from an economic policy institution and bryan ripley with the heritage foundation. and we will discuss entrepreneurship in america with lina khan from the new america foundation. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: good morning, this is "washington journal" for july 17, 2012. the associated press reports this morning chairman ben bernanke can offer clues on how the battle will reserve might take steps to help the economy when he testifies before the senate this morning at 10:00. you can see it live on c-span today at 10:00. republican senator olympia snowe from maine in an op-ed piece in "the financial times" today says the republican party can win in the america if they can communicate a vision.

a recent poll in "the hill" newspaper says nearly half of the respondents felt it was impossible for them to be wealthy in the course of their lifetime. all in mind -- we are asking you in the first 45 minutes if wealth is an impossible dream. if you can tell us why you think not, that would be great. there of the lines -- you can also reach out to us on social media. here are the results of the poll that was published by "the hill

." it says voters say wealth is now an impossible dream. looking at the specific results -- they were also asked about the level of income that makes a family wealthy. taking a look at statistics on u.s. income compiled by census figures for 2006-2010.

there are the results of the poll, again, asking people whether they bought wells was an impossible dream. we are taking that and tasking you the same question. if you want to give us your response of the telephone this morning -- you can tweet us, if you want. and about 20 respondents before the start of our show on our facebook page. you can add to those thoughts as well. and during the course of the

morning goes on facebook talk to each other about the issues. brooklyn, new york on the democrats' line. this is dorothy. you are up first. caller: good morning. i am proud to be a c-span member, to listen every single day. host: what do you think about the question? caller: it is impossible in this era with the robber barons. i worked 38 years in one jump. -- job. in the last 10 years of my work, i did not get a raise. and i left the job of making $50,000 a year after 38 years. i have two choleric -- college degrees, a bachelor's and management and a bachelor's and finance. it did not seem fit -- each company sold it off to make profits -- because i work for

the company's president -- laying off 2000 people and by the time i left the job we were down to 250 and everything was outsourced, even the call center, even just to call and ask how might account is doing. no, i don't see anybody getting rich off of working today because the robber barons have controlled the system the last 30 years. host: colorado springs, colorado. nancy on the republican line. caller: good morning. i think that in the united states everyone should be dreaming the impossible dream. i don't think it is impossible compared to other countries where there is poverty and war lords. i mean, you can't do anything you want in the united states. -- can do anything you want in the united states. but for some reason it is bad to

do good for yourself -- you should be taxed or you should be .ot given as much money i i just wrote a check for $10,000 to the government. what and i'd like to spend that on something else? the more money we make, the more we get taxed. it should be all of our dream to reach for the most wealth we can achieve for ourselves and the government doesn't have anything to do with it. host: tampa, florida. john, independent line. caller: it is important to remember that as far as becoming wealthy, they're always must be some of the earned -- unearned advantage. the wealthy have an opportunity to work hard and become successful only in the presence of an unearned a man is an

absence of a critical undeserved disadvantage. brain physiology, hite, face shape, things like that and being born at the right time. if you are born now you do not have the opportunities from back in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, for reasons as described by the first caller. host: we are asking is wealth is an impossible dream. what defines it for you? caller: it was financially described. you have 70% of your respondents in your survey saying it was $250,000 a year and above, 70% of the people that you should consider that, and that is pretty reasonable. to make that kind of money, nowadays especially, but the absence of opportunities and the rich controlling everything and after of the supreme court

rulings like citizens united v. fec, we have become a plutocracy, especially the republican party. host: tampa is the site of the republican national convention in august. a story and "usa today" talks s.out the platform issue th just to highlight some of the high points of the platform, according to jackie kucinich. one is to repeal the affordable care act, the other is a comprehensive energy plan. that is senator john thune, a republican from south dakota. a third platform -- tax overhaul and commitment to changing entitlements, frequently mentioned as topics to be considered. we are asking you about if wealth is an impossible dream.

this is based on a pole in "doug hill" newspaper -- on a poll in "the hill" newspaper. we are asking you to weigh in on the phone and social media as well. maryland. george, democrats' line. caller: first of all, thank you for c-span. i am a strong democrat and i want to thank the president for fighting for the middle-class and i am a teacher, after 30 years of teaching -- i don't even clear 100,000. i am a single bad and homeowner and every month it is a struggle to prevent bills -- i am a single dad. wealth is not all money -- i have a family. sometimes it is not material. but we do struggle, struggling to stay in the middle class. and i think the president is working hard to bring the public

sectors online and keeping them in the middle class. but unfortunately they have to cut off a lot of public sector employment. i think if he could do a little more stimulus spending, our unemployment numbers will continue to go down which they have the past 27 months of private sector job growth. i can't support the president enough and i want to encourage everyone to support it. host: kneel on the republican line. is well and impossible dream? caller: no, and listened to obama top yesterday -- i am 65 years old and i told my kids to work in dream for the stars, to make it. and he says it is the government that will help you. i think it is a disgrace. the guy who talked about the teachers and obama -- how many senior citizens are they putting out of homes because of taxes and their wages? host: just to stay on topic about wealth, what we think it

is impossible or not? caller: there are no jobs. we've got to get obama out of there. he is just killing this country. host: houston, texas, reginald. asking about wealth and whether it is an impossible dream. caller: when the government accountability of this came out and said we misappropriated $52 billion out of the pentagon were spending budget, they have no accountability for it. those are dollars that could go to medicare programs, the medical program that he had and also for social security. unless you are the military industrial complex, when the government is dealing without any accountability and oversight of military dollars, obama, libya, those things, it is difficult for the note -- middle-class and lower class to

raise up. host: have you connect that to wealth? caller: when you create jobs, when you create waits for people to survive and provide for health care insurance and for jobs for long term stability, able or disabled, it increases and empowers the people. that is why it dr. -- was against the war because war takes away opportunities from the economy. host: of about the idea of achieving wealth is based on himself or herself? caller: not when the government misappropriates dollars. it is not under my control. when billions of dollars are not appropriate right. when congress and president of not have accountability. it reflects on myself and everyone around me because the village is not being empowered and not being able to create community banking.

host: jen says wealth is relative -- olympia snowe, republican senator from maine, has an op-ed piece on how the republican party can win in november. here is what she has to say this morning --

fairfax, virginia. asking if wealth is an impossible dream. fairfax, are you there? fred on the democrats' line? hello? caller: i have a degree -- master's degree in psychology as well as job counseling. to my opinion, yes, you can have a dream. $5,000 monthly -- moral values. the leaders helping people who cheat and steal and somehow they understand cheating and they

have to pay the price. here is the best place in the world. host: comments off of facebook today -- again, you can put your comments on facebook and nick -- expressed falls on twitter. is wealth and impossible dream? based on a poll in "the hill" newspaper. michigan, democrats' line. caller: i was thinking about this -- the rich can get their riches but then not take from the port to make your riches even higher. host: as far as your thoughts on this, you can continue. caller: it is my comment.

because i lost my job in 2009 and i understand the bubble started to burst around the 2005 and 2007, so it is not like the president that we have now had anything to do with people losing the money. because you are as rich as you want to be if you have god in your life. from the poll, views diverge based on income levels -- then it says, when it comes to tax policy, a little bit above

in the article that was based on the poll, six out of 10 voters to identify as conservatives favor keeping the bush era tax rates for all. wealth and whether it is an impossible dream. virginia, democrats' line. caller: good morning. financially speaking, wealth is an impossible dream for the majority of the country. actually, for the majority of the world. as far as this country is concerned, the birth of the country, this country has always been about giving the wealthy power. the wealthy will always be powerful. and the goal is to keep people from obtaining as much wealth as they have. as long as they have wealth, the

rest of us would be subservient. host: have you see it day to day? caller: it happens every day. people like me, we will never be really rich. it is just never going to happen. there are just too many people in the world for everybody to obtain a certain level of wealth. you can climb up the ladder, but for the majority of people in the entire world, we will never get to the top of the latter or the upper most rungs of the latter. it is just never going to happen. host: is it because they have a lack of opportunity? caller: no. even with a lack of opportunity can only go so far. there are just too many people in the world for everyone to be at the top. host: utah, this is todd,

republican mike. caller: first of all, it is very possible for anybody to achieve wealth but everyone needs to understand there is no handout, there is no free ticket to gaining wealth. you talk to any wealthy people in the united states and they all tell you did not do it by 40 hours a week, you did not do it by working for somebody else and you darn sure don't do it by waiting for a check from the government forbade waiting for health care. you go out and you make your own and you achieve it by putting in a whole lot more hours than 40 hours a week. thank you. host: is wealth achievable just simply by working as far as the work week or are there other elements? caller: no, sir. you have to have an idea.

you have to go out and make it yourself. you have to go out and start a business, make it yourself. you can't wait for someone else to do it for you. you have to go get it. host: would you mind offering a definition of wealth and maybe looking away from monetary figures? caller: i tell you, owning your own home, being out of debt -- in today's world, that is very wealthy. owning a lot of debt puts people in poverty. it is just not a good thing. my opinion of wealth today is just being out of debt, and then you can build on top of that. you can be as wealthy as you

want to be, but you got to start somewhere. host: there it is, it's a different perspectives from two callers about whether wealth is an impossible dream -- two different perspectives. "the hill" newspaper did a poll about the idea of the wealth and what it is achievable in the current day and close to half said it was not. there are the statistics right there. there are some other elements to this poll as well that we can show later on in the program. but to the point of, we are asking you if you think it is impossible are not to obtain wealth, for the next 20 or 25 minutes from now. you can do so on the phone lines and facebook and twitter as well. twitter --

next up is california. zekiel on the independent line. caller: i am a high school graduate and two years of college. my dad in comparison, he has like a third grade education but hard work got him his house, he put us through school, and i basically, the american dream is if you work hard enough you should get what you want. the question is, is wealth attainable. sure, if you win the lottery, or stumble into a bag of money. the -- hard-working person, never get rich. they will always be in debt. they have to send their kids to school. host: you would not define your

father as particularly wealthy even though he bought a house and said you to college? caller: that was a different time during of you want to say, pursuit of happiness -- doesn't make you wealthy? sure, if you are happy. money to throw around and live comfortably, i don't think it is possible any more. i truly don't. i worked at the same company for 18 years and i am in debt, pretty much in debt. i am going through a divorce. buying scratcher, just trying to get by. i am paying my taxes, knocked stepping on any toes -- not stepping on my toes. 40 hours, no, it is not a

tenable. if you, with an idea to cure cancer, sure, maybe you'll get wealthy if they did not step on your toes and take your idea. thei don't see wealth for common blue-collar worker in this country as it is right now. host: the subject of taxes, which the caller brought up, is a subject -- the subject of a speech that the place in washington. patty murray, this is one of the things you talk about. this is "the christian science monitor" -- this refers to tax cuts and a like a set to expire at the end of the year. this is more where she had to say from washington yesterday. [video clip] >> unlike last year the consequences of gridlock --

gridlock could spark to be felt immediately. millions of jobs -- programs families depend on could be slashed across the board of middle-class tax cuts would expire. and once again, if republicans want to work with us on a balanced approach we are not going to get a deal. because i feel very strongly that we simply cannot allow middle-class families and the most vulnerable americans to bear this burden alone. it is just not fair. if we can't get a good deal, a balanced deal, that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share then i would absolutely continue this debate into 2013, rather than lock and and long term deal this year that throws middle- class families under the bus. and i think my party and the american people will support that. host: we will hear a response from senator mitch mcconnell in

just a little bit. but continuing with our question -- is wealth and impossible dream? we are asking folks to respond very youngstown, new york. republican line. cliff, go ahead. caller: jeff made a lot of the good points and the spot on. yes, wealth is attainable. the idea that the evil bridge would not let the poor working man get wealthy is a lot of -- you have to have an idea or say aye servers that need to be done and that you have to work 70 or $80 every day. a lot of people do not want to make the sacrifice. the people who do become wealthy. a couple of other things, though. i think what we see in this dynamic or is the discussion is the difference between static thinking and dynamic thinking during the democrat above you is a static point of view -- view iscrats' point of

a static point of view, the rich have more money and they are stealing from the poor. the dynamic viewpoint is in a dynamic economy, it all feeds on the job. one person comes up with an idea, it filters to more ideas and more people get rich, come up with more ideas. we need to look at the entire picture dynamically. you have taxes -- more money to invest. when you are socking $1.30 trillion of of the economic picture, you are dealing the oxygen from the economy, so it makes it harder and harder for people to get by, for jobs to be created and for people to get wealthy with new ideas. host: pennsylvania. good morning to george. i am sorry, richard, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. wealth is a table with people just realize congress is not their friend.

it is toward the upper people. since these acts have have been passed and everything coming out of the pockets of the people. people need to stop watching tv and listen to what the bible says because it tells you how to achieve wealth. congress, even though we've put them in office, they do everything to confuse us, saying that democrat or republican situation when all the time they are draining money. host: if this congress, how the bypass that to get to wealth? caller: people need to wake up and congress is confusing people as far as tv. this is the lowest time -- taxes have been cut. so there is no excuse. people are not paying their fair share of taxes. they called devon bush tax cuts. they ran up a debt because debt

is tax -- every time people have to pay it, it is a tax. host: texas. george, democrat line. caller: good morning. i would like to agree with your last caller, a lot of good information can be found in the bible. one question i have is why would anybody want to be rich? the bible says the love of money is the root of all evil. but yesterday something happened to me that maybe move a little closer to being rich. i have to go to the pharmacy to get a shot for shingles for me and my wife and it cost me almost $300 and when i got home there was a check in the mail from my insurance company that refunded almost the same amount because of obamacare. i would like to say thank you, president obama, for passing that the law. host: the wall street journal taking a look at retail sales. they write --

if you look at some of the specific categories -- spending down and tons of gasoline stations, sporting goods, building and garden supplies. a smaller when it comes to electronics and appliances, auto and parts dealers and when it comes to restaurants and bars as well. b. umps, though, when it comes to non-store retail. heard from senator patty murray earlier on the idea of tax cuts especially when it comes to the political debate. senator mitch mcconnell, republican from kentucky, majority leader, talk on the same yesterday and he was accusing democrats lang that this booklet to their political lead manage. [video clip] >> last week president obama signaled he and his campaign

advisers think it is good politics to keep the threat of these looming tax hikes on everyone right on the table as leverage in an effort to raise taxes on nearly a million business owners right now. as "the washington post" reported, not only do democrats in congress agree with him, they are ready and willing to go right off the fiscal cliff if they don't get their way. in their near fanatical crusade to in foot more pain on american businesses, democrats are now openly admitting they plan to wait until this debate reaches full throttle and americans are panicked about the outcome to do anything. because they think it will make it likelier they will get their way.

and if they don't, then sov be it. they are ready to accept the economic and fiscal consequences. they see a crisis coming, and they don't want to waste it. host: by the way, if you want to see these topics or other topics in terms of what is being said in congress, you can always go to the c-span video library, located at c-span.org where you can type in a topic or a member of's name or related topic and a video resources and assets there that relate to the topic, oil -- come up. you can find out all of that information and other issues as well in their own words at c- span.org. there was a poll in "the wall street journal was " looking at provincial preferences from

those making $100,000 or more. it goes back to exit polls first, in 2008, with 49% of respondents voting for barack obama and 49% voting for senator john mccain. this is among those making $100,000 or more. in 2012, it references a "wall street journal" nbc news poll and here is the result -- 44% voting for the president and 50% testing a preference for governor romney. and a related story is on the front page of "the wall street journal." cleveland, ohio. ted on the republican line. the question is if wealth is an impossible dream. what do you think? caller: in the past 20 or 30 years i have met probably 20 or 30 millionaires and what they tried to teach people is you just don't work hard, you work smart. too often, people have with the

little money they have coming in, they spend it as fast as they get it. you have to use good financial -- what is the right word -- thought. host: such as? caller: i hate to disagree with c-span -- cut down the cable bill. if you are investing in one thing you have to know where to put it. your cell phone, and how you are spending on the food bill, right down to every last nickel. and if you invest in wisely -- it is an accumulation. it is not an overnight success. people here too much of these overnight successes, hollywood this and that. they got to keep their heads -- what is the right word -- straight. host: are these the kind of practice as you use in your day to day life?

caller: well, i am trying. i don't have a job and i am working on building a business. but it is not fast. it is slow but sure. host: what kind of business, if i may ask. caller: does the name horn woodward ring a bell? host: no, sir. sorry. caller: he wrote a book on -- not just self help. but when you work as a team and you promote things and you help somebody earn money, it is a lot more rewarding than just sitting on it yourself. if you understand what i am saying. host: ted from cleveland, ohio, joining us on this question about wealth and the -- being an impossible dream. democrats' line. hi. caller: i believe that wealth is

just something we all have. we have wealth and some humanistic things and we have wealth in a monetary white. like the last caller just got off the line said, it is what you do with what you have. host: talk about the monetary side, if you think it is impossible for a person to at least become wealthy in this time and date. caller: in this time in and day when you consider that we as taxpayers are paying for wars that we may be getting it out of or may have and already and we will still be paying for them for the next 100 years. we will be paying it for the -- through taxes. the cost of living -- gasoline, food prices, all of those things contribute to everyday living expenses and if you are lucky and often have them, have a home, it is all good, but we are all in this struggle because this is a crisis. it is not getting any better. the economy is sluggish and

everybody is feeling it. host:jack hutton from twitter -- from "the washington times" matthew peron rating on behalf of the associated press -- there is a side bar story from "washington times close with this morning, the decision of the president not to attend a conference that focuses on a

eaaids. buffalo, new york. is wealth and impossible dream? clara, democrats' line. caller: hello? yes. are you still taking people to speak on this?

host: sure. go ahead, please. caller: people can become wealthy if they quit buying all of these toys and save their money and work hard to save it. host: it is all about saving -- is that would make a person what the? caller: sure. you have to work and save your money. you cannot spend it for all of your toys. host: maryland. republican line. caller: i should be on the democrats' line. i told this winter i am a democrat but i would like to respond. i would like to say to jose and the audience that, yes, it is absolutely possible to achieve the dream of wealth. there are opportunities -- even in the state of maryland, where i live, the fastest growing

industry that has produced the largest number of millionaires in the united states from those moving from the middle-class to becoming millionaires, the direct sales industry. it has produced some over 2500 millionaires and the past 50 years -- in the past 50 years. i would like to say that most people don't achieve wealth because they believe the traditional means of acquiring wealth is what really pays us. but it is not really the case, it does not really been proven. people save their money, they go to work, they work for 40 years and they still retire basically on a pension and social security. that is not really wealth. the definition is accumulating enough money and resources which will work for you and which will pay you without having to produce the same effort constantly. host: that is errol from

waldorf, maryland. the perspective from twitter -- off of email -- manassas, virginia. good morning. this is john, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would just like to add my voice to the caller who suggested that first of all, wealth is a relative term. i think possibly another question is, whatever your definition of wealth, how do you start down that path? i agree with a boast -- both of the two guests, it is about choices. you have to get up in the

morning, set out on a course of action and start out on the path and not wait for the check or look at the clock and rush through the door after eight hours. to a large extent, it is about choices. that is the largest of the i would like to make. host: a new ceo at yahoo, marissa mayer, and this is the write-up in "the new york times." she was a google executive. her first task will be to articulate a vision for yahoo. she's spent years at google building -- on a search and over the years became the company that in most recognizable face. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think wealth is attainable but

i believe the biggest hindrance to me is our congress, our government. the biggest thing we need, i think, is term limits. our government has been bought. people put some much into it. the wealthy pay for the congressmen and senators. they are beholden to them. and then the wealthy do things that tend to hold people back a little bit. it is ok to be wealthy and there is nothing wrong with that and ok boutique -- to be the head of big companies, but they tend to -- like the tax things, the achieve it on the backs of the poor and the regular man. but if we the people would literally band together and force our congress maple to one or two terms and get them out of there so they cannot be bought or it is not worth it to buy them because you have to by each senator and each congressman for a one-year term or two-year term, they get wealthy and a

pass bills and stuff that hinders the rest of the people in the country. host: if you could change that, how do you think it would affect everyone else specifically? what kinds of changes would you see? caller: i am an entrepreneur and i have been one most of my life. i had several businesses, electrical business, appliance repair and now i am in trucking. the rules and regulations congress put on the trucking industry are terrible. they don't talk to the actual trucking people. they might talk to some of the bigger companies but just something as simple as how many hours of service a driver can drive. well, they don't take into consideration that when you make the rules and relations that may be the driver could not get loaded for a couple of hours because it broke down but they are limited to certain hours. i have a second truck sitting

still because i can't find a driver. people say they want a job -- the trucking sector is ready to go but apparently nobody wants to drive it. host: thank you for your thoughts of the rest of you who called in. if you want to pose, of facebook, field producer as well as twitter as well. -- if you want to post a question on facebook. coming up, lisa lerer will answer your questions. and in the middle of the debate over team america's uniforms, a top economists talk about what is made in the usa. we will have those discussions coming up as "washington journal" continues. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> there has been a hostility to poverty since the war on poverty. lyndon johnson was the best president look the part of the issues and spend money and talk about his social service programs. lyndon johnson. i hate to say this, richard nixon is actually the father of minority business development. and inside his minority -- established the small business administration, minority business development agency and used the term economic justice. richard nixon. >> the former president of ben and college for women regularly writes and comments on the politics, education, and african-american economic history. live, sunday, august 10 at noon eastern, your questions, cause, e-mails and tweets for the author of -- "365 facts and black economic history." in-depth august on c-span2's book tv.

>> if i am president, job one for may will be creating jobs. let me say that again. my agenda is not to put in place a series of policies that it made a lot of attention and applause. my policy will be, number one, create jobs for the american people. i did not have a hidden agenda. -- do not have a hidden agenda [applause] and i submit to you -- if you want a president will make things better in the african- american community, you are looking at him. you take a look. >> republican presidents a candidate mitt romney and vice president joe biden spoke at the naacp national convention in houston. >> close your eyes and imagine, and that and what the romney justice department will look like. imagine when his senior adviser on constitutional issues is robert bork.

imagine the recommendations for who is likely to be picked as attorney general and head of the civil rights division or those incredibly important positions at justice. >> what to their entire speeches on line at the c-span of video library -- watch their entire speeches on line of the c-span video library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining me now is lisa lerer from bloomberg, staff writer. if there is one issue -- is the one issue with mr. romney that sticks out? guest: the big issue the past week is when exactly he left the the firm. mr. romney long said he left the firm in 1999 when he went to go when the olympics in salt lake city which he said was all consuming and left in no time to do his work and bain capital in any management capacity. the problem is, he still retain significant ownership portion of the firm. so, on nearly 150 federal documents there is a statement that says he is the sole

shareholder, general partner, basically a lot of different terms that made people think he is the boss. the documents state until 2001. we have a three-year period where romney said he was doing nothing with bain but documents filed with federal and massachusetts state government indicate at least that he had some responsibility for the firm. democrats have seized on this to accuse him of lying, to charge him with committing a felony by submitting of fraudulent documents. the democratic guard then basically is either the forms are right and you are lying or you are right and you lied on the form. it is a tricky situation for governor romney and politically you never want to be called a lawyer in politics. host: does the definitive answer lie totally with him? guest: i think part of what is happening is there is a disconnect between the way business people view this and

how it is you politically. the focus had been capital i spoke to said, yes, it has a very complicated corporate structure and there are a lot of different entities and funds because they make different investments in different companies, so their argument is they were unwinding of the investments. governor romney started the firm in the mid-1980s and have sole ownership and it took a long time to unwind all the different things he took control over. but they say the bottom line is he was not making day-to-day investment decisions, he was not at board meetings and not in a management capacity. politically, i am not sure that it matters, right? it is a much more simpler argument for the obama campaign, that is names are on the form and he said he was not there but he signed the forms. i think there is a bit of a disconnect between what the company says was happening is that what looks like politically. host: how large is the felony charge -- what he said when he was head of it or doesn't go further? guest: i think it would be pretty hard from securities

experts, it would be pretty hard to bring a case against mr. romney for signing because of investors' basically have to prove they suffered damages or lost money because he said he was in charge of the firm but actually had no management duties. they say that would be pretty hard thing to prove. i think the actuality that he could get sued or and died of ogres and the like this is pretty low. but politically it looks pretty bad. host: was he a figurehead from 1999 until 2002? guest: that is the question. he was in salt lake city and living in salt lake city. he was running the process, which was all consuming -- many of the viewers remember the olympics were in bad financial shape and he came in and turned it around so it took a lot of work. people at bain capital say he was not there all that much. but i am sure there was something to be said -- this was his firm. so there is something to be said

having his name on the firm, what investors expected. i could imagine there was a benefit in terms of getting new investments and making false at company invest in it being -- bained about b ain'ds capital possibility. host: lisa lerer from bloomberg news, serves as a staff writer to talk about bain capital and campaign 2012 as it becomes an issue. if you want to send us a tweet on this, you can do so -- an e-mail -- for his tenure and what he did, what has been the messaging from the romney campaign? guest: part of a three-year this crescent -- discrepancy is so important because during the three years bain capital made a

series of investments that resulted in jobs being shifted overseas and also a closure of factories and layoffs. the romney campaign really wants to say he was not at the firm at that time because they do not want him responsible for any of those investments. the obama campaign wants to put him squarely in the board room but those three years because they want to link him as much as possible to job outsourcing, layoffs. that is the argument they have been making for several months. it is also an argument governor romney heard throughout his whole political career. it is something that came up in the 1994 senate race against edward kennedy and it was something a lot of people felt that that time is what cost and the race in large part. host: and it has translated to ads from the various campaigns. one from the romney campaign looking at this issue. [video clip] >> and mr. romney and i approved this message. >> when a president does not tell the truth, how can we trust and to lead? the obama outsourcing attacks, misleading, unfair, and untrue. there was no evidence mitt

romney ship jobs overseas. candidate obama lied about hillary clinton. >> so shame on you, barack obama. >> but america expects more from a present. obama's does on this campaign -- another reason america has lost confidence in barack obama. host: there is the ad from the romney campaign. guest: this is the romney campaign that the argument, trying to turn the tables and say that president barack obama has shifted his campaign message. he ran in 2008 on hope and change and now he is attacking us and these accusations are false. they are just trying to move past as much as possible to shift attention away from bain, romney's personal wealth and outsourcing. because republicans and romney advisers say every day they are not talking about the economy, not talking about weak jobs report, they are losing the campaign. that was all they want to talk about and for good reason because they think that is how they will win. host: the message from the

present boss a reelection campaign is different. they have a recent ad. [video clip] >> i'm a barack obama and i approve this message. >> ♪ 0 beautiful for spacious skies amber waves of grain purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain america, america got shed his grace on thee and crowned by good ♪ host: a lot of sources coming against governor romney. what do you do about the information private -- provided in that ad? guest: it pretty much encapsulates the obama campaigns in recent messaging -- that want to tie things related to romney of's personal wealth to the other, and willingness to release more than two years of tax returns, reports that bain

capital outsourced and the question about whether he left the firm. there were reports that his tax returns showed he had offshore accounts in switzerland and bermuda. they are trying to tie these things together to paint a picture of governor romney as someone who is more concerned with the wealthy and -- then the middle-class and to also questioned about what you know about him, to raise questions about his transparency and to get people talking about, well, how much do we really know about this guy. that is their strategy in a nutshell. host: first caller, estonia, north carolina. charles, democrats alike. caller: i want to understand why in the world knowing that he is the ceo and chairman of bain company that people would believe he had no say so or nothing in bain capital. it don't make sense. if he is the ceo.

but whether he left in control still had to report to him. -- whoever he left in control. i don't understand people should not believe he is not being fair telling us the truth. he is hiding something and it will come out sooner or later. if aid does not tell the truth i do not think he deserves to be president because the is being dishonest. guest: i think charles basically and capsulate of argument the obama campaign is making against governor romney and i think that is the problem, as many times as bain and governor romney explained he had no management -- actually, the explanation shifted. most recently an adviser did an interview on sunday saying well, he retired at retroactively. i think the explanations are hard for people to understand when they see the court -- firms -- forms. they say if romney says on the

forms he was in charge. as a tough line of attack. host: peter adds why did bain capital still pay him? guest: he still gets a lot of income from bain capital. he had a 10-year separation agreement, retirement agreement that ran from 2009 -- sorry, 1999 through 2009. the decade-long agreement. that was in part because private equity investments are long-term investments, five years, eight years, and maybe 10 years, so it took awhile to whined about his personal financial interest and to get paid out for the investments he made at the firm. however, he still has very favorable terms. he can invest in the same -- under the same terms as a partner. the reported to million dollars from bain capital -- still, after the conclusion of the separation agreement. if you look at personal finance

of disclosures you can see he is invested and many bain firms. he is still very involved -- and his family's personal wealth is still heavily involved with the firm. host: tennessee, republican. guest: -- caller: thank you for taking my call. if you look back and you think about it for a minute, if i owned a second house -- which i do -- but i do not live there, but i have it up for sale, it may take two or three years before i get it sold. that is exactly the same situation. as part at -- as that goes -- this president hasn't got a clue about how to run a business. never has and never will be. but a new look at romney, the investors -- 80% of investments he made the company had been successful and have gone on to hire more workers. 4% bankruptcy. that is a good record. i was everybody in this country had a record like that.

because he knows what it is like to run a business. host: thank you, sir. guest: that is part of why the bain stuff is so damaging. romney's argument is that the president does not know how to fix the economy. jobs come andows how go. his record at bain is fair game. host: don from twitter -- a question about the retroactive retirement term. guest: it is not a common term.

it is pretty rare for a ceo to retire retroactively. what i've heard from people at the time was that romney planned to take a leave of absence from the firm and realized he was not going back. his retirement was in 1999. that conflicts with what mitt romney has said. he said he had no management capacity. he might have retired and not been a management for that three-year period, it seems like a conflict. host: lisa lerer of the bloomberg news joins us. caller: this is about trust. romney runs away from health care that he created.

he runs away from bain. i was going to vote for romney until this. this is for the presidency of the united states. this isn't a game. taxes.taxow me your guest: romney has released two years of his taxes, 2010 and 2011. governor romney has said he will not release additional years. some republicans said that is not going to fly. take the hit and move on.

if he doesn't release the returns, democrats can hammer him day after day. editor john mccain released two years --sen editor john mccain released two years. it is a mixed bag between how many years people release. the question is why mitt romney is not releasing them. whenever it is in the tax returns they believe is damaging in some way. maybe politically unsavory investments or how much money he took in. they think whatever is in the returns would be more damaging politically than the hits he is taking. that's the balance the romney campaign is striking. releasingldn't

tax records be part of running? guest: he never made it that far as he did not have to release all those returns. he never had to do it. host: caller on the democrat's line. caller: yeah. as a citizen of this country, you have to have the respect for your federal government. that's because you have money and then you come out and tell whichat you're not a ceo, you know is perjury for anybody like me or anybody, any poor people in this country, ok? it is a pattern here.

he said he was not there -- unless somebody signed for him. i don't understand except this is a pattern here. to lie in the federal government. this is a crime for a presidential candidate to be like that, it is a shame. guest: that is exactly what the romney campaign is afraid of and what the obama campaign wants. "what is the hiding? is he lying?" a lot of people are still not paying attention to this race. your viewers are educated and paying attention. a lot of people tune in in the fall.

the president wants to define governor romney. most people have an impression of president obama. it is part of mitt romney's campaign to redefine president obama. people do not know mitt romney all that well. host: is bain capital a large entity? guest: bain capital is a complicated entity. it has grown in size immensely and has offices overseas now's. it is and private equity firm. mitt romney owned the overall structure which was bain capital, inc. all the vehicles were owned by the partners of the firm. those were below the overarching

company structure. they had to unwind that and transfer ownership from romney to the partners. host: stan on the republican line. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i think bloomberg -- i did not believe bloomberg is a bear out fit. it did not really a fair conversation to begin with. president obama is talking about outsourcing. he was the biggest outsource anyone. he brought jeffrey immelt -- more than half of his employees do not work in the u.s.

he was one of the biggest outsources and he was under the guise of being the job czar. host: and your question? caller: more of a comment. governor romney, i think he will bring jobs for us, where president obama can now speak about outsourcing. host: we will let lisa lerer comment. guest: that is an argument that republicans are making, that president obama has also outsource to jobs. he has not gone hard enough against china. that's something governor romney

said he would do. republican is would point to the stimulus and say some of the jobs from the stimulus went to foreign companies. the democrats would counter to say they have imposed tariffs anels. solar pe that is part of how the republicans are trying to counter the charges against bain. caller: good morning. regarding mr. romney, i think that is all a lie. they came out and gave him -- nobody cares about it. he is good for business.

why they go after him? now sourcing. what about the president and the general election? also, solyndra. what happened to that one? host: thank you. follow-up e-mail. this is jim. guest: romney has been asked was see at bain and he said, "my partners are running the firm during that three-year period.' the explanation the campaign has given has shifted somewhat, so the argument has not been consistent. i'm not sure what the proof

will be. people at bain said he has not done anything management related. folks at bain do not want to get too involved in this. they are trying to run a business. i think -- my sense is that they do not want to get too enmeshed in this. host: -- guest: people have told me that the deal he got was a bit of a better deal than most people typically get when they leave. he did start the firm. he took a risk. he was there a long time.

i did not think it is off the wall. host: mike from houston, texas. caller: good morning. i think the ceo of freddie mac and freddiefannie mae got a prey good deal for a government- sponsored enterprise. of all know the details this between 1999 and 2002. it puzzles me that the democrats make a claim against romney, how was it when obama answers a question about his past about what he was doing in the 1990's, or the man he bought the house from, none of these ever making

throughout the press a second day, ever. to the almost as if obama was born in 2004 -- it is almost as if obama was born in 2004. guest: franklin isn't running for president. i think some of those stories about president obama have gone traction in the press. the reason around bain such a powerful issue is because this is his argument for running for president. this is the experience he frequently cites. talks about his work at bain, more so than as governor. so this is a pretty powerful

thing for the obama campaign. host: what would stop the story? guest: i do not know how you stop the story. he will make a foreign trip. he will be in london and israel next week. that will shift attention a little bit. governor romney is expected to announce his vice president's choice in a couple of weeks. that will shift the conversation, as well. they are slo doubling down on their message that president obama has failed to guide the economy out of recession. host: lucenda from baltimore. caller: my dad was the head of a large company.

romney said that it took a leave of absence, that he was retired. then the company was transitioning to a new owner. romney was the sole legal owner on paper of that company. he was the main stockholder. there was no way he would not be conferring with the managers. he could be held liable for anything that went wrong. he is not just going to walk away. he would be negotiating and he would know what business transactions are going on. this is all smoke and mirrors. the man is a liar. guest: even when mitt romney was that the firm, people i talked to said he was a big picture guy.

he would oversee all the deals but he wasn't involved in the day today nitty gritty of managing the companies that bain was invested in. the problem is that he is the head and it is a conflict. host: barber from michigan on the independent line -- barbara. caller: i understand that governor romney created jobs. i want to look at the jobs that he created. staples is one of them. sports authority is one of them. i went to stables to buy a kindle reader and a telephone battery.

it looks like the jobs he jobs.d were low retail i will take your answer off the line because i want to hear what you have to say. guest: i hope your granddaughter enjoys the kindle. not only did it romney argue and outsource jobs and some of the investments led to companies going into bankruptcy, they also questioned the type of jobs that he created. folks at stables make less per hour than a street vendor. there are some questions about what are these jobs and are the good jobs? the other thing is staples was a pretty small investment for

bain. romney sat on the board for staples for more than a decade but it was a pretty small early investment for bain capital and they got out of it quickly. host: "the financial times" editorials, one of them deals with mitt romney at bain capital. host: part of it is jobs created and jobs potentially lost. guest: part of the argument why the obama administration wants to put romney at bain during

that time. thtey want to make governor romney responsible for those actions and they want to raise questions. a big part of why they're hitting this part is the outsourcing of jobs. host: dan on the republican line from ohio. caller: go back to when ross perot was a presidential candidate. he warned if we start all these free trade agreements, these jobs will leave the country. in the congress at the time, it was a bipartisan effort, eemocrats, republicans wer all for that. obama still supports all of the

free trade agreements. he does everything he can to send jobs overseas. mitt romney came in and was taking advantage of the laws that were written by people like obama, that obama voted for. he took advantage of them in order to make money, whenever a company does or that are not in business anymore. what was going on was he was doing everything that these people in congress wanted them to do. they wrote this language into the law for these jobs to be allowed to leave the country. guest: i think dan makes a good point. thing romney has done has been illegal.

not releasing more than two years of his tax returns is not illegal, it is voluntary. he paid a pretty low rate, about 15%, also not a legal. how does it play politically? host: "there is nothing illegal about this." host: donald on the democrat's line from kentucky. hello? you're on.

caller: i have a question. what is the question between outsourcing and offshoring? means you'reurcing -- creating the jobs. movingcing means you're current jobs abroad. both of the mean jobs not in the u.s. host: shannon on the independent line. caller: bain represents a particular culture that is for people succeeding and guarantees the failure of a lot of families. burlington coat factory, bain takes over and they lay

everybody off. you see that report throughout the country. you see workers complaining about burlington laying people off and nobody can work. romney supports wages -- they pay minimum wage jobs. they will not give us full-time work. there is no health care. i hope this is elevated within the campaign season. guest: i think it speaks to a shift in the country's opinion about wall street since he ran last time. he was running in 2007 well before we got into the great recession and before the subprime crisis happened, well hed thethe crisis and mashenmes

economy. there are much less favorable views when romney ran for president last time. that is part of why the attack by the obama campaign has taken off. host: byron on the republican line, good morning. caller: we were bought out by kkr, a leveraged-buyout company and they turned our company around. the stock went from $15 to $122 in a relative short time. think bain capital does a good job. you alluded to the jeff immelt.

he is the jobs czar that was appointed by obama. he was the ceo of g.e. they are from china. i do not see how they could elect somebody that is a major importer as a jobs czar. i'll take your call offline. guest: i think he makes a good point. private equity does have a mixed recrod ord. bain is invested in staples and that grew to a major corporation. they invested in sports authority, sealy mattresses. the obama campaign is cherry

picking the worst investments, which is natural. there are some concerns about how this is further demonizing the industry which has already had a tough time on capitol hill. private equity investors pay 15% on their adjustments rather than 35%. there's been a lot of questions about whether that is appropriate in congress. private equity it does do a lot of good things. host: is there a figure on how much bain capital is worth? guest: they are worth a lot. host: trooper from texas on the democrat's line. caller: it seems like an ethics question. i have heard they created so

much debt that the bankrupt the companies and rated the pensions. pensions,ill workers' that is unethical. somebody told me that when he did go to salt lake city for the olympics, they called him man and he turned around and ran to the congress and ask the taxpayers to give $1.3 billion to pull that off. guest: mitt romney did lobby congress to help turn around the olympics. that is not that unusual that he would ask for help from congress. that is damaging for him because he wants government less involved with business so it seems like a bit of a conflict.

host: greg from florida. caller: good morning. i appreciate the kind of program that you have today and every day. let me get to my point. . think you're doing a good job i do not think governor romney has a position to stand down, particularly with them not disclosing his taxes. when you look at mr. romney, he is a capitalist. there is nothing wrong with being a capitalist. when they are running for the presidency of the united states, you have to look at how corporations go into cities and into secret agreements with their refuse to disclose what

the negotiations are with those large cities and municipalities. they refuse to disclose large tax breaks and the taxpayers and up subsidizing what the cities and mares have negotiated. they have proprietary rights not to discuss what they are bringing in. if bloomberg news is associated just by name only with mayor bloomberg in new york, he has shown to be an even-handed manneyor. he retains the common touch that, people understand about his wealth. guest: bloomberg has bloomberg news in a blind trust. what romney has done on his

taxes, none of that was illegal. everything was legal. it makes some people feel it is a bit unfair. it doesn't necessarily play well politically. mitt romney has talked about closing some of the loopholes and benefits he has taken advantage of, could be the mortgage interest deduction that covers people with second homes. he does want to eliminate those kinds of loopholes and make the tax code more fair for middle class people. host: lisa lerer is a staff writer for bloomberg news. thank you very much. we'll take a look with a discussion of what is made in the usa.

then a researcher who says american entrepreneurship -- but first, an update from c-span radio. >> a senate investigation finds europe's largest bank had lax control is that allowed mexican drug cartels to launder money. the report was released ahead of this morning's hearing. hsbc said its executives promised to fix the problems. the justice department said they are conducting a criminal investigation into hsbc' operations is and you can watch this hearing live on c-span.org . an incident yesterday were a u.s. navy ship open fire on a small ship near dubai. those freshmen received no

warning before being fired upon. one person was killed. there was about 10 miles off the coast of dubai. the u.s. ambassador to india it is conveying regrets about the loss of life and has assured officials that the u.s. government will conduct a full investigation. every port being released today says pending automatic cuts in federal spending will cost the economy more than two million jobs if congress fails to resolve the budget cuts s. the associated press obtained a copy of that report. those of some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip]

>> there has been a hostility to poverty since the war on poverty. lyndon johnson was the best president to look the part of -- to look at poverty issues the issues and spend money and talk about his social service programs. lyndon johnson. i hate to say this, richard nixon is actually the father of minority business development. and inside his minority -- established the small business administration, minority business development agency and used the term economic justice. richard nixon. >> economic justice. >> the former president of bennett college for women regularly writes and comments on the politics, education, and african-american economic history. live, sunday, august 10 at noon eastern, your questions, calls, e-mails and tweets for julianne malveaux. the author of "365 facts and black economic history." in-depth, august on c-span2's "book tv."

>> "washington journal" continues. the c-span joined at cable by robert scott and also by bryan riley. thank you for coming on. how would you define "made in the usa"? guest: it is almost everything. we make about 84% and import about 16%. you compare that to china, mexico and most countries import a lot more than we do here in the united states. many products are made from parts all over the world. it is not clear to many people how much we still make in the united states.

host: the topic of "made in the usa" became a big news when it came to olympic uniforms. guest: i think we need to ask what kind of goods we are importing. there is a much bigger footprint, all the goods that are produced and sold in the united states. i think it is in much more significant issue. team usa and yet they were wearing uniforms that were made in china. that was a missed opportunity to promote made in u.s.a. products.

host: are there purely made in u.s.a. products? guest: they were looking specifically at the blazers that they were wearing. you can get blazers and suits that are made in the united states. host: as far as what is made in the usa, are our strengths? guest: the people who should be out rate should be people in china -- be outraged. they are sending their money to a wall street company. can you imagine if the tables were reverse? lauren employsh

twice as many people in the united states. do we want them in front of a sewing machine eight hours a day? host: will create those kinds of jobs? guest: more economic freedom. look at a spectrum and have countries that are not free and countries that are free. new zealands, hong kongs, that is where people have more freedom. people tend to be a lot worse off in those countries. host: the idea of freedom when it comes to making things in the united state guest: i think it is a good idea.

planning and carefully targeted investments in order to fill up their productive capacities. germany invests heavily in training and workforce development. they have managed their industrial structure. despite competition from china, germany has a large trade surplus with the world as a whole. they are a country similar it to us. their wages are higher. they have more interest of government regulations and yet the more successful. host: you can join the conversation by asking them questions or sending us a tweet or e-mail. democrats, 202-737-0001. republicans, 202-737-0002.

ts.-628-0205 for independen you can send a tweet at twitter.com/cspanwj. what do those figures and those rankings mean if they are imported? guest: i have looked at imports by industry. the import share of total consumption ranges as high as 90% in textiles and apparel. we're almost entirely import consumers in those kinds of sectors. even with on the bills, the figure is up over 40% -- even with all automobiles. we have to invest to recover

those kinds of jobs. guest: those figures are a loyal misleading with respect to china. but it's something like an ipod. all the -- we capture most of the value from that product. the federal government spends so much and borrows so much money. it borrows over for under billion dollars -- $400 billion. that is the core problem that needs to be address to. host: danny is up first from houston, texas. caller: hello. what is made in the usa? i made a resolution -- i am 82

years old, retired engineer. i made a resolution unless entirely needed, not by anything that was not made in the usa. i found everything, if you look. host: how much time did it take you? guest: that is fantastic. that had to be your choice and it should not be somebody in washington, d.c., telling you how to spend your dollars. it is made in the u.s.a. because we have a 10% tariff on imported wool coats from other countries. i pay more and somebody else pockets the money. i think most americans would choose to do business with their

friends and neighbors. i can afford to% more on the suit. a single mother buying new shoes and t-shirts, those of the people that are hurt the most. guest: i think danny is trying to buy american. our own government is moving in the opposite direction and negotiations are taking place over the next global free-trade agreement. there are measures of el al law any kind of labeling to identify the country of origin, where things are made. if people are trying to outlaw that. they do not want to have consumers discriminate between products made here or in mexico or in china. that is a fundamental rationale

we should reexamine. related is the government procurement agreement, which says all government contracts have to be available for providers from any country. we're the only country that honors the kind of contract and we should we examine that commitment and use our public investment to rebuild our own industries. guest: i think we should encourage other countries to be open to u.s. products. people in the other countries should have the opportunity to buy our products to build their it infrastructure and their roads. host: the idea of who sends jobs overseas. both candidates have made claims about this about the other.

he addresses governor romney's tax proposal and if they would send jobs overseas. [video clip] >> by eliminating taxes, governor romney's plan would shift and crete 800,000 jobs in those other countries. this should not be surprised because his experian as has been hit in investing in the business of outsourcing. now he wants to give more tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. i want everybody to understand that i have a different take. we don't need a president who plans to ship more jobs overseas or wants to give more tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas.

i want to give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in ohio. i want to give incentives to companies that are investing in you, the american people, making american goods that we can sell around the world at would say " made in america." host: that is president obama from cincinnati. there is a story in "the wall street journal." you can comment on that. guest: i think what the president is trying to do is to encourage firms to move investment back to the net states and i think that is it wise move -- back to the united states.

the proposals that candidate running has made would increase the incentives to do that. i am concerned about these kinds of tax policies and what they will do. u.s. multinationals have cut employment while they have expanded millions of jobs to the work force overseas. guest: look at the big picture of outsourcing. in 2010, people and other countries invested $2 in the united states. there is a net $4 trillion in the united states for creating jobs. we need to have more freedom. the ones that tried to control

things from the government, they are the ones that will suffer. host: territorial approach? guest: we do not want to subsidize companies -- a government agency which guarantees investments if you go to another country and your property -- the taxpayer will bail you well. those are the kinds of things we need to look at. host: sheila from delaware. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't understand people when they start grouching about china taking our jobs. we would do it. i don't know why they are doing obama to darn much. the rich is doing it.

government support these companies and take money to hurt us around here. i do not understand it. was a republican and now i'm going to be a democrat. ook at who owns nikew and ralph lauren. that is the money they need to retire on. we need to -- if we have the successful company, the government is responsible and i think that is outrageous. host:van from winchester, ohio. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i am a first-time caller. hello? host: go ahead. caller: i think the republicans and the democratic leaders in this country failed american people. there really hurt america and what american people want is a free trip and a fair trip. i'm listening and i hear our leaders talking, especially mr. reid. he said to burn the uniforms for the olympics. most of these people amuse me. i'm laughing, go ahead and turn your ipad and turn your tv. your blouse,tburn

anything. we should benefit from trade, but it has to be free, fair, and balance to four american people. guest: i think the caller makes three good points. the trade should be free, fair, and balance. right now we have trade that is unrestricted but is not fair and is not balanced. we have a massive trade deficit that this places as much as 5000 jobs in the united states. trade is unfair. countries like china are manipulating their currency. a tax on all of our exports to china and the rest of the world. they want subsidies and that is

not a fair trade and we need to step in and correct it. we need to get much tougher with currency manipulation. we need to declare that china is a currency manipulator. there's a bill that would allow companies to ask for duties to be assessed against imports from china that are subsidized by manipulated currency. fair trade enforcement in the united states. they do not want to stop the subsidy they are getting from the chinese government. we to enforce the fair trade laws -- we need to enforce the fair trade laws. guest: i agree with the caller

and that fair trade is a good thing. you have something you want to sell and i want to buy it, and we agree on a price. what is not there is one people in d.c. listening to lobbyists -- lobbyists tried to get special handouts for the company's and that to me is unfair trade. fair trade is giving the people the choice to save the money without the government getting in the way. caller: i grew up in dayton, ohio, and i'm back here taking care of an aging parents. i watched national cash register and move south and other

manufacturing in the dayton region move south for cheaper labor. many operations moved overseas. this happened around the country but around the rust belt zone. how did both parties basically over decades sell the american workers and unions down the pike, and they have benefited handsomely. i wanted to ask about both parties with trade agreements. there has been a trade agreement n't liked. has a ligh could you talk about what percentage of their product now has to be --say you have a

product imports are from all over the world. what percentage of their product has to be made in the u.s. to then be labeled "from the u.s." i think china charges 20% tariff or tax for u.s. products and we charge china 2%. host: we will leave it there. there's a chart we have from a boeing 747 streamliner with parts from many places going to one specific products. what did you get from that? guest: 8 problem that boeing found when they decided to outsource countries all over the world was that when they went to put the plane together in

seattle, they found they had a bunch of parts lying on the floor that did not fit together. there were years over deadline in delivering the plane. i think companies are discovering their hidden costs to this globalized production chain the we have been hearing about and real advantages to investing in the united states. guest: there is a big bmw factory in south carolina. there are toyotas built in the united states because we have some of the best workers in the world. we need to focus on training and educating our work force so we can continue to compete. if you have problems in ohio and michigan, but the state policies in have that have caused these companies to move to texas or south carolina.

host: is that they made in usa product? guest: it is made with parts from all over the world. how do you decide what is made in the united states? how do you account for the profits that the retailers make selling ipads? it can be challenging. guest: i think there is a simple answer. cars that are made here and designed by u.s. companies and have higher levels of domestic content are made in the united states. look at some of the newer imports from korea. then i have 10% or 50% of u.s. content -- they may have 10% or

15% of u.s. content. guest: this is good for consumers and forces the u.s. to be more competitive. host: our topic is what is made in the usa? robert scott and bryan riley. you can give us a call. 202-737-0001, for democrats. 202-737-0002, four republicr re. caller: give me a couple of minutes, pedro. it is assembled in america. only 75% of the materials have

to be made in america to be called made in america. i believe in my opinion. i have been talking about this subject on c-span for over a year. 3 million skilled jobs available over the last two years, like welding and stuff. i'm not blaming anybody. our biggest problem is raw materials and our labor force has been trained to go to college. biggest diploma is a liberal arts and stuff. host: what is your question? caller: how can we bring it back? china sets up companies next to

the raw materials. they have a strategic way of manufacturing. how can we get the education back to get our raw materials back in america. host: thank you. this is from twitter from victor. guest: exactly. they have some many new factories in china because all the subsidies they get from the chinese government. invest $600 million in clean energy technology over the next decade. we can touch that level of public investment. china also competes in other ways that are unfair. the biggest single thing they do

is to keep their currency undervalued by 25% to 30%. they also subsidize and build their products here in this [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] guest: they are raw materials. scrap and a steel and scrap paper. raw plastics and hard coal. they are taking our commodities and turning them into finished goods. guest: i do not think we want to start to out-subsidize china. i do agree that raw materials are so important. and we need to find ways to free

up resources in the united states. i think we have a man untapped resources in the united states. many are not finished goods from other countries. over half of what we import we used to make something else. it is something that will benefit people here in the united states. one more thing, the caller was from florida. we pay about 40% more for sugar than the people in other countries, because the sugar are so powerful. host: this chart shows from 1981 -- employment trends going on. it shows an 81% jump in the service industry, and a -25% in

the producing industry. when we talk about the goods, what about service? as we? are we guest: it is growing. i grew up in the kansas. there was a sign outside the said every kansas farmer feeds 45 people. the next year it would say 60 people. eventually, it said over 100 people. farmers got more and more productive. our manufacturing professionals are more and more productive. and we have more people going into the service industry. that is good. i would rather have more doctors and nurses than those running the at sewing machines. it is the type of manufacturing jobs that i think we need to focus on. and by freeing up resources to have more doctors and architects and nurses, we should focus on that guest:.

what happened the last to the decades -- we have had a tremendous growth in imports and our trade deficit, and that has accosted us about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs. those people were pushed into the service sector. we had in balanced growth. to much in services. too much in srvices. retail trade, wal-mart and restaurants, these are not growth industries of the future. their minimum wage, a dead end jobs. there will not help people grow. host: chris on our caller: independent line. the problem outsourcing is -- the company makes billions in profits without having any americans do the work.

to have a company like sprint. like in the philippines, the people to dollars an hour. but americans are the ones taking out $100 a month for sprint services. they are making all of their wealth off of americans without hiring americans to do the work. this is what is creating this problem. are making money off of us who do have american jobs without having to hire any americans to do the work host:. americans doing the work. guest: i think the caller hits the nail on the head. the companies are making these decisions. i have looked at the activities of the last decade. 1999, 2009. back in 1999, companies used to

export more than they imported. they created jobs. but over the last decade, they shift to outsourcing jobs. lost 62,000 manufacturing facilities in the last decade. as i said, millions of manufacturing jobs. they have moved those jobs to other countries. it has been rated enormous profits. they are putting them into things made in the united states. it is one of the main issues driving the overall debate in this political campaign this year. this huge growth and in the quality. host: are there other industries, besides the auto industry, employing american workers? guest: of raw, there are over 5 million people in united states

to work for subsidiary companies, it is not just manufacturing across the board. if those jobs tend to pay better than the average united states wage. but the number that jumps out is the 5 million jobs in the united states. if someone wanted to invest from never country and create jobs -- it goes back to the gentleman trying to micromanage and control where you can invest. they are giving people the freedom to invest where they want to. if we can do that, 5 million will become 10 million in the future. guest: united states and foreign multinationals -- they are responsible for about 0.25% of our trade deficit over all. they were responsible for over half of our trade deficit in

2009. they may employ 500 million people, and more at home, multinational trade is lose- lose for american workers. that is the bottom line. host: lee is on our independent go ahead. line. caller: the federal reserve, you can follow it. our currency has been downgrading ever since then. and now i have a situation where they can go overseas and basically pay somebody pennis to do the same work we would do here. those pennies.ive penn thos the problem is, what has happened, since our currency is

so devalued and they can get so much for so little over there, actually what it does is it makes it harder for companies to operate here. i propose us starting over the whole system again. kenning read of the fed and basically, one of the other point i want to make is -- guest: in general, when they start to complain about international trade or china, they are trying to divert people's attention from the real problem. problems in washington, d.c. from a government that is too big. i am not an expert on the federal reserve, but that is something we have to take a look at as well. guest: the fed has been one of the more effective agencies in response to the current economic

downturn. perhaps the only reason we do not have more unemployed workers at the moment. and the notion that the valuation of the currency is somehow causing our trade problems -- is mistaken. we need to actually have a lower value of the dollar, relative to manipulated currencies like the chinese. that would make us more competitive on world markets. other countries have made their currencies too cheap. i think the caller is right. it would be a good idea. we sought a general rise in living standards. and minimum-wage levels. and bargaining across the world. i think that would help in china and other places. host: we heard about mitt

romney's tax proposals. this is from yesterday. these are the ones sending united states jobs overseas. >> the problem here is not that there are evil businessmen who hate american workers. they bend over backwards to keep their business here. it is a lot easier. the reason they have sometimes have to go abroad is because their government treats them unfairly compared to their competitors overseas. we tax them too much, we regulate them too much, and there is too much uncertainty. when we are debating the subject about outsourcing, about people abroad making projects sold in the united states come ask ourself -- why would an american company to that? the answer is, they do it when they have got to. when their own government's policies make it impossible for them to compete effectively in the united states.

guest: the rates in the of the states are lower than they had been recently. that is according to a study by the budget office. our government policies do encourage investment here in the united states. what we need to do is focus more specifically on manufacturing and trade policy, those are core problems. guest: corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world. if you are running a company, you could move to offshore jobs, that is what we do not want to happen. the biggest problem is the government throwing out roadblocks making it harder to do business in the united states. giving a big difference between the statutory maximum tax rate and what is paid by companies. so many companies pay no taxes

whatsoever. there are lower here in the the united states and -- than in other countries around the world. giving every day i talked to our tax experts, they have said that our top corporate tax rate is either the highest or second highest in the world, depending on how you look at it. it is a big problem. does it mean we do not have different deductions? of course. we need something simpler, with low rates. that would be the best thing we could do from a tax standpoint. host: our next call from new jersey. caller: thank you. of the comment on the trade imbalance. it has been very specific to china. if you look at china's overall trade, they have a deficit with the rest of the world, and the surplus with united states. we allow them to pick our

pocket. i will give you an example. united states made cars, detroit was the king of the car industry, china would not allow american cars to be imported to china, if you want to sell cars to china in you aregm you have to build and china and make china a 51% partner. you have to teach them to make cars, and they make a company on the other side of the street copying your cars. industry after industry, it is going on with the aircraft industry now. the boeing aircraft. and the chinese are busy right now building a commercial aircraft industry off the back of the american aircraft industry. general electric is teaching them how to build airplanes. there was just a major find by general dynamics, because they gave them the software for how to run at helicopters.

my question for our guest is -- our president is pointing fingers. and yet, his offshoring policies have been if anything, more aggressive than those of his predecessors. united states for the first time sent jfk cannot put a man in space and have to go to russia and pay him millions to put a man in space. meanwhile, are present laid off 16,000 highly educated, highly compensated nasa engineers who are now looking to be graders at walmart. guest: -- intellectual property by chun and other countries. that is something we need to handle. companies are well address that when i go to china, they could be at risk of intellectual property loss. one reason we have been successful is more able to import products from around the

world and export everywhere else. those products in china -- the reason they have been able to get such economic growth, the relaxed controls to some extent. the last thing you want to do is try to copy the types of policy that china has done to make their people pour. we are better off when we use our players as well. guest: the fact is the trend will continue to manipulate and do everything it can. it wants to steel industries away from united states. manufacturing policies to rebuild industries in this country. we need to offset unfair trade policies in china. we need to use our workers and industries here in this country. host: next call. on our democrat line, pamela. caller: i have watched many

people from the heritage foundation for a long time. there is some sort of a connection to the chinese there. they do not seem to want anything for the american people. everything that they propose seems to be a pro-chinese policy. another thing i would like to say is that it seems to me like the crest of all of this comes down to the free-trade agreements themselves. if you look at each individual free trade agreement, the minute we make the agreements with those countries, the imbalance of trade becomes very clear and we get a huge trade deficit with those countries, just as soon as we make the free trade agreement. why we keep making them? why is there not a presidential candidate that represents the people of the united states who would like to revoke free trade? can we repeal these free trade

agreements? as for anything in them that makes them impossible to repeal them? why is not a presidential candidate, you hear 80% to 90% calling and saying that they think a free-trade is the basis for all of the problems in our economy, it is nothing more than international socialism. we are sending all of our jobs overseas to be done for $2 an hour. american labor is so much more expensive here. host: thank you. but as wrapup our final thoughts. guest: all we want is freedom, more freedom. if you look at the numbers and a look at the companies who have the most economic freedom, those of the countries where you have the lowest poverty rates, those are the countries where you have the most opportunity.

those of the countries where our children and grandchildren will prosper down the road. we want more freedom for the american people. we do not want more control from the government. all they do is remove a government barriers. we cannot repeal them if we decide they are not in our interest. there is nothing criminal about them. in the future, i think we need to expand free trade internationally the statistics show that it works for us. and we want all the poor people in china and around the world out of poverty. these agreements do that. guest: the presence of both parties have continued to negotiate free-trade agreements of bothpresident's parties have continued to negotiate free-trade agreements. with these agreements also do is make countries like mexico and korea -- glen foresexactly whats

happened after a put these agreements into place. i agree with the caller, we should get out of these agreements. she asked why we do not have a candidate doing it. i think the simple reason is that money is flowing into both parties. you have got to look fundamentally at issues like the need for campaign finance reforms. host: robert scott. epi.org bryan riley, heritage foundation, trade policy senior analyst. thank you. finally we will continue on on a theme with a discussion on the entrepreneurship in america. our next guest says it is in

decline. we will talk about why and what can be done about it. lina khan from the new america foundation. >> mitt romney the trouble to the pittsburgh area to talk about president obama's record. his expected to criticize the president for loan guarantees that he says are given to alternative energy companies run by obama-backers. president obama, who continues to attack mitt romney's tax policies, will be in san antonio and austin, texas. c-span is covering all of those events. turning to economic issues from the labor department said consumer prices were unchanged in the june. held down by cheaper gas. casper's is felt by 2%. food prices edged up 0.2%. mild price increases leave consumers with more money to spend it, and a lower inflation

also gives the fed room to launch more programs. that is intended to boost the economy. world shares and the perreault posting modest gains as investors speculated the fed chairman ben bernanke will hint at more monetary stimulus in his capitol hill appearance of this morning. and our futures are of about 50 points. in the the chairman of's testimony before the committee live in 40 minutes here on c- span radio or you can watch it on c-span. those are the latest headlines. >> if i am president, a job one for me will be creating jobs. let me say that again. my agenda is not to put in place a series of policies that get me a lot of attention and applause. my policy will be number one, creating jobs for the american people. i do not have a hidden agenda. [applause] and i submit to this coming at

you and the president will make things better in the african- american community, you are looking at him. you take a look. >> mitt romney the and vice- president joe biden spoke at the naacp in the houston. >> close your eyes and imagine. imagine what the mitt romney the justice department will look like. imagine when his senior advisor is robert. imagine the recommendations for who is likely to be chosen as the head of the civil rights division, or those other incredibly important decisions. >> what the entire video online. -- watch the entire video online. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: our final guest is lina khan. a new report looking at entrepreneurship in america. what were you trying to find out? guest: this is something very basic. when you walk the streets of america, you see the same stores in every city, no matter where you go, just change after change after change. when you look at the numbers and hear the reports, you hear that entrepreneurship is so strong america that independent businesses are generally doing well. so, we were trying to understand what is wrong with the numbers? where the numbers that matching what we see around us? that is what inspired the report. what we started it, we found that when you look at the number of old firms and new firms cricketer the last 74 years, there has been a general trend upward. it has been an extension. what happens when you account

for the population growth over that same time, there is 77 more million workers in our economy. we see any drastic decline. we see that, per capita, the number of new employer firms we are creating has increased by 50% since 1977. host: so the potential entrepreneurs out there, it is a lesser number than in years past? guest: yes. for every 10,000 americans, we created 35 new businesses. these are businesses that hire at least one more person in addition to every person at the firm. in two dozen 10, that number fell to less than 17. it is less per-capita. his on 50%. host: if this is right, that reflect this. new firms per 10,000 workers. guest: what i was just

explaining come in 1977, using that for every 10,000 americans, we created 35 new businesses. these are employer businesses a feve. by two dozen 10, that had fallen to 17. i think what is most striking is how continuous and longstanding it had been a period to look at averages across the decades -- we have been creating fewer new firms. by all means, the financial crisis accelerated the drop. but it is clear from looking at the graph that this decline has been in a play for a long time. host: how is your research trait being a entrepreneur? could it be someone who works for him or herself? guest: we looked at its two ways. at the firm lovell, and my firm we mean a business that is inc., registered, that pays payroll

taxes because it hires more people. and we also looked at the number of self-employed. that is exactly means people who work for themselves, who are in business for themselves, they do not necessarily hire other people. one of the striking things we found, even when you look at the numbers, on a per-capita basis, numbers have been falling. a peak in the early 1990's, since then we have seen a decline. host: the information from 1985 to 2010? guest: yes. we have another data set from the bureau of labor statistics. and that isolates non-farm workers. we have seen a long-standing a decline. host: what is the cause? guest: we wanted to lead with the numbers. we have not identified a smoking

gun. it would be simplistic to think there is one of driving cause. with that said, we have seen a radical transformation in our political economy. suspect what i was saying earlier, it is evident on the streets. where we once had a lot of independent businesses, a lot of variety, we now actually see a handful of companies that control almost every industry. so, take walmart. walmart now sells a third of groceries in the united states. uncertain metropolitan areas, the number is as high as 60%. 30, 40 years ago, these numbers were divided among tens of thousands of grocers. families who owned their own businesses. and a great share of that is now controlled by one company. and we see that across industries. we do not want consumers to think there is just one cause. but i think it is hard to ignore, and i think there's good

reason to think that these things are connected. host: as with the reagan administration? guest: in 1981, the the word -- the rework to the guidelines. the antitrust enforcement. it opened the floodgates threat to the last decades and it explains why we now see such immense concentration of economic power across industries. it should be said that the reagan administration was certainly responsible for writing this into law. but it was something that was supported by both parties at that time. you know, you had a lot of consumer advocates and for saying, high prices are bad. we need to change the rules to benefit consumers. the reagan administration finalized this and put in stone. host: what happened in the

reagan administration of the vote this time? guest: what we have seen since then is a lack of enforcement continue. the recent cases in the obama administration -- as with the at&t-t-mobile merger. it is just stopping a bad situation. i would not call it major enforcement. host: you can ask her questions about it by calling us. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-737-0005 for republicans. 202-628-0205 for independents. you can send us an e-mail -- cspan@journal.org. you are on. caller: she almost hit on what i was going to ask for.

in 1997, i started a business -- in 1977 i started a business in the united states. it goes back to what you are saying in the first segment about attaining wealth in the united states feared and when she said the laws changed in 1977 on a borrowing money on stocks that you were buying, they wanted you to have a larger reserve in it. and that knocked out almost all of the politicians, because when and sell it, you nucellus i only have your profits left over. it really knocked out the whole -- private owned businesses. host: i will leave it there.

financing is more difficult for small businesses. we have seen stagnant wages cut into family wages. made it harder to take risks. there are multiple factors at play. host: was the banking industry's role in this? guest: under entrepreneur orders are having a hard time securing -- entrepreneurs are having a hard time securing financing. what we also should look at is how centralized our banking industry becomes. basically, they dismantled regulation over banking in the 1990's. in the mid 1990's we still had maybe 45, 40 major commercial banks and united states. now, essentially four.

there are fewer players to get money from. their bigger bang spirit of bigger banks to not typically lead to the entrepreneurs -- the bigger banks do not typically lend the to the entrepreneurs. the president of the bank would have both the local knowledge and the authority to make that loan. the president of your local bank of america another has the knowledge or authority to make that loan. we have seen in that dynamic totally disappear. that is playing into this too. host: our next call. on our democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am wondering the impact employers paying for health insurance. i myself have wondered whether

to open my own business due to the cost of health insurance i need to provide for myself, and i would have wanted to provide it for my employees. when i hear about labor having issues, and they are arguing over benefits, it is usually the health insurance. the employer or the employee -- are they going to pay for it? they were doing well there. but they had more government intrusion. germany i believe has national health insurance. for me, i believe that if you take out insurance at of the equation, there would be a lot more people willing to open their own business and to hire employees. but when have got to be concerned about who is why did the health insurance, it is a big problem. guest: i think she is absolutely right. but the skyrocketing cost of health care and the fact that it is not as ragged -- relatively

available. there's not as much of a safety net, and that makes it difficult for them to make that leap and try a new venture. there are studies to look at. how much safety net, help insurance provided nationally. host: the next call on our democrat's line from houston, texas. caller: i know you mentioned a lot of small companies. what about people who are miscellaneous, such as contractors and building contractors. these are the one to make $250,000, $370,000. they are subject to all kinds of taxes. but do not forget some of the corporate write-offs.

but these are individuals. i used to have a bookkeeping service. the banks want under -- went under. i lost my job. i am a entrepreneurs. i have been a entrepreneurs for over 30 years. i come from wall street. you do not have to work from anybody. as far as health care goes, obama needs to regulate insurance companies, not us. not the people. giving there have been really interesting trends in self employment. i think what she was articulating about still wanting to be her own boss. is something we still see across america. and that is why the decline in the climate is so striking. even if you look at the firms, and you see a decline there, of the past 20 years, we have seen a shift to more flexible work

arrangements. more people working for themselves. but the fact that we see a decline there, it worries us. we cannot. by any single one factor. i think the main issue right now is acknowledging that there has been a decline. the decline has been a long- standing and it is a problem. why it is happening, and what we can do to finish -- fix it are good questions. guest: word is the fall and your analysis as far as the ability for a entrepreneurs to start a business? guest: poorly received -- those kinds of instances exist there be revisited.ld it is driving a truck of this

magnitude. especially, we have seen in the last 30 years, the move toward deregulation. so, absolutely, there are instances of regulation that are poorly conceived. i cannot say that is exclusively what is driving the decline. guest: lina khan talking about entrepreneurship in america. caller: i was wondering if your guest has done any research on the trends that have taken place currently, president obama, his initiative is to support education and academic research. i was wondering if she was aware of the monopolization of a i.t., innovation and technology, by investment capitalists, being generated by publicly funded grants at

academic institutions? guest: i have not specifically looked at that. i think it is definitely something that we should all be focused on. you have the monopolization across the board in almost every industry. if even in the high-tech sector, it is something that we think of as driving, having a lot of entrepreneurs. big companies can control that landscape. take out developers who are creating new applications. this is a big space for a new entrepreneurs. wet gets left out of this is that the app developers are still working on apple's turf. whether there's still room for entrepreneurship, it is happening on the land of some bigger company. i think the dynamic -- we should be wary of that. host: her feature is featured in the this magazine.

the title of the article -- the slow-motion collapse of american entrepreneurship. she is a co-author of this. you can find that on the "washington monthly" website. guest: this is part of a larger report that we publish. we also look at how this has been affecting establishments. we look at new independent businesses. establishment take into account businesses that are often times going by the same company. interestingly enough, we saw a drop there. less dramatic than independent businesses, but it was interesting to see that even the chain storms for -- stores are being formed at a lower rate. in a report, we were looking at how these companies, a lot of the self-employed are counted. one thing we came across as but

a lot of this data gets very murky very quickly. and we have seen both on the firm side and the self-employed side, over the last two decades, a structural change in how these things work here on the firm side, we see more and more companies outsourcing. on-shore outsourcing. walmart now out forces a lot of those operations to a logistics company. the logistics company outsources to another contract in company which contracts out another company, they in turn turned to a temp agencies. you are seeing this contract and is emerging. in the numbers come it makes it look like there's a whole ecosystem of new firms, even though, a lot of those firms are just reforming work that was once done in the house. a lot of these firms are also only serving one the company. i think the real question should be asked about whether you should be counted as a new hand businesses, when they are still

entirely dependent on one employer, one client, and oftentimes the client is at the top of the chain still calling the shots. one of the things we have also seen is the self-employed. we have heard more and more fuel working -- more and more people working in flexible work environments. oftentimes, those people are counted as self-employed even though the only thing that has changed is how their contract looks on paper. but they are still working for somebody else. host: gene is on our democrat's line for lina khan. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: thank you. "time magazine" had an interesting charge.

it is bipartisan private belief that republicans basically took the economy at the end of each administration, the economy is on a downward fall. well, this chart and the april edition, page 25, "time magazine" shows a spike in unemployment as they occurred at the end of each republican administration, and the democrat administration and brings the unemployment rate down and spikes back up. is there a correlation between the new entrepreneurs by administration's, you know, i will stop with that. i will take your answer. maybe i will come up with another one. it is early in the morning. host: thank you for calling. guest: it is a great question.

entrepreneurship had changed with economic cycles. there's nothing correlation of the chicken back to the administration. as i was saying earlier, was most striking is how continuing and longstanding the decline has been. the average number of a firm's created has been at lower across decades. so even with the high-tech boom in the 1990's, we were still raging less friends and we were in the 1980's. we have to find some kind of match with political parties and how that is affecting us. i think this requires a lot more research. host: on a business website, and man has looked at your research and has a questions. he says in short, they treat the past five decades as a static system. if you policy choices -- it is one of only two variables.

even if you except their argument that entrepreneurship was declining, there are other explanations besides reaganism. he talks about globalization, immigration, the decline of the industry and services and other things. guest: again, we do not mean to suggest that there is only one cause driving this. some of these are good points. things that people often bring up. a look at immigration. and so far as united states policy has been shutting the door and a lot of immigrant entrepreneurs, we have heard that we come here, we study to be engineers, and instead, we work in a store. oftentimes, people site technology as something else that has been a very disruptive source. and no doubt, it has changed a lot of industries. with a travel agents,

bookstores, amazon alone is changing and challenging small- scale and big box retailers. technology is something that is constructive. and you always have said there is a lot of ways and technologies that have helped entrepreneurship. with wireless credit card readers or bookkeeping. other factors that a lot of the entrepreneurship that we have seen in recent decades have been any high-tech sectors. this is something that requires more study, more research. the pointing to consolidation reflects how fundamentally our political economy has changed on that front. it is hard to the night you just walk the streets and you see that across industries. -- it is hard to deny. host: our next call is on larry

on the independent line. caller: having a company i am starting in minnesota. i have all of the products the i need. it is all of the stuff that came from the liberal dpa rulings. all of your heavy metals and all of this out of the smokestack. off and all of the stuff. here is the thing, i am starting a new company. and this is the product that i needed. my company is going to be called of the american enterprise cookie company. and they can only be given to republicans because there would be toxic to all of the other people. and i am sure that if -- gets elected, that would be just great. host: next caller.

good morning. caller: good morning. of a friend that has $60,000 and permiting with the epa, and everybody else. and he is not been able to lay a brick. and his 60 grand tied up in the last three years. host: is it because of rules? having met his right. arafat to do something. $60,000 tied up. he has not been able to lay a brick. giving a lot of people end up citing regulation as affecting small businesses. i think oftentimes, that is exaggerated. no doubt, as we are hearing from our callers, regulation can be hampering small businesses. oftentimes, that is an unintended consequence.

much of the regulation exists to create an even playing field. as far as hampering them, we should revisit that. the foundation, which is an organization that studies entrepreneurship very closely, they do surveys to a lot of start-ups and new businesses to find out what are the main challenges that they face. regulation rarely ranks high on that list. we see floor cells, one of the more interesting ones reason has been the complaint of -- they are not paying their bills on time. so a lot of small businesses are doing business for serving a bigger businesses. a bigger businesses to the edges of their market power. and they are not paying their bills on time. i think it is definitely important to keep in mind regulation. the regulation can hurt small businesses, but it is not something that the businesses at large have been complaining

about. host: here is calling from ohio on our democrat's line. caller: yes. my question is, how does this affect the increase or decrease of entrepreneurship? we hear more and more about millionaires and billionaires, and every year if increases. there are more repairs, more millionaires. but when they print money, they only print money that has to be destroyed. it does not increase when the day, you know, they do not increase, they do not just print more money. how does that affect the economy? and how entrepreneurs should develops? guest: she is planning to implement equality in this

country. so far, we have seen if your people become more wealthy at the expense of everyone else, no doubt, it is playing a role here. we hear a lot about the venture capital firms and what not. but the truth is, very few businesses have access to that kind of money. most businesses, even aspiring businesses, they turned to their own savings and to their friends and family. as far as americans, we have not been able to build as much wealth, of of the last few decades. that is another funding source that is not there anymore. i think, definitely these qualities played into this. the fact that there are more billionaires' and billionaires' shows the concentration of economic power. we are seeing is at the individual level and the company level. that should worry us economically. there are fewer new companies creating jobs.

your companies competing for workers. there are fewer opportunities for americans to build wealth. i think it also trouble as quickly as citizens. it means that there are less opportunities to govern our communities. at one of points, all of the businesses in your town, you would generally have some idea of who owns them. most of them are controlled from far away. it cuts into our ability to run our communities. host: whether any bright spots in the research when it comes to entrepreneurship? guest: i am sorry to say there were not really any bright spots. one thing that looked like a bright spot was the rise in any number of the incorporated self-employed. people who choose to formally register and incorporate their businesses. that has been increasing of the last two devon decades. but what of experts have commented, the growth seems to

just reflect existing, unincorporated businesses better choosing to incorporate to take advantage of certain tax breaks, the ability to write off your health care. and there is significant doubt about whether this is actually reflecting the new entrepreneurs are all activity. host: how much of this is based on faith in the economy? guest: that is a good question. that must play into it. with that said, it is interesting, of the last three or four years, we have not seen a promising economy. yet, when you serve a breeze and restaurants, people graduating college, about getting involved or starting their own business, the has been a surge of interest entrepreneurship. that is why it is called the diy

generation. it may not look so great, but is not deterring people from wanting to start their own businesses. host: our next call from new york. caller: good morning. my question is, if you could possibly put an estimate on the effects of foreign labor on the dairy industry? let me give you a case in point. since 1980, the country has lost over 100,000 dairies, yet the milk supply has increased state- level, but what i have noticed is that a bigger farms with immigrant labor. if they did not have access to that, what would be their incentive to grow? how would they grow?

my congressman told me that nobody wants to work. well, if you get bigger, you can drive the profit margin down. if the small guy -- in his profit margin is so small, of course he cannot hire anybody. so, is all just a big snowball. but if you can give me an estimate, maybe, on how many immigrants have it changed since 1980 until now, maybe that would give me an idea of what kind of an effect that has on us? host: when it comes to the self- employed, per 10,000 workers -- here is another charge with self-employed \ 10,000 workers. guest: it does include farm labor. independent farmers have release suffered of the last two dubbed decades.

but it also reflects an increase in the consolidation in the average culture and history, a handful of companies are really controlling dairy, meat-packing, i think and what of independent farmers really suffer the results. whether immigration policy is playing into that, i cannot say specifically. but there are various factors that allows state companies to become a bigger and abuse of power in a way that really hurts a lot of the actual farmers that are growing the chickens and doing the work. host: our next call from new york. you are on. caller: on november 14, two dozen 8 -- 2008 --

[inaudible] host: our next call from tennessee. caller: i want to thank c-span. and i want to thank you for the special guest you have on dealing with entrepreneurship and america. the young lady seems to be very honest and a very kind and her approach to speaking the truth. and a lot of your guests, unfortunately, are not very open and trusting, their comments. but i want to make this comment about american government. and is said to think that -- is sad to think that american people are hurting so bad. but she names some of the problems, having to do with some of the large corporations. and our government regulating

and putting anti-trust laws and things to protect the citizens in america. but here is what i think we can learn a great deal -- if we just remember, we have at three branches of government that all are supposed to be looking at the interest of the american people. we have a, actually, three reforms led by our president. and all three of those, except for the help, but all three of those have really -- what the american people need to get us out of this unfortunate situation. host: we will leave it there. especially about the role of government in this issue. guest: as i mentioned earlier, the lack of antitrust enforcement has played a role in exacerbating some of these trends. i think going forward, which shoot -- what we should really do is make sure that we are counting right.

as i mentioned earlier, one of the things what was most striking, when looking at this, the fact that we are seeing these declines, but the declines may be masking trends that are more stark and more drastic. partly because the numbers right now do not account for outsourcing trend, outsourcing how we now have a whole bunch of big businesses. people who really want to be working a salary job, and now have to work on contract or on a free-lance basis without benefits. they are being counted as self- employed. we need to adjust our measures and make sure that they are keeping pace with how our economy has changed, and how people not actually work and do business. and after that, we really need to revisit our antitrust enforcement and try to -- whether as a country, as

citizens, we really want a handful of companies controlling bigger and bigger portions of our political economy. host: in a few minutes, ben bernanke will testify between the senate banking committee. we have a few more met with our guest. from kentucky, dan is on our republican line. he could just go ahead with your question or comment. caller: mine is on the cost of living in different areas. we have seen at food prices and gas and all of these things affect everybody's paycheck. and it seems that people surely are not spending as much as they used to. and i just wondering -- how has this affected this downturn? this affected this downturn? has the cost of living