a future. host: how are you weighing of that? allegis lecher who to listen to

-- who is telling the truth? how will you figure that out? caller: i would rather take a cut in pay them to leave what i love. the same thing for the rest of these guys. we would rather be demoted and get paid less. redo this because it is a calling. it is hard. the stage that we are at, it is hard to believe anyone. the only thing we can count on is the news that we watch reports the truth. and honestly, look at the two

candidates. look at their track record and what they have done. you should at least do the background. see if what they are saying is true. of course, you can start up a health care program in your state. you're talking about a state level. i think that you should really seit. everyone needs to get together and do research on both candid it's because they're going to run this country. host: a ok. we will leave it there. thank you for calling and thank you for your service. let's look at a poll in "the washington post."

host: maryland is up next. one of our undecided voters. good morning. caller: i think a lot of people are focusing on the two candidates too much. i think we to focus on the

congress. something has to be done about the congress. if america wants to continue to send these people back to office or doing absolutely nothing, then that is the price we have to pay for our future. the president can only do so much. whether it is romney are obama. it is the congress we have to focus our attention on. i know that obama had a democratic congress. instead of focusing on a growth agenda, they're focusing on things like abortion and of foolishness like that. it got nowhere. and then the republican congress came in and did absolutely nothing. it does not make any difference, really, who the president is. i would prefer someone who has a growth outlook for the country and wants to engage the country

in progress. not going back to what we had before. oft: let's look at a couple news related to congress.

host: here is a story from "the s."hington times " t here is another piece. obama is too toxic for west virginia democrat's. bac host: here is a story from te op-ed pages. "the new york times."

it is called a cruel and unusual record. host: and "the washington times."

host: let's go to south carolina. go right ahead. caller: first of all, i have never voted republican. but i am undecided. one recent is because i would love to see -- you may have had this as a guest. arturo davis. do you know who i am talking about there? host: yes. caller: have you had among the show? host: i am not sure when. i will find out. caller: he was from harvard. do not cut me out. allison to that guy for 10 minutes from florida.

-- i listened to that guy for 10 minutes from florida. arturo davis got me thinking. he worked to get him elected. he is intelligent. he said that he found himself aligned with the republican party more and he is turning republican, but that he would vote for mitt romney. having said that, i am having the same problem and i have always voted democrat. i know that barack obama is not going to carry this state, so it won't matter much. i would hate to have to break my vote even though it will be a moot point. as far as the general election, what i think is really wrong with this country, i'll make this, and then i will go.

you're always hearing about the koch brothers, big corporations, and all the money they spend. it is my humble opinion that the largest -- the largest corporation in this country is a time warner. they own abc, cbs, cnn, and hbo. when you figure that one corp. owns all of those media outlets, it is pretty easy to brainwash a complete country. that is about like in the old soviet union. at theet's take a look gentleman you're talking about. he was a former prominent obama backer and left the democratic party. he was one of president obama's earliest supporters. he announced he is leaving the

democratic party for good. he was vague about his future political endeavors. c-span covered an event with him on june 19 just a few days ago. you can find that in our archives at c-span.org. let's hear from charles in connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. my problem is there is no way i can vote for a obama because i think he is leading us down greece's path. and yet, i don't believe i can vote for romney because i do not see him as the kind of leader that we need. i write many letters to a lot of senators and everything else trying to put up tom coburn.

i believe he is probably the best in congress. if i were economically able to, i would buy 1 billion copies of his greatest book, the debt bomb. i would distributed to schools across the united states to be used in their social studies programs. he makes more sense than anybody i have never heard in congress. i was the could have drafted him on the republican ticket. that is really all i have to say. thank you. host: coming up next on "washington journal." we will talk with brian beutler to hear about what congress faces later this week. we will look at the impact an expiration of the bush tax cuts.

we will be right back. >> we welcome you to the missouri governor's mansion. >> here we have a photograph of the first governor, his wife, and his son. what is interesting is his granddaughter roche the book midnight moon, which is of course a favorite of many children. >> book andtv explored the

culture of jefferson city. >> the story says he rode his horse to the mansion and proceeded to feed his horse out of the sideboard. the comment was that he proudly should not be feeding his horse and the governor's mansion. his comment was set i have had to feed more people in this home with less manners than my horse has. watch it on july 7 and eighth on c-span. >> when did clean energy become a dirty word? you can believe you what about existing energy sources, but why could you also believe there is an opportunity for clean energy?

>> at the clinic to create demand of the next five to 10 years for renewals to offset all the advantages that fossil fuels have had. i think it is happening on a state-by-date basis. i think it would be more affected as a federal policy. north america is the only continent where we do not have a wide spread vehicles coming off the assembly line that can use compressed natural gas. there are people who believe they are more like slick -- more likely to burst into flames in a crash. >> they were all part of a next generation energy forum hosted by the atlantic magazine. watch their conversations online at these c-span video library. "washington journal" continues.

host: brian beutler joins us. thank you for being here. this six possible supreme court obama care outcomes. as you and others speculate, congress is doing the same thing. how focus is congress on this decision? >> it will take up a lot of rhetorical space when the ruling comes out. depending with the ruling is, the party will have of various contingency plans ready to go about what to say and legislatively. the most immediate thing will be reactions from party leadership. if the law is upheld, you can expect republicans to renew

their push to have legislation with new legislation. if it is overturned, and democrats will have to decide how to proceed. they have several options and are picking among some right now. host: you wrote there having a disagreement. what is the disagreement? guest: if it is just demanded that false, that leaves the rest of the law. a lot of the consumer protections like banning discrimination based on pre- existing conditions. if the mandate falls, there is a question of whether democrats should rush to replace it or sort of cool their heels and say the mandate is not the heart of the law, the other stuff is. it goes into affect in 2014 and ruled this kind of see how it goes.

but not to get too bent out of shape. host: let's take a look at him talking about what would happen if they turn down the individual mandate. [video clip] >> if they knock down the individual mandate, that whole piece is in jeopardy, as like these other pieces. we do not know exactly with the scope of the session will be, but the reality is that this very important protections are at risk if the supreme court knocks it down. the irony is that people like mitt romney in new that, which is why romneycare requires everybody to be in a pool. then you pull the risk and you cannot have discrimination with people with pre-existing conditions. that is the whole idea. host: on cnn yesterday.

you mentioned that there is the rhetoric of the health-care law. and then there is the actual, what happens next? let's stay on politics for a moment. who has the most to lose here this week, depending on how the decision goes? are they trying to spin this is the best way? guest: i think president obama and the democratic party has the most to lose. the whole of what could be completely wiped off the books, in theory. it would be an aggressive step for the supreme court to take. there would be discretion, historic a blow to the president. beyond that, they're not really sure what the politics will be. if the law is upheld, today

still how this unpopular law to make an issue with democrats? there will make it a continuing political issue for the democrats. if it is upheld, are democrats satisfied? or are they worried there is this unpopular health care bill. the politics are unclear if it is up held are mostly of health. host: if you could talk to let the work that congress faces this week, here are the numbers to call. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. but we have a calls coming in. let's hear from henry on our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have heard that it is the legal for the supreme court to rule on a law that has won in a fact. if that is true, why aren't

people racing it came about the republicans try to destroy the health care law does not even went into effect yet? guest: this is interesting. i think the caller is referring to an old law called the tax anti-injection act. it prevents people from challenging taxes if they have not been assessed. the man it operates like a tax. since it will not go into effect until 2014, no one should be able to question it in court. it is true. that they could rule that it prevents them from rolling now and then we will not hear from them for another several years. but they also seem pretty dismissive of the argument that the mandate meets the anti- induction ax. that is an ss that does not been assessed.

-- that is an assumption that has not been assessed. host: he ask, why do we just wait and seven speculating about it? can they afford to wait until the supreme court acts before they figure out what to do and how to react? your reporting shows they're getting everything in the works and are ready to hit the ground running. guest: there is a sense from the public that the media who does not know anything, they should stop speculating. members of congress are lawmakers. they have to be ready. they cannot be caught flat left- footed. there are up to six potential outcomes. they to be ready to go with something when the ruling goes down it is appropriate and a

natural that members of congress are talking about it. when people in the media have knowledge about where this is going. host: let's hear from bill, a republican collar. caller: i hope this is right down your alley. i have never heard anyone in congress, and nothing on the news about press catps. a health they just cap care prices, college tuition prices, to stop inflation and things like that? give our senior citizens and break the social security and to bring back cost-of-living allowances. basically, i have been republican for a long time. i am definitely not voting

republican this time because of the way ann romney and ryan are. -- because of the way romney and ryan are. i just wonder why they don't put on caps. guest: both the president and mitt romney have different plans for how to address the growth of medicare spending that involve the capping the amount the government can spend on the program. they want to do it on different ways. mitt romney wanted to be subsidized, a private system. president obama wants to keep in this government financed insurance program that it is a right now. basically, you tell congress he cannot spend more on this program than a certain amount. and then move it up to different bodies to determine how you make

the fit within that control the budget. there are similar ideas out there for medicaid. more i think politicians are wary, they want to impose price controls from the government' . host: honor marco rubio -- senator marco rubio was on "meet the press." [video clip] >> it will decide on the basis of the constitution. i think the debate on how to approach the health-care problem in the country will continue.

it is discouraging job growth. if the law is overturned, republicans have to come up with an alternative, which replace what obamacare does. people that are difficult to insure through high-rish pools. individuals can buy insurance from any company with the same tax treatment that their employers get, where companies can pull together -- can poo0 togetherl together with other companies. host: you have a recent story, "no endzone dancing." how do the republicans want to

be perceived and no one spiking the ball, speaker boehner, if they get what they want. guest: that is the media circus that they want to avoid. in my be an unpopular law provisions are popular. it will be a monumental moment for both parties. speed your boehner recognizes that having members run into the house and gloating -- speaker boehner recognizes that having members gloating will look bad and will appear insensitive. to prevent this, speaker boehner

has control over his caucus, issued a public memo which o gloat to the cameras." that is what he is worried about. host: kevin is from maryland. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my comment is based on obamacare. hello? host: we are listening, kevin. caller: ye yes. believe that obamacare is a good thing -- i believe that obamacare is a good thing.

if it is struck down, it is nap because it is a bad law -- it is not because it is a bad law. i'm not on my own parents insurance. if i will be one time on -- i will stay on my parents' insurance. i'm in college. host: ok. guest: there is a provision in the law that guarantees children can remain on their heparents' health care benefits. instead of angering consumers, they will maintain that as in-

house policy. people between 18 and 26, many of them will find themselves without insurance and nowhere to turn. that benefit would go way and it would become something that the option would do and not all the major insurers have said they will do that. host: there is a piece this week that says, "it is a big week in washington." he takes to the healthcare law and other things that are in play this week. what are you expecting this week to feel like in the building behind us?

guest: it will be frenzied. that will suck up a lot of oxygen on the hill. existing student loan interest rates are going to expire and double for new and loans. funding for the transportation programs is set to lapse. the 30th is coming up and congress leaves for a recess at the end of the week. they appeared to be nearing an understanding on the issues but there's a lot of work to be done. host: jim is a republican from ohio. caller: good morning.

you had three individuals on the earlier program. read and become informed. a man thought artur davis made an intelligent decision. the connecticut caller wanted to throw some conversation and you to vote or think about voting for somebody else and not mitt romney. my solution is to have everybody watch "final words" that was on book tv yesterday or go to the library and read the book, "fast and furious." that would explain what we're talking about this morning. the supreme court will make a decision no matter what. make a decision after what kind of administration we have. host: fast and furious, how does

that look to play out? guest: there is a chance that the oversight committee could reach some kind of a court where the contempt vote is avoided. it looks like the die has been case on that issue -- the die has been cast. this looks like where they want to have. attorney general holder, they want to hold them in contempt for withholding documents about the oversight process. host: toby in nebraska. caller: yello. i made self-made independent man

-- hello. i came down with a heart condition. i cannot get insurance that we have today. i have problems with social security, getting back in for that. i cannot get my medical clearance. it looks like we're in a major crisis with health care today. it is supposed to be changed where everybody is available for it. guest: say that again? caller: under this new health care reform law. guest: that is part of the law. the guarantee you cannot be discriminated against does not take effect until 2014.

that is when it starts going to the states. at that point it will be illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. the pre-existing conditions statewide pools have varying levels of success. it is sort of a stopgap until 2014. host: we're talking with brian beutler about the week before congress. we expect the health care decision from the supreme court. bill tweets in --

host: we heard from german issa -- we heard from chairman issa today. they do not have been approved there was a withholding of information. guest: 1 think i should have mentioned is that there is a resistance from the leadership to what the conference wants to do. they think it is a distraction from the economy and that republicans are accusing the white house of something pretty nefarious without having any evidence that it is. thethat the president's -- white house is saying and claiming a privilege over these documents.

it appears that congress is being contemptuous of the white house again and this is another back and forth between the white house and congress. the political upside is questionable. there's no sense of who is getting the political benefit. host: anthony from north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. this is very informative and a very good program. host: thank you. caller: why is it that the supreme court is taking up all these issues. we have is what george bush. they decided who was president.

now we're deciding about the health-care issue. if they tear down the health- care obamacare thing, won't it be business as usual? the pharmaceuticals and all these guys will keep making the big bucks. people will have to keep paying out like crazy. thank you. guest: i think the answer is article 3 of the constitution. the question of constitutionality of law lands at the supreme court. 26 states led by republicans challenged the law on

constitutional grounds. from that moment it was always going to wind up at the supreme court, or likely to wind up at the supreme court for them to decide. the health-care system will revert to the pre-barack obama status quo. there was broad consensus that something would eventually need to be done to contain cost growth and the effect it was having on labor markets and employment and we would be right back there. unknown upheld, it's because this is a work in progress. host: adam is in washington, d.c. caller: good morning. i was a republican and now i

have been removed from both parties, democrat and republican. i claim now as independent. .'m a cardiologist are the effects on small businesses that are trying to get started -- what are the effects on small businesses that are trying to get started? the focus on the stability of increasing technological advancements in health care systems. america is the leading pioneer of all advancements in medical science. what is your take on the fact that that will have on our ability?

if you socialized medicine, you may be looking at a situation where the dmv experience. the employees are not very nice. could that carry over into health care? guest: there are three questions i detected. the broad answer is unclear because the law is not in effect. there is a small business tax credit. there's a benefit in the law for small businesses now. governor romney claim the health-care law was already crushing small businesses.

the president was baffled by that. on a medical device makers, is a tax in the law that applies to them. the effect of that tax is yet to be seen. socialized medicine is something like what they do in england were the doctors and hospitals are all basically employees of the federal government. to the extent that it will have a broader effect on the health- care markets would mean more customers for hospitals and doctors. host: brian beutler is a reporter for "talking points

memo." .c. ot his degree at u. berkeley. mark from houston, texas, good morning. caller: good morning. host: we cannot understand you, mark. caller: the rebate -- guest: the healthcare law includes the medical loss ratio. spending on health care provisions and 15% to 20% on their own overhead. insurers owe consumers about

$1.1 billion. i do not know when those rebates are scheduled to go out. host: student loan interest deal is near. according to "the washington times." will see the rates go up if nothing is done -- we will see the rates go up if nothing is done. guest: how to pay for it has always been the big question and the parties are far apart on that. democrat want to break republicans on raising taxes for the wealthy. republicans issued a controversial budget cuts.

this is a dangerous political issue. they have offered more budget cuts that president obama has sort of endorsed in the past. they hope they can reach a quite conclusion. it will wake young voters back up. president obama is in no hurry to make a deal with republicans. he has everything to gain and nothing to lose. host: pat from michigan, hi. caller: you were talking about the provision of the health-care plan, the 18- to 26-year- olds. how would the pre-existing conditions part of that fit in

with insurance companies if the health-care plan is overturned? guest: this is a long answer to a simple question. if the whole lot is overturned -- if the whole law is overturned, it would be sustained and revised by congress. it makes the insurance industry and unstable world if people are guaranteed to be able to buy health insurance. sick people don't. the fact there is no guarantee that the risk pool would be broad, it is difficult to imagine they would reinstate it.

congress and states can steop in and try to -- can step in and try to come up with a fix. it would almost certainly delay the pre-existing condition discrimination ban and it would be a politically difficult thing to have a blanket ban. you hear people like democrats warning if the mandate falls, it puts the important guarantees at reisk. host: a story on grover

norquist. this is still gripped -- is his steel grip slipping? guest: that part of the conservative movement is very influential. republicans did not yield and he maintained a steel groip last year. their budget cuts coming on the first of the year -- there are budget cuts, and on the first of the year. there is gone to be a real contraction in the economy next year. people will be paying higher taxes, to medicare. heat is on both parties.

they're looking for some will oom from people like grover norquist. there. a tension it is a big open question. there's assigned there are some signres gro -- there's a there are some fissures growing. caller: do not get all upset if it gets turned over by the supreme court. it would work in the democrats' favor because it would fire up the base. it would be the catalyst to get president obama reelected.

do not get upset if it gets turned over. host: john on twitter agrees with you. guest: the activist wing of the democratic party -- they are saying if the law falls that validates their concern. it is difficult to imagine it being stricken down. it would allow him to say the supreme court, they said it does not work. i think medicare is a great program and everybody should be able to get medicare. mitt romney said fewer people

should be able to get medicare. that would be a useful talking point for the president's. getting medicare for all would be a big legislative challenge because stores brought opposition in the republican party. host: steve from york, pennsylvania. caller: i hear they're hidden tax cuts, and specifically eight real estate tax on the sale of every piece of property. i would like to know if there is any validity to that and what other hidden taxes are within this bill. guest: i cannot speak to the particular tax you're asking about. there are several taxes. there is a cigarette tax and a

medical device tax. apple gains tax rates will apply -- capital gains tax rates will apply and several others. most of them fall on things that have an impact on health care. they were talking about having a tanning bed tax. that could reduce skin cancer rates. i have not heard of the real estate tax you're describing but i do not want to tell you it is not in their re. host: charles in georgia. caller: who is going to pay for the 30 million unemployed?

i go around savannah. these democrats are saying they will get free health care. who is going to pay for this? guest: these taxes are part of it. it cut reimbursement rates to private insurers. they we dedicated that money for paying for subsidies. they go to people to buy health insurance in their state. the cost for 2014 will be somewhere in the $1 trillion to $2 trillion cost. the cost of providing that coverage is covered. taxes fall on the upper middle

class and high-income earners are used to pay for insurance for about 30 million people. host: what else are you watching to be a potentially boiling-ver over issued/ guest: a big problem that house republicans face because members do not want to pass -- they appear to be closer to some sort of understanding. the speaker has wanted to get something done. it is a matter of getting some buy-in some conservative members. they have to reach a deal or punt on the transportation

bill. student loans and transportation are things that have a deadline. is a dispute between senate democrats and some senate republicans in the house about whether to expand the violence against women act. senate democrats passed a bill that does extend it. they have to reconcile those pieces of legislation. a bipartisan farm bill was passed last week. there is no deadline. house republicans are going to want a farm bill that makes more cuts. the senate bill cut food stamps and that is something that democrats found it hard to

swallow. the one more -- they will want more riders to help bring down the cost of the farm bill. that issue likely will not get resolved this week. that could turn into a fight or whether that could work itself out to the legislative process. host: brian beutler, thank you so much for talking with us this morning. up next, rea hederman looks at the bush-era tax cuts and what they could mean. later we'll speak with fawn johnson from "national journal," looking at the national program for deportation. >> 8:31 eastern time.

mohammed morsi moved into the office once occupied by hosni mubarak. he began working to form a new government. he was declared a winner, winning more votes than his challenger. egypt works to build a new government. the eurozone is working to overhaul its financial institutions. the debt stands at about 80%. it is about 100% in the united states. president obama's call is on europe to move faster were rejected. people"are very quick on giving others advice. mr. obama it should first take

care of reducing america's deficit." those of some of the stories on c-span radio. [video clip] >> davie pietrusza will be our guest. he has written "lbj vs. jfk vs. nixon." join us live on sunday at noon .eastern >> "washington journal" continues. host: rea hederman, thank you for being here.

guest: a pleasure to be here. host: thank you for coming in and talking about this new report. review for us what this thing is. guest: 80 and occurrence.-- it is an occurrence. effect.e all taking a fa they're all scheduled to take the f effect. almost 5 $1 billion of tax increases -- we don't know how congress will deal with the situation. host: let's look at some of the numbers.

host: what does this mean for families? guest: what this means for the average american? a family will have a tax hike of about $4,200. the child tax credit was expanded in 2001. that will hit families hard. host: the heritage foundation looked at types of filers, tax filers. you look at the impact on families, over $4,100. guest: the baby boomers get hit

the hardest. they're closer to their peak earning years. they will be the most affected if the texas get reversed. the millennials will be affected by about $1,200. host: here is the study. what areas of the country d.c. is getting hit the hardest -- what areas of the country do you see getting hit the hardest? guest: new york city. they were hit the hardest, almost $14,000 in new taxes. harlem was least affected.

compared to west virginia. a tax increase of about 4% or 5% of the total income. host: here are the numbers to call. republicans, 202-737-0002. democrats, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask the guest about the heritage foundation. why should we believe anything

that he is saying at this time? the heritage foundation is responsible for the obamacare health care plan in regards to the mandate. that is my first question to him. they do not seem to know what they are talking about when it comes to mandates. that was their idea. host: what do you think about the tax cuts and the possible expiration? are you worried? caller: my concern regarding taxes is grover norquist and his power over the republican party. guest: i wish we had enough power to impact obamacare. it is interested she is not worried about it.

orange county will be affected in terms of overall taxes. $7,000 tax increase in these types of districts. they will be losing certain types of income. there'll be a pretty big impact in parts of california. host: this is the total for california. big number there. guest: they have so many tax filers. a lot of them have children. the marriage penalty will return. they have so many people. this data is all from irs. we can see how many tax filers

are affected in the state. host: david from florida, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. why in 2001 the bush tax cuts are not a permanent tax cut and why congress did not approve for a permanent tax cut? i'm looking for my politicians to make -- to meet in the middle on some issues. i'm looking in your data. i'm not a baby boomer but i'm almost there. i like to see my politicians meet in the middle.

why wouldn't your organization ask everybody to meet in the middle for those making under $250,000. guest: or these not made permanent -- why would these not made permanent? because of the rules of congress. they were scheduled to expire at the end of 10 years. they have been rolled over in small packages. i think a large part of the bush tax cuts were good policy. the problem that we hear about about agreeing on the tax cuts -- some of the tax cuts that are scheduled to expire -- tax on

dividends is scheduled to triple. tax on capital gains will increase by about 75%. these have pernicious effects on business. business investment was already weak. we do not want to -- you may not agree on supply-side tax cuts, just about everybody agrees we need to sit there we run a risk of returning to recession. host: rea hederman at the heritage foundation. we have a tweet. guest: the economy was in recession in 2001 before the

bush tax cuts took effect. business investment had fallen off a cliff. we know that the economy was not doing fine before these tax cuts took effect. after 2003, we had pretty good economic growth that dropped the unemployment rate down to below 5%. the uncertainty of these tax cuts expiring. the federal reserve bank measures economic activity. we have seen slow business expansion. we're staring down the barrel of new tax increases. .ost: tom good morning

caller: good morning. i had a little joke. i'm 65. i remember when there were no thinktank s. the heritage foundation are always defending the rich. i am a vietnam veteran. if i worked hard, the most i could earn was $40,000, and that was working saturdays and sundays. i am left with $20,000. if you make $100 million you still got $27 million.

what is the difference? do not see any sense -- the majority of americans are working hard. the rich have gone up 400%. i think teatime for americans to start shipping in -- think it is time for americans to start chipping in. they say it on both sides. you keep trying to put the blame on the poor. the unions is only 5% of the working people in this country. i cannot believe that americans

-can believe what is going on and be willing to go back to the policies of the republicans and bush. host: let's get a response. guest: look at the tax cuts that are about to expire. you had the bush tax cuts and an expansion of the earned income tax credit. you have the deduction credits. you have the creation of the 10% tax bracket. you have the marginal rate reductions for the middle class . it was directly aimed at middle america. millions of americans were able to benefit. people were paying less because of the 2001, 2003 tax cuts.

everybody who pays taxes in april will be paying more, in some cases thousands of dollars more. host: we have a comment on twitter. host: there are different tax cuts that we're talking about. guest: we have not been able to break it out. wait till congress gets to december. will we see a grab bag approach ? they might keep the payroll tax reduction bill that the 10% reduction expire. it is kind of hard to pay can

choose because there are so many expiring provisions. there is about 15 aimed at everything from parents to education. we do not know what the tax burden will be until we figure out who wins and who loses. host: rea hederman from the heritage foundation. we have a tweet from jan. guest: that is exactly the question. you have seen a lot more people, ead of pimco has been

talking about this, ben bernanke is talking about this. the longer we wait, more uncertainty we have. the irs was preparing two types of tax reforms. people will say, it makes more money to hold on to my finances and sit it out. the sooner we resolve it, the better it will be for the economy. host: ben bernanke spoke last week in washington. [video clip] >> just the way that the programs are set up, the dollar amount associated with the tax

cut expiration's including the payroll tax cut is larger than the spending cuts, as i understand it. putting all these things together, you have a substantial withdrawal of income from the economy that will affect spending and will affect the ability of the economy to recover in the short run. congress has to look it the long run. is the most efficient tax structure -- what is the most efficient tax structure? in terms of the fiscal cliff, it is the total of spending cuts and tax increases which has the impact that we have identified as being a concern.

we will still be able to do open market operations with our securities even if the short- term debt is very low. over time, as securities, close to maturation, we'll have other securities of short duration. host: ben bernanke speaking last week. guest: he was saying that these tax increases will hit people hard in their wallet. you will have less money. this means the economy will run slower. economists forecast will be the economic activity next year? a lot of the models say we'll

have a new recession if this comes to pass. host: we are talking about the heritage foundation's center for data analysis look at tax increases. elizabeth ann from waldorf, maryland. caller: good morning. you said business investments if the bush-era tax cuts are allowed to expire, business investments will fall off the cliff. i receive a prospectus and all my perspectives is business investment in china, business investments in india. wouldn't it be more accurate to say business investments in

america have fallen off the cliff because the business investments are going into china and india. what you are trying to convey to the american people. thank you very much. guest: thank you. i am trying to focus on what we can control. we cannot control what other countries do. abroad.ee capital going taxation on capital is a big driver. economists say that corporate tax asian is the most harmful tax increase you can have -- economists say that corporate taxation is the most harmful tax

increase you can have. in have the highest tyhikes obamacare. the tax on dividends will also be affected. it will go from 15% to about 40%. we have always been a big detractor for overall global capital. if we punish business, we cannot be surprised if other people look beyond our borders to do business. host: the range in the tax increase -- looking at congressional districts --

host: walter in baltimore. caller: thank god for c-span. i'm not buying the crap coming out of your guest's mouth. extremist groups on the left are ridiculous. we will deal with his. you continue a fraud, job creation and uncertainty. there is a deficit of $1 trillion by repeople -- by greedy people. these fools drive on the same road that i drive on.

besides the crap -- host: what is your question? caller: the uncertainty -- where in the hell does the revenue supposed to come from to support america? the money is in china, not in america. guest: the federal reserve board surveys economic activity. rise we know that economists have measured and found we're reaching new highs. the whole uncertainty about whether we hit the debt limit did have an economic impact.

we have greater uncertainty in the economy. i think we're tax dollars come from is a great question. we are saying let's keep taxes where they are today. let's do not raise taxes today. we should think about how to get out of this physical mess. we have a plan at the heritage foundation. we think we have a spending problem. as taxes return to historical average, we're concentrating on government spending.

host: rea hederman, the center for data analysis at the heritage foundation. matt writes in and asks -- is there a time when that will be called for? guest: the goal that we have is to do no harm. we have our own tax plan. we think we need a fundamental tax reform. you have so many tax credits and tax houses. sun

of these are good policies -- some of these are good policies. people lobbying for certain tax breaks. everything should be put on the table. go back to where we were. we would say let's have lower .ates so th host: bobby in alabama,hi. hi. caller: you got the talking wn pat.dwoon you're trying to scare the american people as a whole. "you are going to have to pay more taxes."

you talk about the corporate tax rate, 35%. exxonmobilon your way of thinkit are you wanted to do, give them like a 10 or $12 million refund with all of that profit? caterpillar paid no taxes. ge paid no taxes. why do want to cut the tax rate on the wealthy? host: we will hear more on that in a moment. let's hear from you a little bit. what you think will happen to your tax rate? caller: they will go up some, i know that. the united states is in a position where we will have to get more tax money, more money coming into the government. you cannot balance the budget on

the backs of the poor people. the rich people have got to pay their fair share. host: ok. here is what the center has to say about how people in alabama would have their taxes go up. average return is 2400 for tax filers and the state of alabama on average. guest: that is a significant tax increase for the taxpayers of alabama. the united states tax system is still very progressive. of taxpayersalf pay almost 100%. the corporate income tax, he makes a great point that obviously some companies are not paying the top rate. the reason is the highest corporate tax rate in the world right now, most of the rest of europe is slashing corporate tax rates in the united states has not. a lot of these tax credits for

businesses because congress been no asking corporations to pay a 35% tax rate is not good economic policy because companies will go to areas where there are lower taxes. the question is how can we keep companies in the united states of maximize growth? one way to do that is reforming echoed by stripping out special exemptions for certain companies and lowering the rate so we are no longer the highest corporate tax rate in the world. host: clarence comer republican calller. freeport, illinois. -- shreveport, ne louisiana. caller: i think the heritage foundation is a very good organization and, but very good plans. i am one of the people in 2000 when they have the dot com

bubble, unemployment was going up. i had already retired. i decided to go back to work. i worked all of 2001, and in 2002 i got my w-2 form, and i am one of those really rich and wealthy people that that this tax break. i barely made it to $5,000. i was 9600 to the company. the problem is, $55,000. i am for the tax cut staying in place. that people in washington station to the left, they take entirely too much money. they spend trillions and trillions of dollars without one republican vote. i talk about these roads you drive on. let me tell you, if they would take the money and put it in

roads, instead of the subways and mass transit things all across the nation, they would have money for the roads. they never do anything with the roads because they spend the money on everything else. host: a response from rea hederman. guest: you are exactly right on the tax cut. there are so many pieces from the proposal that were directly aimed at working people like yourself. we had the idea that we would get rid of the message -- marriage penalty because it was less the that that to single filers. that was changed. they expanded the starting point of the tax bracket to help very couples. i am not surprised the tax cut was able to help you, because it is directly aimed at helping working americans put people back to work. in hindsight, the 2001 recession was considered pretty small. it was significant for the fact

that we really saw big changes. we have the 9/11 attack shortly thereafter. no doubt in my mind the 2001 tax cuts helped keep the recession shorter and shallower than your average recession. host: let's hear from john on the independent line from texas. caller: good morning. this is the same story you get from almost everyone in washington. in the upper 1 percent signed a 40% of the taxes. that seems fair to me, but nobody else. pay 40%.per 1% o, anyone that lives in washington i believe is brainwashed to where they just want to spend, spend, spend. look of the stuff that tom coburn has come out with where we could cut spending and make sense, but nobody talks about

that. i am an independent. george bush had two wars we did not pay for, and he added to medicare with pharmaceuticals. obama has is compounded that. it does not make a difference whether you are democrats or republicans. you want to spend more money and the american people do not want to pay more taxes to pay for it. we will be in greece's position one of these days. guest: he is absolutely right. you see a lot of temporary spending programs that are credit for any verbose seek, and they never disappear because you're people involved in those in congressman sponsoring the programs. the spending levels never continue to go down. that is one of the reasons we are very leery of the grand bargain ideas where you put everything on the table, because somehow it always turns out your

of the spending levels that never go down. you are absolutely right. this has been a bipartisan problem leading to greater spending. president bush was not a small government conservative. he did not reduce spending. we're obviously not reducing spending now. if we do not get spending under control, we know we will definitely face the same problems at the end of the decade that some of the other european countries will face, because our gross debt will exceed 100 % of gdp in interest rates will go up. that will have very significant problems, because that will start squeezing government programs out that we do want. maintaining commitments to some of our citizens. we will have to use the money to pay off interest in the debt. at what the look

heritage foundation showed as the 10 hardest hit districts. the top one was at new york. that is on manhattan's east side. $13,000. did we look at los angeles suburban district, 30. connecticut's fourth district in greenwich and stamford that is 10,000. some of the district better in the top area are democratically-held. how are you hearing from democrats and republicans on this issue? we have carolyn maloney, representative from new york's 14th. guest: take a look at some of the most affluent districts in the nation are obviously held by democratic members, somebody was not always in favor of cutting taxes specifically for well-off americans. at the same time, you do have americans to recognize good tax

policy. chuck schumer is always nervous about raising taxes too much on financial industries, capital gains, because he knows it will have a major impact on new york city. it will be interesting to see how the members come out and what they decide to do when so many of the constituents will be adversely affected. host: there is an argument on twitter, as well as our callers, that the wealthiest americans should contribute more. they do have the money and resources. in this tough time with the debt looming, should they -- guest: suck it up? they are paying the most% of taxes. obviously americans feel they should pay that much, but the question is, at what point should you raise taxes so much were you have the adverse affect where people say we will not play this game anymore? we never received this from europe and other countries were due raise that tax rate so much were they have left the country

or people have moved into other types of low-tax countries. businesses have been able to shift investments. the worry is you get so top heavy. you see this in the state of california that with the ball little income, all of a sudden your countries finances-- with volitle incomes, your country finances fall. host: mark, democratic calller from california. caller: you have to excuse me, i have a cold. he m a veteran of the me marines, and i worked union power plants as a carpenter and a sacrifice my body for the overall welfare of producing electricity. i do believe in nuclear power. if we create 100,000 jobs in the american economy, what

percentage does that reduce our unemployment? guest: the unemployment rate is 8.2%. normally we need 120,000-140,000 new jobs basically to be able to lower than a point rate. right now what we're seeing is a lot of people have left the labor force and have not moved back and. -- not moved back in. the question is, how can we bring all these people back to want to find jobs? if we create 100,000 jobs per month, that is pretty good, but we need to create 200,000 to really make a significant dent in the unemployment rate. caller: good morning. i am responsible republican voter. i feel the bush tax cuts need to expire. the clinton administration tax

as. you have am lisa, because guess what, during the eisenhower administration, he checked the top 2%, and we have the u.s. highway system done. republicans in the house need to move their butts and get this going on the highway system. no excuses. i am sick and tired of them. i hope every single one of them are replaced in november. guest: i am not an expert on the highway bill, so i cannot address the transportation questions. let's look at how the world has changed since the eisenhower administration. there was no competition, because europe was rebuilding from world war two. the soviet union and china was under massive communist dictatorship control. 67 years later river much richer world, and a more competitive work. the policies that were good in the 1950's quite simply do not

hold out because the world as a lot more competitive. in order for us to remain as competitive as possible and maintain leadership in the world, we have to have a different set of tax policies. that means not taxing people over 50 percent signed. britain just tried that last year. a lot of their most influential in best and brightest have left the country. we want to avoid those types of tax policies to make sure we can remain a vibrant country as possible. i would like to make a comment, and i am sure the heritage foundation supports it. we spent 25 years selling and trading jobs all over this world and having to leave this country. 50,000 corporations have left. you guys have supported the

programs that have allowed these countries to leave -- companies to leave, and now you complain about the poor people left behind. it is time something changes along the line here. thank you. guest: i am not sure how many corporations have left. new corporations and businesses occur all the time. to create an environment for cutting-edge businesses that can be super productive. we know one of the ways to do that is having a good tax policy. we also know free trade on the end is a net benefit for the country, because it brings in a cheaper good. we know we are able to give businesses and to businesses in countries that used to be closed. i think that is a good policy, which is why presidents of both parties have signed free-trade

legislation to put americans back to work. host: chicago will be the seventh-hardest hit at $75 per filer. if the viewers and listeners want to see how their area my fair, how can they find out more? guest: www.heritage.org and look up taxmegeddeon. host: rea hederman, think you for being here. assistant director of the heritage foundation for analysis. >> coming up next, the youth money segment with -- you money segment with fawn johnson. >> 9:15 a.m. eastern time. nato hold emergency talks

tomorrow on the downing of a turkish jet fighter. the alliance not expected to take military action, even if it confirms the claim that the unarmed plane was attacked in international airspace. secretary of state hillary clinton sharply criticizing syria for downing the plane, which turkey's foreign minister called an open and grave violation of international law that would justify retaliation. meanwhile, turkey's state-run news agency says 33 more members of the syrian military have defected to turkey with their families. mood of general and two kernels. the supreme court expected to issue decisions on two cases this week. president obama's healthcare law and immigration law. the last of the meeting until the fall. unlikely to be the final session. president obama will be at the white house this morning we did for the decision to be handed down, and then he will hit the

campaign trail flying to new hampshire. scheduled to speak and iran were in an ominous -- anonymous donor has covered the security expenses for the president's visit. but coverage of the president's remarks at 2:00 eastern time here on c-span radio. -- here the coverage of the president's remarks at 2:00 eastern time here on c-span radio. >> sunday, award-winning driver will be our book tv's "in depth." he has written a dozen books. 1960, lbj vs nixon. all stand about the fixing of the 1999 world series. join us live with your calls, e- mails, and tweets. if this is sunday at noon eastern.

host: monday mornings at this time we have the your money segment where we take a look at how taxpayer dollars are spent and what the program's purpose is, who benefits, and how it affects the bottom line. today we're talking about the u.s. deportation system and the role of immigration and customs enforcement. here to talk about that with us is fawn johnson, national journal correspondent. we've been focusing a lot on immigration lately because of the change in policy. it could be 10:00 today. let's talk about how deportations' actually work, and how someone is treated if there in the country illegally -- if someone is in the country illegally. guest: we know there are 12

million undocumented immigrants. it is an estimate. they need to be identified. that happens a number of ways. i was just down on the border earlier this year. they literally catch them out in the desert. it will happen through random checks that would occur if you are trying to get into college, for example, which is one of the issues we have with the dream at students. then it is up to the immigration authorities to decide what they are going to do with that person's. you are in the country illegally, and you are in violation and need to be removed. then there is a question about what level of punishment will be afforded you. it is rare you have someone go before a judge and have them charge with some kind of felony.

if you are caught illegally, you are formally sent out of the country. it is a process that has multiple levels. and i have listened to some of the people in the facilities talk about them they do a pretty good job of trying to assess how much effort is needed for each person. some of these courses day in court for a long time. then they just it should try to texas or arizona. and they get walked across the border, and they are done. a recent story in "ory i national journal." talk to us about the changes when it comes to enforcement and deporting people. guest: these are the kinds of

things that for immigrants, legal and illegal have been asking for for a long time. that particular one, there is a waiver process. he taken seek a waiver for deportation. it is a rule change. it says if you are planned to ask for a waiver, you do not have to leave the country while waiting for a decision. all that means is if it is the difference. it does not necessarily mean they are born to get them, just that you do not have to leave the country while you were waiting for a decision. host: who works for them? what is their role? are they doing the actual legwork of investigating. been doing a follow-up? guest: they are the agents. it is called ice.

lot ifll hear that a l you listen to anyone who works for the administration. this current administration has been doing audits. they will audit places. it is a lot of paperwork actually. they will look for social security members that are used multiple times. that would point to the fact that some of those might be used fraudulently. are there certain name patterns we're looking for. it will be massive audits of an entire company, some time are really big one. that is one of the things they will do. i have also seen agents of the ground. there are two different wings of the enforcement agencies from immigration. there is also customs and border protection. those are the guys that literally patrol the border. as soon as they have someone that is undocumented, which is

often people did pick up along the border, they will get turned over to ice for some form of processing. it can be pretty in-depth. >> let's look at the numbers. the total fiscal year 2012 budget, $5.8 billion a day look at customary operations. that is in the range of $2 billion. that is the tune of $276 million. it is almost $200 million. secure communities in future -- fugitive operation. let's go to our first call as we talk more about the u.s. deportation program. valerie an independent calller in columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is i would feel more comfortable if we had american water patrols. why do you have to speak spanish

to be a border control in the texas area? my son was of the coast guard and graduated from college and an american. i know a lot of americans know they preference spanish-speaking people. host: they can still be americans, a spanish-speaking americans to get the job here yen caller. caller: i used to go back and forth. i did appreciate the fact that they make sure i had my identification. guest: if it sounds like there are two different parts of the question we want to deal with. one is how they employ the ice officials in customs and border people. is it true spanish-speaking is

helpful, particularly along the southern border. there are operations on the northern border as well. the one thing that happens to everyone, all of the agents, the guys in uniform that walk along the fence on the southern border, they will be driving along literally chasing guys in the desert. they need to go to a course where they've learned essentially elementary spanish. it is work-related spanish. there are quite a few native spanish speakers in the area generally. the ones were not say they are not fluent, but they can definitely be allowed in structures. it is true it is not a necessary

requirement. they also train on spanish language, what ever they need. it sounds to me like the other part of the polish question involves how and who may ask for i.d. she makes a good point. this is just what i've seen and heard myself. there are several civil rights groups tracking this more closely. if you are hispanic down on the border, you are more likely to be asked for id, whereas when you look like me, they just wait you through. there is a certain amount of that duty to expect. -- wave you through. something that civil-rights groups are keeping an eye on. host: steve drives us from arkansas. good morning.

caller: i have a question, and then a comment. who is paying for the illegals in of the le this country? is it government tax dollars? guest: that is correct. caller: i used to work in chicago. they would come in and with two or three buses and go up into the high rises. there were hundreds of people working in these places and they andd check i.d.'s when they left, the buses would be filled. my suggestion is to help pay for this, all of the employers that high years the illegals for their jobs would pay a fine per head, $5,000 per head.

that can go into a foundation. guest: it is true the taxpayer dollars to go towards the entire enforcement operation of all the immigration laws, but there is a fair amount of money that comes into the treasury as a result of things like this. those fines have actually increase significantly over the course of the past several years. the last immigration bill that passed congress was in 1996. it height of the employer finds quite a bit. there are still that some they need to go higher, that there are certain types of violations that employers have that are considered a simple swap on the risk. there is a significant amount of money that comes in as a result of the fines. not enough to cover the full cost of the entire enforcement operation.

particularly under the bush administration you saw a huge increase in the amount of money that went down to border patrol. they have spent a ton of money over the past 10 years. the administrators on down will tell you they do not necessarily need more money, but they need to keep the moneys they have coming in in order to continue to keep the border secure. it is a significantly less porous border that was even four or five years ago. host: fawn johnson. let's look at the numbers for deportation. the obama administration has

bspoken with pride about how they have moved those numbers up. there has been a change in policy. last year in june, ice director announced a shift in the focus of who is actually deported. tell us about the change in what it means. take about was a shift -- >> that was a ship that was intended to go after the worst of the worst first. i do not think it was a huge shift in policy from what they were doing before, but they formally announced what they would call hiring. they have things that makes you more deportable. here are the things that make you less affordable. if you are a woman cover pregnant, children. if you have been here for a long time. if you're elderly. those are considered low priority things. people who have criminal

workers, across the border multiple times, people that are at any way linked with drug trafficking or human trafficking are high on the list. they actually went and listed them out. these are the ones that are basically in jail that are regular police officers. that is what he did last summer. one other thing i might mention , just in connection with that, another thing that has changed in terms of deportation for the immigration enforcement agency is it used to be even four or five years ago, people who were caught crossing the border were sent back on a voluntary waiver system. it is very efficient terms of getting them out of the country quickly. these are people that might be running drugs or people.

you would put them on a bus literally the same day. now each and everyone of the people are formally the border -- the border. if they are ever caught in the country again, they are charged with a crime. it becomes a much more serious offense. host: "the new york times" has reported to have reviewed 411,000 cases but only 2% have been closed so far. is that taking longer than expected? what is the challenge and what does it mean to close them? guest: this is a minority of cases that you see that go on for a long time. this is not the bulk of what is is involved in doing.

there are a lot of factors that go into what happens to someone who might go into violation. i have been talking a lot about people that are across the border illegally. this is a lot of what republicans are talking about when you say you need to shut down the border system. talking about different types of people that are undocumented. people will come on a student vises and graduated and does not have a job. they find themselves in the legal immigrants. they came on a tourist visitor and stayed over. they might go to the congressman or police to say what can i do to get papers? all the sudden they find themselves in court. those are the kinds of cases

that take a long time to resolve. quite frankly, there is not a ton of resources available to help these people. there can be a long backlog that winds up delaying the cases for quite a long time. host: let's hear from david in illinois. caller: good morning. i am just wondering about this immigration, because i see people who commit crimes and they go to prison and come out. they cannot receive welfare. they cannot receive housing and assistance. but yet a southern immigrant comes over, they receive welfare, social security, more hospitalization than most americans get. all of the big organizations like mcdonald's hiring illegal

workers, no one goes after them. there are couple of different things we can talk about. it is a common complaint. one thing that to make clear is just because you're in the country illegally, that does not mean you are fln. is agents take that pretty seriously. if you are convicted of anything, that is grounds for automatic deportation, and that is what the administration has focused on over the past four years. the other issue is what kinds of benefits these illegal immigrants are felons and have broken the law. it is true they can receive hospitalization-tight benefits. they are enrolled in school. they're probably the most common things. less common to receive medicare

and medicaid. one of the things i've noticed about the communities, and this is in areas where there is a high level of undocumented immigrants, you do not always know who is undocumented into is not. it is not always called to ask about it if you are principal in a border school. there are a lot of internal networks and they tend to be very conservative about the use of the various benefits they have afforded to them. for example, in alabama and arizona where they have these enforcement laws, the parents will poll the kids out of school. my argument is that there are some benefits that the emigrants has that some americans may not realize they have available for them, but they also tend to shy away from anyone that would

offer a social security number. host: fawn johnson with national journal correspondent. bill on the democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. what is the impact of this century cities on the detouring enforcement on immigration law, and secondly, how can the federal government and go and prosecute arizona for enforcing federal law, and yet allow century cities to exist? think you very much. -- thank you. guest: sanctuary cities first of all. there is a little bit of debate about this. they are areas in which the city council's, and the city council

is a good example. they have decided they are going to treat the undocumented population boat or the hispanic population. there will not actively go after undocumented population. the local law enforcement, their job is to protect the street. their job is not necessarily to ask about whether or not someone is in the country illegally. sometimes they happened upon that information on their own, then they need to turn those people over to federal authorities. some of the law enforcement i have spoken with down and arizona, richard really wants the really enforce the law, a sanctuary cities really do get in the way, because they feel they cannot ask questions they want to ask because of the way the local city officials have asked -- have decided how they

are going to run the city. this creates of those are patchwork of the way the country works. you have some places that are considered friendly and others that are on friendly. that will direct the different traffic of where the immigrants might go. it makes the country look change. there is a lot of informal communication. the administration is actually cost -- costing arizona for the immigration law not based on whether they are holding the sanctuary cities in place. this is solely a question of whether or not the state is imposing on the federal government's rights to enforce the immigration law. it is a boring question of states' rights of long hot and of little issue. sometimes people forget that. that was very clear during oral arguments about this but the justices themselves were making

it a case that it is about preemption essentially. can the federal government preempt this when it comes to enforcement? johnson reported this story -- let's look at some numbers and the department of homeland security. total removals in 2011, 396,000. 56 percent signed were criminal offenders. 20% were repeat violators, and 11% were the border removals' you were talking about. talk to us about the white house message on this, and how they are dealing with enforcement. now we're seeing there is a

softening and the perspective. the politics of it. guest: this is the hard path for the of ministration to walk. the people involved in making these decisions, let's talk about a few of them. janet of paul lozano understands information. -- janet nepalitano, that is her top job. then we have a macarthur award winner for civil-rights activism largely involving immigrants and hispanics. she understands these issues terribly well. i think she cares deeply about the fate of a lot of the undocumented immigrants and would like to see some way of making this more rational. the problem is back in 2006-2007 when there was a broad immigration building discussed in congress, it was one of the biggest things i have ever

covered. there was an argument that the border was not secure. we're letting the border fall down. people are plowing across our borders. among people who have been pushing for a comprehensive immigration reform system, they said later after it failed that they ceded the argument when they probably should not have, because in fact border enforcement has consistently gotten better throughout the bush administration, and once obama took over, they really upped the ante. they started deporting anyone they could who had a criminal record and was illegal, they were out of the country. janet nepalitanno has been very good about saying to anyone she can, come down to the border and look, come look at what we've done. see how much better it is. i took them off on offer. i was impressed with what they

are doing. there are still falls, there are always falls in the system, but her job consistently has been to say we are tough and upholding our end of the argument. then you have the other end of the spectrum were you have the hispanic community upset that there is nothing else done. and upset because the dream act protectively has failed. not necessarily a change in policy, but a change in message for the administration is trying to say we understand. we are listening to you in trying to make sure we're only deporting the guys we do not like. the ones we do not think did anything wrong like the kids who came with their parents, we are not going to at deport them. we are give them some kind of free-for-all. -- we are not going to deport them. it is a different political message to keep their heads above water really. host: michael, democratic calller in wisconsin.

talking about deportation efforts and how much the cost. caller: good morning. my question is on the immigrants who have not broken laws. my in-laws came to the united states on political asylum. they did not have any criminal record whatsoever. they were detained in their 60's and taken to a prison, separated and kept there for six months. i went up there with the money to fly them home. my in-laws did not even have a speeding ticket. they would not accept my money to fly them back home. i just want to know why the government would not accept my money to fly them home instead of taxpayers having to do it? guest: fly them home to their

home country? caller: yes, and this is regarding south america. guest: i obviously cannot speak to that particular case. what i can say that there are some pretty clear and fairly harsh -- there is not a lot room for any kind of sympathy vote for anybody when it comes to the immigration laws. if you are here on any kind of violation, you have to be removed. there are a number of people here particularly of the white house and the number of analysts in washington and around the country who criticize the federal law and say some of the penalties are too harsh. for example, if you are found to be in the country illegally, even if you have not committed any other crime and perhaps did not know you were illegal, you could be sent home and then barred from coming into the country for 5-10 years, about

what. i cannot speak to the situation of what happened to the callers in-laws, but this is a system that is more complex than the tax code. it is more politically volatile of the tax code. it needs to be revived. it needs to be updated and overall so that situations like this do not happen again. even the biggest eye-hard conservatives would not want to see that kind of thing happening. the problem is it is like dealing with a huge elephant. you cannot cut a total of its huge elephant in say that it is done. it has become politically impossible, which is one of reasons why the administration has been taking some of the executive actions, because that is something they can do on their own. there are lots of people in congress who have little changes

like that that might fix the problem and cannot get it through. host: fawn johnson covers a range of issues including immigration, transportation, and education. sheet reports for "dow jones" and "congress daily." our calller, our last calller talks about illegal immigrants who have broken no laws other than being here illegally. they are not a felon. they have not committed a crime in that sense. the obama administration in the immigration department announced this change. so last year we saw the change in policy where they are really going after people with criminal records and targeting them. as you mentioned, not so much going after parents and people with family members -- guest: people not unlike the in-

laws of the last calller. host: how does that play out? let's say your here from china. you came in the country on a student visa and just stayed, may be working here illegally, but not committing any other violations. how realistic is it that you will be deported? guest: i do not even know. it really depends. if you are part -- an employee of a country where they decide -- an employee of a company where they decide to do an audit, that ups your chances considerably. there are only a few companies the administration has been auditing. it is hard to know who was here illegally and who was not. it is not something the of the station is looking for specifically. -- it is not something the administration is looking for

specifically necessarily. there are people who will talk about from getting a driver's license to getting on an airplane. you worry about someone noticing if there is something unusual, even if you are not really doing anything wrong. the thing to realize is that this new policy the administration unveiled a couple of weeks ago where they said affirmatively we are not going to deport this group of people, that is the first time to my knowledge ever we've seen the administration do anything like that, because the law is pretty clear. if you are here illegally, something needs to happen. there is not a lot of wiggle room. -- the administration has tried to stretch the wiggle room, for example making it easier to apply for a waiver. they said we're not going to do it. we're going to create a new program for the kids who are the

most sympathetic. they're here at no fault of their own. host: here is a headline from "the new york times" a couple of weeks ago -- images of young kids that will have a reprieve because of the change of policy. tim, republican calller. shreveport, louisiana. caller: good morning. i have two parts, and i would like an answer. can an illegal alien in this country vote in this presidential race coming up? guest: no. cannot vote. in fact, the only way you can vote is if you are a u.s. citizen. that means all the people who are here illegally but are not u.s. citizens also cannot vote. caller: here is my follow-up. i am a conservative. to all you people out there, i realize obama is not much.

he is a good family man. he does have business experience. that is what we need now. he will maintain and try to get some of the illegals out of this country. guest: i actually do not know if that is true. that is not to say i do not disagree with that statement, but it has been difficult to tell exactly what mitt romney would do, especially in the last several respecweeks when this hs risen to a national dialogue. he gave a major speech last week where he promised that he would have a new and rational system for processing illegal immigrants. he sounded like he was sympathetic. the response from the hispanic groups and from the immigration reform advocates was pretty

weak. the one thing i would notice that i've not heard from it mitt romney is not like the normal wind i would hear. it is a pretty strong enforcement side. there are couple of people in the senate better in the same boat. what i've heard from him that the republicans in general are upset with obama for taking the steps he did in terms of the undocumented students, but they say they are upset because that makes it harder for them to come to some kind of solution. the thing i have a hard time with on that is there has been no solution. assounds like he's just perplexed as all the rest of us, which i guess is inappropriate response. it may not be the best political response for someone running for president, but i cannot say i

disagree necessarily. i do not necessarily he would do a lot of things but would force on the enforcement like they have. host: j.c. anderson asks how many illegal immigrants have been identified by secure communities? -- jay sanders. guest: i do not think any of them have been let go. secure communities is one of the things the administration has done to boost enforcement. it is an agreement, a formal agreement between local law enforcement officers and federal enforcement officers to share information about immigration status, of the people that are in their jails. this is people who have been arrested for any kind of violation, having a routine check about their status, and if they are undocumented, they are often supported.

as i understand how it works, and i do not have the numbers in front of me -- host: $184 million was this fiscal 2012 budget. guest: i do not know the answer of how many have been detained and deported. as i understand it, the way the system works is if you are of her the agreement and are in jail, and you are determined to beat in the country illegally, almost everyone is deported. it is not going to be a waiver that involves a humanitarian reasons. it will probably be the exception rather than the rule. the one thing i will also note is this comes from the hispanic community and activist. they complained that at least half of the deportations that happen through secure communities are for minor violations, traffic violations and other such things that normally people would not think

of as making you a criminal. that is why they are concerned, because they feel it is profiling tool for people who are illegal in this country. from susan inar georgia. independent calller. caller: good morning. how were you? host: good. go ahead. caller: the one question i have is they change the way they deportations. is it disingenuous for the obama administration to say they are reporting more people, but also, regarding the illegals, they are voting. some voted in florida. they are not legally allowed to vote, but they lie about it to say they are legal citizens. also, i believe it is a felony

to perjure yourself, which is what a lot of them do have in order to get government social services and jobs and so forth. is it not a felony to perjure yourself? guest: just to talk about the deportation policy of the administration. i do not think it is disingenuous to say the administration deportations have gone through group. they are higher than ever. it is true some of those people who might have in the past been given voluntary waivers -- it is like a great mark on your record rather than a black mark. my way of looking at that particular policy change is cleaning up a process that was used years ago when this was not as rigid not nearly the problem it has become. i do not think anyone will argue the administration has

thought up the deportation policy. -- really upped the deportation policy. when it comes to the way they conduct themselves in the united states, there is a whole range of what you would consider violations. as far as i know, and this is more my conjecture than anything else, there is not a swearing under oath that comes with anything, including a non- drivers license id. to get an idea that involves a social security member, that might be a crime. there is a whole range of different ways that people live in the country when they are undocumented. many of them do not have driver's licenses. some of them, if they use social security numbers, they are using them fraudulently. others have tax id numbers and things they can get without swearing anything under a look at all. it depends on the states. it depends on how well the state

manages these kinds of things. it is almost like we could pick through all the other ways in which enforcement generally in the country is conducted, and you can see all of the different holes that someone who might be legally would come through. that is how would you that. fawn johnson, we're watching the supreme court. depending on what the court does today, this is a pet -- does this affect the deportation policy? guest: it should not. the administration was pretty clear on this. under federal law, the federal government decides to to deport and not to deport. this was not something even addressed in the arizona law. with the arizona law deals with is how to identify people who are undocumented. it gives police officers a few more tools to do that. it has a few other provisions. one of the things it does is it

allows for local police officers to arrest someone without a warrant if they expect friedrich suspect they are in the country illegally. those are the things they can do, but it does not have any effect on whether that person will be deported. -- it allows for local police officers to arrest someone without a warrant if they expect they are here in the country illegally. this is something i have seen throughout this entire process ever since arizona passed this law. and i am sure we are going to have more conversation about it, but technically deportations have been and are and always will be rights in the realm of the federal government, and that will not change. host: fawn johnson, correspondent for "national journal." thank you for being here and talking with us this morning. fawn johnson,