host: more on the victims to day and this is from today's "baltimore sun." host: give us a call and while

you are doing that, we will take you to the colorado governor speaking at today in response to the shootings. [video clip] >> this is an act that defies description. you cannot connect emotions we commonly think of and everyone i've talked to all day is filled with an anchor that cannot find focus. the challenge for all of us as a community is to recognize that we have to move past that. there will be a level of accountability. the individual is clearly disturbed. we will not know exactly the roots of that and how deep that is. we don't know where it came from but we are clear that we will

rise back and lift ourselves above this. we visited several of the families in the hospital and when you have that many people who've been injured, you have people with lifetime disabilities' and as a community, we're already beginning to come together. host: most of the major papers had editorials about this incident. this is from today's "washington post."

that is "the washington post" this morning in a different view from "the wall street journal."

that is from today's "wall street journal" editorial page. mary is waiting on the democratic line in fargo, north dakota, good morning. caller: i am very sorry for what has happened in colorado. the only thing i want to say is i am uncomfortable with the country because of the way the government runs it and they are a bunch of hypocrites and i am concerned that we're always trying to figure out the way to fund wars and we have been over in afghanistan and we went over to iraq and i think we should get our house in order before we are running off and figuring out how we can get in war with other countries. this young man is a product of our six society. i think we should start taking

care of our own people first. that's all i can say. i am very, very sorry. host: thanks very much. here are a couple of weeks -- we will go to the republican line with steve in wisconsin. good morning. what can society to two -- do to respond to this event? caller: my prayers go out to the families affected by this. i have two quick statement. in the 1962, i believe it was, our supreme court said we had to take the 10 commandments of the schools because if people

stopped and read them, what would be the outcome? a quick statement from the leader of the country who said this year will go down in history for the first time that a civilized nation has full gun registration. the streets will be safer. police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future. it was by adolf hitler on april 15, 1935 when he did the registration and took the guns away from the people and we know what happened since then. thank you very much. host: a few other editorials we want to point out -- "the washington times" editorial --

disagreeing with that editorial would be the editorial board of "the new york daily news."

that is "the new york daily news" this morning. i want to get the reaction from chicago from george. what can society do? caller: society can push for more mental health funding and make it more affordable and

accessible and without a stigma attached to it. sometimes when people go for mental health care, per society puts a stigma on that and says he is crazy. he is not crazy, they need help. in this country, our mental health facilities, we really don't have any but our mental health insurance or health is never taken care of, never. when we do have a group of people in this country that uses fear and intimidation for their practice is the nra and the gun manufacturers. as far as unconcerned, i consider them a terrorist group, thank you. host: those are tough words for the national rifle association. this is from twitter --

we also have tweeds from members of congress this morning. we want to take you to a few comments from facebook to date. that was the investigation by

the justice department -- in the justice department to send guns down to mexico as part of a gun trafficking operation. let's get one more call from alley share, from columbia maryland on the independent line. what can society do? caller:ioh, dear don not -- i do not have answers for that. i would like to, if you would allow me, to make two comments. host: go ahead. caller: let me give our love and blessings to our troops. be good to all of you. my deepest and that they -- and buffeted- -empathy to the people in colorado and all bore affected. host: where do we go from here?

how do we move forward from this? caller: my goodness, i don't know. it is a big problem. let me say that my other comment -- i would like to remind people that the county, the state, and the national government workers are all working together. if we just keep working together as a whole instead of always being turned away from each other, i think this could be a wake-up call. it happens over and over how many times? we have to have our hearts broke?

en? host: president obama talked about this incident. [video clip] >> i'm sure many of you who are parents had the same reaction i did when i heard this news. my daughters go to the movies. what if melia and sasha then were at the theater as the many of our kids to everyday. michelle and i will be fortunate to hug our girls a little tighter tonight and ensure you will do the same short children, but for those parents who may not be so lucky, we have to embrace them and let them know we will be there for them as a nation. so, again, i am so grateful that all of you are here. i am so moved by your support

but there will be other days for politics. this, i think, is a day for prayer and reflection. davidwe're joined by markell, senior editor at a politico to talk more about the presidential campaign and how they responded. what happened with the campaign's yesterday? they suspended their operations? guest: that's right, we just heard president obama there and i thought mitt romney made his own remarks in new hampshire with what was supposed to be a campaign stop. he talked about thinking of this as a father, grandfather, and american citizens of both sides really put politics aside. they also stopped running campaign ads particularly in colorado but other states as well. >> you mentioned the mitt romney

comments. let's show you mitt romney. [video clip] >> we know how evil is over, and we're seeing that greater power today in the goodness and compassion of a wounded community. grieving and ord families and our rorer are surrounded with love today and not just by those who are with them and holding them in their arms. bacon also know they are being lifted up in prayer by people -- they can also know they are being lifted up in prayer by people all over the nation. make everyone of them feel the sympathy of our whole nation and the comfort of a living god. there will be justice for those responsible but that is another matter for another day. today is a moment to grieve and remember, to reach out and help, to appreciate our blessings and life. calle

host: how long have a campaign suspended their operations? guest: it is in definite right now. i suspect it will not be for all that long, maybe three, four days. that is the kind of thing that often happens in these tragic situations. politics will get back to normal and probably be the way it should be. they are better off going silence. host: will this be a long-term effect from this incident on people watching the campaign? will gun-control become a bigger debate on the campaign trail? guest: i think that is pretty unlikely. there was not much galvanizing for gun control after the shooting of gabrielle giffords.

it has been brought up in the 2000 race. maybe things will change but i think it is unlikely that it shall come to the top of the political agenda. host: the president has made some of these incidents symbolic events in the past politically, thinking back to the obama speed after the shooting in arizona. what is the president doing in the coming weeks? will he give a firmer speech on this incident? is unclear if he will go to colorado. it would not be surprising if he dropped into colorado and maybe

the same for mitt romney but that is a double edged sword. they want to make it look like they are not exploiting a situation like this. they want to let the local authorities and the fbi deal with the law enforcement aspects. host: thanks for joining us this morning. bring up the gun control debate, david mark indicated that it was difficult to change gun control.

what does society need to do to move forward. caller: if you take a good hard look today from the time children are very small, video games, everything connected, 99%

is violence. if you look at the movies, everything that comes out of hollywood is violent. we get very little entertainment whatsoever. to blame gun-control, they have a bunch of kids who are being raised from the time they are small entertaining themselves with some sort of violence. 11 the world of fantasy. these things are not real. let's go back to what comes out of hollywood and video games and you will find your solution. host: thanks for calling in this morning. on the gun-control issue --

here are some statistics from gallup you can see how the debate has changed over the years. + ronald is waiting from a houston, texas on the democratic line. what are your thoughts on yesterday's tragedy and what government and other parts of society needs to do to move forward? caller: i think people need to

see jesus. he is the answer and [unintelligible] it is just sin is the number-one killer in america. it is time for this mission to repair and. repent. it is the cure for aids, gun violence, all violence whether you are black or white, whether you have a father or mother, if you've got jesus and christian values, you will make it. host: steamboat springs, colorado is waiting on the independent line. thanks for joining us, what are your thoughts? caller: i think it is a real

tragedy. i believe in gun control but i am wondering if you have a person that has all the resources that the university of colorado of neuroscience has, why would he needs anything but a gun? he had a bulletproof vest and tear gas and i would think that that is more abhorrent behavior than just a gun. that is my comment. host: thanks for calling in this morning. here are a few other comments from other folks -

caller: i don't know what the media need to do but what people need to do is get their kids off of television. they made -- they need to start putting their kids and promise of the drugs like prozac and the

psychotropic drugs and stuff giving their kids water with fluoride in it. they need to stop giving kids the vaccines that are loaded up with heavy metals. un the country makes me question the timing of this shooting thing. we're not supposed to be word about gun laws. we are under the thumb of the u.n. and the pest gun-control laws? host: we certainly want to talk about the gun control laws today. he is refusing -- here's referring to a long-term delegation -- this is from "the wall street journal"--

i want to point out that one of the reason this is month's negotiations is taking place is that the united states the world's biggest arms trader accounting for more than 40% of global conventional arms transfers reversed its policy after barack obama became president and decided in 2009 to support a treaty. we'll go to james now on the independent line from missouri. thanks for calling in. are you there? caller: yes, i'm here. what i would like to say is the

trial that the kid that did the massacre and everything is probably going to go on trial for a long time. we already know he's gilty. we should rule harsh judgment for people who are going to do this again and stuff will know that they're not going to get treated real nice. but with the in soltry and by themselves and stuff like that. that's about what i want to say. i think we ought to put harsh treatment on the people doing these type of things. host: thanks for calling in this morning. wesley from sacramento, california is next on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: thank you very much. tomorrow i will be 72 years old and i've been retired from the marine corps after 20 years. retired as a master sergeant 32 years ago. i have never owned a weapon since i have been out of the marine corps. there's no reason that a person needs machine guns, automatic

weapons. the nra has has the congress by the throat. and these people have gone on with the nra, until they're out of office we're going to have trouble for a long time to come. host: tell me your thoughts on the media's responsibility and hollywood. what responsibility do you think they have in the wake of this tragedy? caller: like one of the earlier callers mentioned, hollywood produces nothing -- look at the video games that kids are going to play and the parents who have no control of the kids any more. thanks tot good government coming in saying if you scream too loudly the kids can call 911 and have you locked up. so i think the media has the

responsibility and since the supreme court came out with all these laws stating that the laws talking about free speech, just look at the language used on television. so kids are coming out not having to listen to parents and anybody else in authority. host: thanks for the call this morning. dennis writes in on twitter. ,oror my comment is the assault weapons ban that occurred in that sunsetted in 2004 when the democrats took over the congress why didn't they enforce more gun control if that was their goal back in 18994 when they also controlled

the congress? they could have brought that up during the two years that they were in control. host: why don't you think they did? caller: because they could give a rat's you know what about any of these shootings. the only reason they didn't bring it up is because it's an election year. so just like the new york daily paper that you just showed, everybody who is an nra supporter as being part of the shooting. well, are you standing on principle if you're not going to do an assault weapons ban that you believe full heartedly that it should be enforced? it is hypocritical and it is an election year. and the other thing, it's none of your business what the people who -- whether they want to have weapons in their home or not. it's a second amendment right. and if you don't want to have it that's fine. if you don't want to protect

your family that's fine. but you stay out of my business. host: a response here. the "washington post" yesterday gave a rundown of president obama's stance on guns and what he has done from his election onwards.

irkse to col now. colorado sprippings this morning. thanks for calling in. caller: thank you. >> host: your reaction to yesterday and where society should go to hear from here and moving forward. caller: i just think it's a sad day in america when you have to fear for your life in order to do something all american like go to the movies. it's just really sad. my heart goes out tot victims, to the families.

i just want to say that i feel like they really need to put controls on the internet and they should not have information readily available like how to make bombs. and these people should be held libel in some part for the materials purchased or the information used to cause these shootings. host: thanks so much from the call from colorado. i want to point out a graphic in today's "washington post" talking about the deadliest u.s. shootings.

host: to illinois on the independent line this morning. thanks for calling in. caller: i think it's ashame that gun control is not even on the table. everybody is talking about you've got callers calling

saying we need to restrict the movies, the video games, i mean we have people that think we should restrict voting rights. but we can't restrict assault weapons? this is getting out of hand. it should be what's best for our country. i do an internet talk show and people call in every day. the people want gun control. i don't care what anybody says. we don't want to take your guns away. we want gun control. we need to stop this craziness. there's a combination of everything. everybody has to have some responsibility. host: whose job is it to lead on this effort? there's been a lot of voices including new york mayor miking bloomberg has spoke out yesterday about this issue. where does it need to come from? caller: well it has to be grassroots. the people have to step up. we know for a fact that the politicians are bought and paid for. the gun lobby is very strong

and once again i support the constitution but i support all of human rights. i don't support just one right. the gun right. i do a show called marshall talk. people call up and nine out of ten people say we want to keep our guns but we want to have gun control. host: thanks for call. we mentioned new york city mayor michael bloomberg said yesterday should note in the few minutes we have in this segment a few other stories from around the country in the papers today on the campaign trail this from the "washington post."

a few other stories this from the new york times.

a few calls left in this segment. sharon on the republican line in florence, south carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: your thoughts on yesterday's tragedy? caller: it is a tragedy and my heart goes out to them. in the discussion about gun control, a determined mind is not going to be held back by legal controls of nearly any variety because you can spend months preparing for something that you feel in your mind is something that you want to do.

so control doesn't always stop that. and i am from the south. i spent my entire life in the south and in south carolina where gun ownership is a fairly high percentage. it's a normal way of life hunting and fishing. and you're brought up with responsible gun ownership. and if we anecdotally look at how many people own guns especially in the southern states, especially in the carolinas, for example, the incidents of these occurrences is exceedingly rare. and we all watch the same movies that everybody watches, we play the same video games everybody watches. and it's -- that's it doesn't lead itself to say shut down the guns and you'll shut down the problem. and i think our founding fathers when they were creating the right to bear arms, their concern was is that once you start putting laws in place -- and i understand we want to be

reasonable -- but their concern is it's a slippery slope to a police state where the citizens have no arms and the police are the only ones that do. so trying to balance that out is i think recognizing where thing ks go. host: thanks for the call in this morning. i want to get one more tweet in on this subject. the last call we'll take on this segment is from laura on the democratic line out there in colorado. thanks for calling in. caller: caller: i'm here. host: make sure to turn down your tv. caller: ok. what i would like to say is how do you get assault weapons off the internet?

host: we're going to have to leave you there. thanks for calling in this segment this morning. we ran out of time. make sure to turn down your tv the next time you call in. up next we'll take a look at the dodd frank act on its two-year anniversary today and later in this edition on the "washington journal" the impact of the drought conditions and how it's impacting farmers and food prices. on "newsmakers" this week the top democrat, representative adam smith of washington, was on talks about sec stration defense spending cuts, u.s. policy toward iran, pakistan and afghanistan. here he talks a bit about the sec stration and the calls to let the bush era tax cuts expire. >> what if senator murray said is if the choice is between extending all of them or letting all of them expire that she would choose letting all of

them expire. her preferred position and mine is to let some of them expire but not all of them. but if -- it depends on how the majorities play out in this election obviously. but if the republicans insist that it is all or nothing, then i think what she said is that the better policy position is nothing. let's keep in mind that would give us the tax rates that we had in the late 1990s under president clinton and a republican congress when we had the strongest economy we've had since world war ii. so obviously those tax rates that existed prior tot bush tax cuts can sustain a strong economy. >> do you feel the same way about sec ster? are you prepared to cross that line if you don't get the kind of concessions from the republican that is you hope? >> well, i think that's a more flexible thing. it depend on what offers are put on the table. i didn't vote for it in the first place. i thought it was a terrible idea. we heard testimony this week

that essentially this was built off of the graham rud man hollings sec ster from the 1980s. and everyone who has ever supported this has said we don't think this should happen. we don't think it's a good idea. it's a forcing mechanism. it's so bad that we believe it will force people to act. unfortunately they've underestimated the current situation. and now we've got something that even the people who supported it say it's so bad it shouldn't happen. so we're reaching the point where one of the wise courses of action would be to say we're not going to do this. we still have to deal with the deficit but we're not going to put a gun to the head of the economy in this fragile state forcing that. so sec ster is a clear problem. there's no way out right now. >> and you can see the entire interview on sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern and at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. also available on line at www.

c-span.org. and today marks the second anniversary of the dodd-frank wall rereform act. and oun this serkt birthday we're joined with financial times reporter. first describe for us the biggest impact the law has been for sort of the average household consumer over the past two years. guest: i would say probably the biggest impact thing that most people can see most readily would be the consumer financial protection bureau. this is the agency that was solely created to protect borrowers from abusive lenders. and it's the first time there's ever been a federal agency solely dedicated to the purpose. in the past it was relegated to bank regulators. now there's this one agency they're looking at everything from the credit bureaus who have our histories to looking at mortgage lending, credit cards, overdraft fees on your bank accounts. student loans and the rest. that probably would be the most easy thing to identify for the

average household. >> and that board that got set up has only been around for about a year now even though the act is about two years old. this is about the first birthday of the protection board? guest: exactly. they were in the treasury department now they've been an independent agency they celebrate their birthday today. host: and they actually recently came down with their first major enforcement action, if i'm correct. is that right? guest: that's correct . host: who was that on? guest: capitol one. basically the orn cc and this consumer agency they found that capital one was engaging in deceptive marketing practices. so combined they levied fines and ordered refunds totaling about $2010 million. >> host: so you say the board is the biggest impact. what about the impact of this law on the financial system in general? what has been sort of the biggest impact area over the past two years?

guest: well you can look at it from the perspective of the average household. so you have various rules and agencies designed to ensure that people get loan product that is they can afford to repay, that they have an ability to repay the credit cards and the mortgages that they get. and then that kind of filters up tot banks and into the overall banking system where you have rules that are designed to make sure that banks engage in less risky activities, that they're not as connected as they were prior to the crisis, and that they hold more cash aside to guard against unexpected losses. so the way i kind of make it easier for myself to think about is you want to protect borrowers. then you want to protect the banks from making bad decisions. and then you want to protect the overall system so everyone has enough cash set aside to guard against losses where if one would fail it wouldn't impact their peers and also you would make failure less likely because you have more folks

hold morgue cash aside against catastrophes. host: again, covering these issues if you want to ask him some questions on this second birthday of the dodd frank wall street reform act give us a call on the democratic line, republican line, independent line are on the bottom of your screen. so two years in, how far along are we in sort of implementing all the different things that the dodd frank act called for? guest: it's hard to say. the biggest rules i guess from the banking industry's perspective is how much cash they're supposed to set aside to guard against losses. and the reason why it's an issue for them is because the more cash they set aside essentially the less profit they can generate. that's the easiest way to look at it. if you look at the actual rules

and requirements there's as close to 400 of them that the regulators are supposed to implem. so much of the law is yet to be actually put in force. but the industry knows it's coming so they're starting to moderate their behavior in advance of these rules becoming final. so there's pretty much two ways to look at it. host: and a helpful graphic on this that we found from davis polk.com. as of today it's about 8,8 43 pages of rules and regulations. only about 30% complete. guest: exactly. host: what's the biggest part of the act that's still yet to come down in terms of rule making and regulations? guest: that's a hard question

to answer. there's a lot of rules proposed that have yet to be finalized. from the industry's perspective , there's just so much to cover. i guess from the industry's perspective it would be how much cash they're supposed to set aside. it's called bank capital how much they're supposed to set aside to guard against unexpected losses. from their perspective that's probably the biggest remaining issue. but then also for the largest firms on wall street there's all these rules regarding derivatives which are financial instruments whose value is derived from underlying things like interest rates and mortgages and what have you where these rules are still coming down the pike and have yet to be finalized tand way in which they're implemented will affect the bottom lines for banks ranging from morgan stanley to b of a and jp morgan and city group. the most contentious is probably the voker rule. host: explain what that is.

guest: it's this part of the law that is called for which essentially tries to ban -- attempts to prohibit banks from engaging in proprietary trading which essentially is them trading for their own profit as opposed to if a sill trading for their customers. it seeks to prohibit that as well as large investments in hedge funds and private equity firms. so folks pushing for a more i guess radical reform of wall street they want to have the banks separate out their investment baverageing units from their retail deposit taking units. if you take deposits and you have access to kind of a taxpayer guarantee then you shouldn't be engaged in so called risky activities on wall street. folks couldn't get that. they instead got the voker rule the next best thing and this is probably the most contentious part of the law right now. host: how close is it to actually being implemented? it was supposed to be complement bid today.

correct? guest: right. it's not close at all. the federal reserve a couple -- several weeks ago, essentially told the industry that because we don't have a final rule if place yet you have another two years to comply. so the industry essentially has to convince regulators that it's doing its best to get ready so that when the rule is final that they will be if compliance. but the party is still on for another two years. host: we're talking with financial times final and regulatory correspondent. we'll go to buffalo, new york. karl is waiting on the democratic line with a question on this two-year anniversary of dodd frank. caller: we know from previous studies that regulators and investigators for, for example, the securities and exchange commission, many of them end up taking a very curebby, much higher paying job on wall street with banks and so forth. so my question is, under this

newer dodd frank law, is there any requirement built in the law or the proposed regulations you see coming that would ban -- that would ban the regulators or investigators of this organization from accepting for two or three or five years curebby higher paying jobs on wall street if it's not built in there should bit? caller: thanks for question. to my knowledge there's nothing that attempts to restrict employment for government regulators and officials after their time is served or after they've served their time in the government. i know some of the agencies do have rules which essentially try to institute a cooling off period for some of their officials where for example if you work on a particular issue involving a particular bank you can't work for that bank until a year after your term in the government has expired.

host: the same idea with lawmakers and lobbying? guest: essentially the same thing so a lot have similar rules in place. but if someone from the s.e.c. wants to go work for goldman sachs tomorrow, there's really not too much of a restriction on that kind of activity. whether it should be, that's a good question. it's hard to say. at what point do you try to restrict an individual's ability to gain employment if someone's in the government and they're making let's say 120 a year it's a comfortable living. but if they have three kids who are going to college and they're tired of working for the government, if they want something maybe more exciting or something more comfortable, where you draw the line in terms of restricting the options. so it's a tough question for me to answer. i don't have an opinion on it. host: let's go to aaron waiting on the independent line from oregon this morning. you're on. caller: good morning.

one of the things -- and i want to get your comments on this -- you look at alan greenspan and his policies. and derivatives and his view on them. and multiple warnings to greenspan and his crew. and then you have this meltdown and now we're into this heavy regulation. so you go from greenspan, oops. and then heavy regulation. and i want to get your comments on your thoughts on this. guest: it depends on how you define heavy regulation. some would argue that there was very little regulation in the years leading up to the crisis. and the rules that were in place weren't properly

enforced. there is an argument to be made that since the meltdown or near meltdown of the financial system that the regulators have taken have an overly restrictive approach in which they convince law makers to add rules upon rules and give them more authority to police the financial system. it depends on your perspective. if you were previously underregulated ourn regulated, obviously the new regime is not going to work in your favor. but if you were a bank subjected to various banking rules and laws and you had regulators stationed in your bank and you were competing with other financial firms that weren't as heavily regulated, from your perspective, it may be a good thing because it attempts to put everyone on an equal playing field so no one can skirt the rules and offer products that are cheaper or less regulated and essentially try to put you out of business. so it depends on your

definition of what constitutes heavy regulation. host: on twitter this morning. guest: it's a fair point. so glass steeling this law which sought to forbid regular main street retail deposit taking banks from investment activities. so for example, the best way i can describe it is if you take bank of america. if you were to bring back glass spiegel you have have to take it from b of a and b of a could not engage in what would be defined as wall street activities. it's a fair point to ask or a fair question to raise in terms of whether we would need that

kind of -- whether it's better to have that kind of system and then get rid of all these other rules versus the current regime that we're in. congress had the opportunity to do this during the dodd frank debate in the spring of 2010 two senators brown from ohio and coffman whose no longer in office were pushing this provision which would have forced the largest banks to break up because they were getting too big for the system overall. now that provision failed in the senate. at this point, i just don't see congress taking this up. the banks are the size that they are. regulators hope that they will shrink in time due to the rules coming into place and higher capital requirements and the rest. and regulators sincerely believe that the largest will shrink but in terms of forcibly breaking them up i don't know if that's going to happen. >> you talk about congress' reaction to the dodd frank bill

two years in. we've instituted about 30% of what it called for. what has been the response from members of congress? are there still folks trying to stall this or even repeal it? guest: yes. the entire republican party is trying to stall it or repeal it. i think the general consensus is on the republican side of the aisle is that dodd frank was the wrong solution for the problem that faced the financial system in the country. you can look at it a variety of ways. it's either too much government involvement 2349 industry or it's too much regulation at a time when the economy is still weak. and layering on all these different rules and requirements could impede credit and lending, which if anyone has tried to get a mortgage recently or tried to get a loan for a small business, they know it's really hard to get a loan right now. and from folks who are critics of dodd frank they blame the law saying that this is making

it -- making lenders retiscent to lend money. on the democratic side of the aisle they look at dodd frank not as dodd frank but as wall street reform and it's their answer to the wild times on wall street that produced the most punishing crisis or most punishing recession since the great depression. so they have polling data which suggests that the law is overwhelmingly popular with the average household, that this consumer bureau is overwhelmingly popular with average house oledes. and from their point of view, if you think of the last few years they've got the health care law and this so called wall street reform law. those are their two biggest accomplishments. and they're rest sent to not stand behind it. host: a release from chairman spencer baucus, the republican head of the financial service committee in the house on the

two-year anniversary of the dodd frank act. that again was spencer baucus on this second anniversary of the dodd frank act. i want to show you a bit of bureau deputy director talking a little bit about the criticism his agency has received. >> sometimes lost and perhaps it's my own fault for not being

as clear about this as maybe i can be. the cfpb does not supervise or enforce the law with respect to small banks. there are 15,000 banks thriftses and credit unions throughout the country. our supervision authority extends to call it the biggest 105 out of 15,000. second, sort of a burden associated with abiding by regulations, although conceptually i understand that notion, the fact of the matter is that we have finalized two -- two -- substantive rule makings since being in business for a year one of which by its terms kept in place the status quo, the alternative mortgage parrot transactions act rule making and the other is not yet effective and indeed we have publicly said we are considering means by which to provide exemptions for small prore viders. so the burden argument with

smaller institutions i think we've been attentive to. host: talking about the cfpb. we talked about some of the folks against this. is there actually a chance that the cfpb could be dismantled or dodd frank could be repealed? is that a possibility? guest: absolutely. if mitt romney win it is presidency and the republicans hold the house and take the senate, it's tough -- you know, i say absolutely. and now on second thought, i'm not so sure. there are elements of dodd frank which are popular. so in terms of there's a lot of noise about dismantling. whether people follow through i have doubts. i think what may end up happening is they'll try to put more checks and try to weaken its authority and weaken its power and make it more subject to the will of congress. so taking away for example its independent fuppeding stream from the fed. i see that as being a more

likely possibility than dismantling the agency. host: let's go to texas. gary on the republican line this morning. caller: my question is will this new law prevent home owners from using their house like an atm machine? guest: that's a good question. i can't think of anything in this law that would prevent folks from taking out home equity lines of credit on their house and using it like an atm machine. i know that it does make banks kind of think twice about lending money to folks in terms of their now requirements that they have to keep in mind. they have to make sure that the borrowers have an ability to repay all the loans that they take out. but if someone has good credit and if they can afford the loans and they can afford to take equity out of their house, i can't think of anything in the law that would prevent that. host: a question on twitter.

guest: no i don't know to be honest. i can't think of anything that would restrict that. i mean dodd frank what it does do is it essentially deleets any references to credit ratings. and banking rules. banking laws. and so you could see a regime in which so called aaa is no longer means what it says. and so perhaps i could see something where some kind of similar activity continues to take place and there's no restrictions on it. but i can't think of anything off the top of my head. host: how long have you been at

the financial times? guest: about nine months or so. host: what were you covering before that? guest: i was at the huffington post host: and before that? guest: at the center for investigative reporting, a nonprofit news room out of berkeley, california. host: we'll go to oregon now. ted on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i have been just an observer of this downturn since 2008. i've never cared about a fico score, i've never had a loan. with me cash is king. and as far as glass spiegel, that was a 34-page document that worked flawlessly for 70 years until the repeal by the architect, senator phil graham from texas, a fine republican, and with this, we've got 2,000

pages of dodd frank which does not seem to want to be applied to wall street, the bankers, to the money changers that were the architects of this downturn. i just want to know the difference between dodd frank and glass spiegel why we can't bring that document back. thank you. guest: that's a good question. i guess the easiest way i can describe it is glass spiegel at the time you could kind of define it and look at it as a meat cleaver in which it just sought out to separate essentially banks' access to a taxpayer safety net or guarantee. separate that, separate risky activities away from that. so if you want to engage in trading or various types of other so-called risk activities on wall street you wouldn't have access to the kind of

taxpayer safety net. and because of that the thinking goes you would think twice about taking extreme risks because no one would bail you out. dodd frank didn't take that approach. it was more of a scalpl on which they tried to limit certain activities and tried to curb others and just put more rules and requirements on banks to incentivize them not to take these risks. whether it works or not, i mean people are split. it's tough to say why law makers went for this approach as opposed to a more simplified approach. i don't have an answer. host: a couple comments. host: and one other one on twitter from obama games. we'll go back to the phones. atlanta, georgia on the independent line.

caller: my question is, as far as the job act that is passed that allows hedge funds to be advertised, is there anything in the voker rule that addresses hedge funds as far as content? f and the form of advertising to accredited investors? guest: i don't believe there's anything that would limit such or that places any kind of restrictions on advertisements to accredit investors which you're referring to is part of the jobs act which was passed recently. overwhelmingly in the house that was signed into the president by law. what that sought to do is make it easier for businesses to raise capital and one of the provisions in the jobs act allows for hedge funds to advertise to accredit investors where as before they were restricted. there's nothing in the voker rule that places any kind of limitations on what kind of advertisements they can make. host: as i understand it was

advertising city bank was doing that got them caught up by the protection board is that right? some of their credit card advertise sng guest: capital one. it was more -- it was along the lines of their payment protection plans. various credit monitoring. it was essentially their marketing practices that were deemed unfair. host: did they acknowledge wrong doing in this case? or what was the outcome? they were just fined? guest: they were fined. they agreed to refund consumers and make them whole. whether they admitted fault i don't recall to be honest. but i do remember them apologizing. host: what is this costing city bank to make this right? guest: capital one. host: capital one. guest: about $210 million. the i want resting thing is any consumer harmed is going to get a full refund where for various

other settlements, those who wrp harmed don't always get their entire money back. but in this case everyone will. so it's a change. host: let's go to loss als to california. mike on the republican line. you're on the "washington journal." guest: thank you for taking my call. i want to ask you a question. we had a caller a few moments back who said phil graham was responsible for moving the protection for the consumer and it turns out that also bill clinton and ironically d.o.d. and frank were also involved in this. how come they're allowed to help destroy the system and then allowed to make laws later that protect it? i think it's really tragic. and when i look at it it's a disgrace. to me they're the people who are really responsible for opening the chicken coop up to the foxes. and they get a free pass on

this. could you please comment on this? guest: sure. it's a fair criticism to raise. a lot of the folks -- well, as you just described glass spiegel was null fid by an act of congress and signed by the president and the president at the time was president bill clinton and some of the folks arnt champ dwrns were folks like larry summers who became president obama's first -- he was the head of the national economic council in the obama white house and other folks who are at the treasury department now were also involved in the clinton administration back then. and so this did come up a few years ago when dodd frank was kind of gearing up and those deliberations were happening where you had officials who had pushed to deregulate the system were now in positions of authority in which they were pushing for reforms that would reregulate the system.

it's a fair question to raise. in terms of my opinion on it, people's minds change. they learn from experiences. it's hard for me to judge whether or not someone is particularly able or has any kind of credibility with respect to the positions that they're pushing. i can only trust that they're doing the right thing. host: from twitter. guest: that's a good question. i don't know to be honest. i think there's a fair point to be raised in which if the regulators were properly enforcing the laws that were on the books that perhaps they could have curbed the worst of the activities that did lead to the near collapse of the financial system. and if regulators and the treasury department and the fed were more proactive early on the in the crisis that we wouldn't have experienced the

worst of it later on. if dodd frank was in place would all of this have been avoided? i think the administration believes so. and and i think they say so publicly. i don't know if i think that's the case though. host: and for those who were pushing dodd frank after the collapse two years on, are they satisfied or do they feel like they should have asked for more? where is dodd and frank today on their act? guest: barney frank is very proud of dodd frank. he has since said that there are some provisions in there he wished he would have pushed harder for. there are others in which he has said that lawmakers got it wrong and that they need to moderate it. dodd has since left the senate and is now working for the motion picture association. i think he's still a champion of his law.

the administration still supports it and they're still very sensitive to criticisms of dodd frank in terms of whether it restricts access to credit or whether it creates uncertainty. or even from left whether it's even tough enough. they're very sensitive to that. host: you asked about criticism about whether it's tough enough.

we'll go to florida now bob on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like the gentleman to address my question or my statement about banks should go back to banking and not deal in equities or day trading. if they want to deal in the stock market let them do it with long term capital gains. this day trading is a hey day with bampingse. it's just an absolute sin. if i were a banker i would be having a hey day too. so they need to put banks back to banking and let brokerage firms deal in equity stocks.

bonds, fine but they're having a hey day with the stock market. and that's a horrible result. guest: if i'm not mistaken i think the data shows that most of -- i mean, the trading in equities isn't conducted necessarily by the big dealer banks it's by the small firms set up to day trade and try to find price distortions and long story short it's pretty much the specialized firms that do a lot of the day trading as opposed to the banks. but there is an argument to be made that banks should be banks and if you want to be an investment firm you shouldn't have access to the taxpayer subsidy or to a safety net. and there are folks in government who feel that way. one of the members of the board of directors of the federal deposit insurance corporation, who prior to this was head of the kansas city fed he has believed for-year-olds that

banks should be banks -- he believes in the modern day glass spiegel if you want to engage in investment, if you want to be a player on wall street you shouldn't have access to the fed's discount window and accept deposits from folks and have deps silt insurance. you should be on your own. and if you have access to taxpayers, you shouldn't have access to these kind of risky activities. host: thomas on the independent line. caller: i spent over a decade

as a compliance officers in banking. so i'm very intimately familiar with the topic that we're talking about today. and we could talk all we want about capital ratios and all that. but let's get to brass tacks here. in -- earlier caller mentioned graham-leach-blily and i thought it very interesting that d.o.d. frank, the one thing that wasn't cut off was the connection between banks and insurance companies. just one point that i had. and another thing in regards to whether or not dodd frank would have prevented the crisis, the

mortgage lending crisis i think a big problem with that was the actual mortgage fraud that was actually going on especially in the subprime lending. i don't think it was a secret, in fact i remember very vividly back in probably 2003-2004 people had -- were worried about fannie mae and freddie mac. even the fact that they were government sponsored enterprises which of course has change add bit now. host: let's give get a chance for the comment. guest: i'm not sure what the question is. host: want to give you a chance to jump in on his statement about fannie mae and freddie mac. guest: it's a fair point. it doesn't address fannie mae and freddie mac they're still wards of the state and no plans of exit. prior tot crisis they had a guarantee. everyone who bought stock thought it would go up.

anyone who bought their dt assumed that they would be made whole in case they ever fell into trouble. so there was really no restrictions on fannie's and freddie's activities. and they had a lot of influence in washington. it's changed since then. but at the time they were able to essentially engage in whatever activities they wanted. now there are curbs on that that at the end of the day they're still wards on the state and there's no exit in sight. host: on this second anniversary the boston globe notes that only 120 of the 39 regulations enumerated by the law are actually in effect today. how long do you think it will take? guest: it could take a couple more years. there are deadlines but at the end of the day they can push those deadlines and extend past them. given how so many of the rules

are very contentious and requires all the regulators to be on the same page and they have different interests, concerned about different things it's not easy to reach consense suss. it could take a couple years. host: the "washington journal" back in june did a series on the financial institutions and financial agencies. some of those that were created by this law. carol on the republican line. caller: thank you for this subject. i'm a small business owner and i have a son in-law that has a dentist company. as soon as this went into effect, the money freeze for small businesses just literally got cut off. and talking about fannie mae and freddie mac. isn't it amazing, i watched

this on your -- on cnn constantly. they kept saying the republicans wanted them to do something about it and all senator dodd, one of anglo's friends he said that would be too hard and frank didn't want it either because he's the one who pushed this. so here's the thing that got us into it and those two slimes wouldn't do anything about it. senator dodd got his daddy's job when hall young was there. he's been is you canning off the. the presidents don't get it. don't know how the economy works and these are the guys in charge just like nancy pelosi and harry reid screaming for romney's tax records show us yours. and she says that's a different thing. yeah she gets to be one of the first for ipos and all the other things. the senate and the government that we need to see their tax records. these are the people making

these laws just like these laws in health care. their staffers end up putting what's going in them. when they pass they did not know what was going into dodd frank. host: talk about some of the criticism that has come down on mr. dodd and mr. frank since the two years. guest: where do i begin. well, senator dodd was a long-time member of the senate banking committee. he was part of the group that did push for to try to deregulate wall street and free up capital. in hindsight whether that was a good idea or not remains to be seen. it's not for me to answer. congressman frank has come under severe criticism by republicans who argue that when there was an opportunity to curb fannie and freddie, he was among the companies most ardent champions. it's a little bit unfair. only because it wasn't just

democrats who were supporting fannie and freddie. it was also the republicans and it was also the bush administration, the clinton administration. yes, there were folks who had concerns but the truth of the matter is no one in this town really had enough juice to curb fannie and freddie. that's just is the bottom line. whether democrat or republican. no one had the authority or excuse me. no one had the power to do it. that's the bottom line. and with respect to first criticism of small bidses getting access to credit, there is an argument to be made over whether or not dodd frank does restrict lending. but i think it may have something more to do with the general economy. and as opposed to looking at the rules that are coming down the pike, i think folks need to be mindful of banks are hesitent to lend because a lot of them aren't as in good shape. interest rates are supremely low. and if they have to make sure that if they're going to make a loan now at let's say 3, 4%

when interest rates rise, what kind of position is that going to put them in? so there's a lot of different factors. it's not just dodd frank. it's the economy. host: one last comment on twitter. barney frank is retiring from congress at the end of the year. he will spend his final months in washington protecting his namesake law. that story is in the "boston globe. coke -- "boston globe." we want to thank you for coming in to talk about the legislation on the second anniversary.

next, jerry hagstrom from the hagstrom report will join us to discuss the drought affecting the united states and what it means for you, the consumer. later, a discussion on libor with james angel from the georgetown university school of business. c-span2 -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> this weekend, the harlem book fair. live coverage starts today at 12:30 eastern with a panel discussion on the future of african-american publishing. that is followed been a look at american education. then a panel examining the next presidential election. then celebrating the 150th

anniversary of the emancipation proclamation. the leadership summit with offers -- authors. that is part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> it is about those men and women almost mortally injured in war. because of the huge advances made in medical trauma treatment over the last 10 years, an incredible number are being saved. almost everybody who falls on the battlefield is being saved. i wanted to write about what life is like for these people. i started off with a question, having seen some people who were gruesomely maimed. would they be better off if they

were dead? >> it is 10 part series. he spoke with veterans, their families, doctors, and nurses on the daily struggles of those severely wounded in combat operations. >> "washington journal" continues. host: with much of the united states continuing to experience a severe drought, jerry hagstrom joins us now. give us a sense of how bad the situation is in the united states. guest: it is the worst in many decades. 61% of the land area is considered to be in a drop status. secretary vilsack has said it is

the worst in 25 years. some have made comparisons to the 1950's and 1934, the worst in american history. we do have higher land productivity. we have better technology. it is unclear to say just how bad of an effect this will have on agriculture productivity this year. host: give us a sense of the numbers. we will also show a map of the united states dropped outlook -- drought outlook. on wednesday, the department of agriculture announced 39 more counties in eight states have been designated natural disaster areas because of the drought and heat. that brings the total for the year to 1297 counties in 29 states.

61% of the continental united states is in a moderate to exceptional drought according to the government. this is the outlook from late july to october showing areas in dark red with the drought is orected to continue intensify. very few areas are likely to show improvement in florida, alabama, georgia, new mexico, and arizona. this problem is going to get worse, is what you are saying. guest: yes. the public should not be seeing the effects right now. if they are seeing increased food prices, that means that they are being gouged by food companies or retailers. the food in the stores now has not come from the drought perio d. what is likely to happen is in

the first few months, you could see a reduction in the meat prices. the cattlemen will be reducing their herds. there will be more beef produced than normal they will be liquidating herds because they do not have pressed to feed them or do not want to buy increasingly expensive feed. as time goes on, the prices for beef, poultry, pork, and dairy are likely to rise later this year. next year, you would see an impact on processed foods. many of those contained corn or high fructose corn syrup. host: we are doing the phone lines a little differently in this segment. if you are in the eastern or central time zones we have a phone call -- we have a phone

number for you. we will flash the numbers repeatedly during the segment. we want to hear your stories dealing with the drought affecting much of the united states. what is the cause? what has brought this on so bad this year? guest: i am not a scientist, but it is a lack of rain and more heat. most likely you are experiencing a high temperatures -- the high temperatures. in the mountain states, as you have forest fires. grass fires in wyoming. when the grass burns, that means cattle grazing land to not have anything to eat.

host: here is a "new york times" map showing where moderate and extreme drought were in the last 50 years. the orange is drought conditions. we are in 2012 at the bottom of the map. he said there have been comparisons made to 1987 and the 1950's. guest: even back to 1934. that brings us back to the depression and when the soil was in bad shape because of bad farming practices during the years and early settlement. compared to 1987, the agriculture department was saying last week the productivity -- we have better seeds, also better technology.

it is not quite as bad if you look at productivity per acre as it would have been if we were still using things we were using in 1987 and 1988. host: what crop is being most affected? today there is a report in the "financial times" that the corn yield has been revised down. is corn the crop we're most concerned about? guest: it is the one we are the most concerned about. it is the biggest crop. it is used not only for animal feed but as an ingredient in many processed foods we eat. it is also used to make ethanol. it has become the most important product in the country. other crops people are concerned

about our soybeans and wheat. soybeans are a key animal feed in this country and around the world. china imports a lot of soybeans to feed their cattle. host: this is from the "wall street journal." this shows about 2.6 billion barrels from iowa. they also point out corn futures prices have been edging up toward its record highs recently, on the far right side of the chart you can see corn futures start to pick up.

you mentioned corn is important in the ethanol market. will we see this affecting gas prices soon? guest: i do not think you will see it affecting gas prices. it is not that big of a factor. gas and oil companies find a lot of weights -- ways to raise prices. the agriculture department is saying this is still an ethanol in the pipeline. it is not a factor right away. the phones.go to steve is waiting on our eastern line from haymarket, virginia. give us a sense of how the drought is affecting your. caller: i wanted to ask questions about shovel-ready irrigation products -- irrigation projects that have been available since 1950 that

would put people to work tomorrow. the road in the north american power and water project -- that would be the north american power and water project. that would pull water out of the canadian rivers and pumping it through the rocky mountains down to mexico. that would provide an unlimited amount of irrigation for the entire country. why can we not do this? it seems like we have better equipment and technology and unlimited power sources with the discovery of the colorado oil field. that is more oil than all of the oil fields on the planet combined. this field has more oil in it than all of them. host: jerry hagstrom of the hagstrom report? guest: i do not know about that

project. bringing water from canada to mexico brings issues to be resolved. environmental issues in particular i am not sure what has held this up or if anybody is considering this a serious project at this time. host: this is the front page of the "usa today" on thursday. this year, every state east of the rockies is in during the hottest orszag rackauckas year on record. 28 states are saying their hottest year since accurate records began being kept in 1895. we will go to kansas city, missouri. bill, hell are things going with the drought in missouri? -- how are things going with the

drought in missouri? caller: it is tough. 106 or 107 degrees. yesterday was a cool day at 99 degrees. there is the kansas city farmers' market downtown in the river market area. in comparison to food prices at local grocery stores, food prices at the farmers' market are three or four times as expensive as the grocery stores. now when i go to the course restore, -- boat to the grocery store, is astronomical. -- now when i go to the grocery store, it is astronomical. the farmers are going to need some kind of federal aid to help them survive.

they are slaughtering their cattle early. that will cause meat prices to go down. come october, november, december, they will skyrocket and people will not be able to afford it. guest: this is interesting information about former markets. those are locally produced fruit and vegetables. i am surprised these are not higher-priced in missouri. the information i have is that there has not been as much drought in california and florida, so you would think the shipped fruits and vegetables would not be as high. this is interesting. i do not quite understand it. there will be two agriculture department officials going to missouri to talk to the farmers and ranchers.

the farm bill is under consideration in congress. secretary vilsack has been urging the house to take it up and include disaster relief in the bill. the agriculture department only has small abilities to help with the drop at the present time. they are allowing people to use idle land preserved for conservation purposes to be used for haying and grazing. they also have emergency loans for farmers. the emergency measures have expired. there is a push to include them in a new bill. host: the secretary talked about the impact on prices at the white house. >> we will need to provide relief through additional

disaster programs to provide help and assistance to our farmers. the question of a lot of folks are asking is the impact on food prices. livestock producers will begin potentially reducing herds in light of higher feed costs. we would anticipate in the short term food prices for beef, poultry, pork may go down a bit. over time, they will rise. we will probably see the higher prices later this year and the first part of next year. host: the secretary brought up some of the programs the government gets involved with to help farmers. where does the money come from to pay for this disaster relief unexpected drop hints? guest: they are funded through the commodity credit corp set up

in the 1930's. the agriculture department has the authority to examine records kept from farmers and make a determination of how much money they have lost. then they can make some kind of payment. the exact amount is not determined in the bills. if congress passes a bill like this, if the farmer or rancher qualifies, they get some kind of a payment. the government kind of rectifies its books at the end of the year. host: let's go to one of the farmers calling in. donald is from detroit, michigan. give us a sense of what the drought has done to affect you. what do you farm? caller: good morning. i work with than bourbon collaborative. we grow vegetables and things

within the group. for us, it has not. so much of our stuff is through irrigation anyways. my question is how does climate change interact with this? every reputable mind in the world believes in man-made climate change. how many years does the western half of the country have to catch on fire before the right wing in this country except climate change as real and does something about it? host: how climate change is playing into the debate? guest: we do not know if the drought is man-made or natural phenomenon. they usually take the same position they always do. ught and of this dro government response, it will be what they can do in the short

term. this will feed into the researchers and things that are working on to figure out how much climate change is taking place and whether anything can be done about it. host: tell us about the hagstrom and what you do. guest: i have been a journalist for many years. i have covered journalism for the national journal for many years. two years ago, i started my own daily report on agriculture. it goes to subscribers in washington and around the country who have an intensive interest in agriculture. i also write for three other publications around the country. one is based in omaha for farmers. also for two weeklies. host: let's go to richard in

boston. your thoughts on the drought and how it is affecting most of the country? caller: i was a volunteer for many years with fema. there has got to be a triple alliance. i would like to know his ability of reading -- rating fema. there is a word in flooding called antediluvian, meaning before the flood. before the flood begins, the flood is in the middle of the equation where the erosion and farmers lose the precious gift and what have you.

i want to know after the government pays for the loss, how does that affect you in the midst of them wrongdoers? who is in charge of that? guest: fema is its own agency. the eight i am talking about would be coming through the agriculture department. it has an office in each county in the country. we say it is locally controlled. there is a lot of local control on disaster aid for farmers. fema is an entirely different agency and usually addresses peekskill problems like floods -- addresses big scale problems like floods. host: go ahead, denise.

caller: i think the comment about people boosting prices taking advantage of the situation is true. i do not think it is affecting our market in portland. prices are going up. too. and want to ask about south america and the corn and soybeans grown there. why are we so hard hit when we have got? guest: we do not import corn and soybeans from south america. they are our competitors, mostly for the asian markets. we still produce enough in this country to feed ourselves and export a lot to other countries. exports are continue -- expected to continue this year although they will probably go down in

quantity because the prices are high. foreign countries will look for resources elsewhere. farmers do have crop insurance. there are expected to be big payouts under the program in place. that will be something very important to keep the farmers in business in this difficult time. host: farmers have crop insurance. this is your writing for the capitol press. talk about the efforts for insurance for livestock ranchers. the livestock indemnity program ended last fall. guest: the biggest issue is there is no disaster program in place for the livestock producers, particularly the cattle producers suffering from the lack of grazing land because of fires and heat.

they are liquidating their herds at prices lower than normal. there is always some controversy about disaster aid. . say in the house and senate, there is desired to do something to help livestock producers. host: let's go back to tom vilsack at the white house. [video clip] >> livestock producers are in deep trouble because of the drought. they do not have any place for their cattle. they're looking at higher feed costs. we're not opening up areas for emergency grazing. normally, when that happens, producers have to return a portion of the crp payment. we will reduce what they have to return from 25% to 10%. our tools are somewhat limited. host: who in congress are

leading the push to help the cattle farmers? guest: there is a group of four centers -- senators. senator stabenow has also said they need to push the farm bill which has disaster aid programs in it and probably bad -- add more in the house when that happens. host: go ahead. caller: i was raised on a farm near lincoln, minnesota. we would see one to five years at the time. 50 years later, my brother climbed in the wind bill and

counted 172 deer in his field enjoying lunch. who pays for that? my brother and the farmers. it is very frustrating. guest: that is an interesting and complicated situation. when the country was -- the farmers were encouraged to plant fence row to fence row. the wildlife population went down. then we put in place the conservation reserve program that pays farmers to keep some land out of production and create wildlife habitats. now we have more wildlife. this also contributes to a very important hunting and fishing industry with people coming from the cities to rural america to to hunt and fish. a lot of people are getting an

advantage or see an improvement in their lives from the increased deer population. the other side is these deer eating in your brother's field. host: talk about other industries remain not be thinking about. fishing, tourism in general. guest: commerce is down because of the drought. there probably would be less feedstuffs to be shipped. if it is really miserable out there, tourists are not going to want to go out and go fishing. hunting is usually in the fall. that may be ok. i would imagine if it is growing weather, -- broiling weather, the places where people go fishing do not have as much

business. host: we lost tim. we have another rancher waiting. peter is in plymouth, indiana. go ahead. caller: i am from wisconsin. we had a small farm up there. we were milking cows in 1990. i think a lot of things going on, we're going to these mega farms. maybe 15 or 20 years ago, we have the smaller farms -- we had the smaller firms. last spring, we had a terrific amount of rain. a lot of the land got washed out because of that. what i am getting at is these

mega farms are opening up more of the smaller fields to make the fields bigger because of the larger equipment they are running. a lot of the fields are getting washed out because the fence lines and tree lines are being taken away and stripped down because they want larger fields. nobody makes any comment about that. i want to tell you that when we have the heavy rain, the rivers and streams that ran into lake michigan, the water was brown. i have never seen anything like that, that bad. host: let's let jerry hagstrom give his thoughts on what you bring up. guest: there are lots of the advantages with the metta farms

in terms of productivity. i do not know if the open fields are leading to more runoff and water pollution, but there is a usda agency, the conservation service, that tries to address all of these issues. host: what provisions in the farm bill could apply to the drought? a lot of it had to do with food subsidy programs and the fights over defunding food stamps. guest: the drought and disaster issue is a tiny part of the farm bill, but is now becoming a motivation in trying to get the house of representatives to take up the bill. it has been passed by the senate and house agriculture committee. the house leadership is not

enthusiastic about bringing about. partly because republicans are so divided over how much of a cut to make to the food stamp program. the liberals in the house do not want any cuts to the program. they are envisioning a divisive fight on the floor over this issue. the senate bill cuts the food stamp program by $4.5 billion over 10 years. $e house bill would cut it 16.5 billion over 10 years. there have been proposals to cut it as much as $33 billion. this is a program costs $80 billion a year or $800 billion over 10 years. we're not likely to have that big of a cut. it is not only a real issue for people who are hungry, but is a

very symbolic issue in terms of politics on both sides. host: say they work this out on monday and find a way to pass the bill on monday, what does this bill immediately do for those affected by the drought? guest: if you were able to work this out quickly and the drought programs were reestablished, it would mean the farmers and ranchers could apply for assistance. the farmers and ranchers absolutely have to keep all records of expenses and sales of products so that when they go to the local farm service agency accounting office, they will have the records they need to apply for assistance. host: how much on average are we talking about? guest: i cannot answer that

question. it varies so much. there is the possibility there could be assistance for crop producers, livestock producers, tree assistance, haying and grazing, fruit and vegetable producers. it is very difficult to say on a per farm basis. host: colorado, john is waiting to talk to jerry hagstrom. go ahead. caller: i took a course in colorado on the water issues out here. the guy basically said due to global warming, it is getting worse and worse. the one thing i do not hear in the talk about colorado's is it seems every year we're getting more tornadoes, where drought, more things contributing to global warming.

why are we not dealing with that? guest: you would have to ask for officeholders why we are not dealing with climate change. there was an attempt to push through a bill that would deal with carbon sequestration. it failed. is a deeply held political argument. the main issue is there are industries that say in the short term if you were going to take the steps you would have to take that they would not be able to compete worldwide. there would be developing countries in which the practice is banned here would continue. they oppose the bill. they are the ones who won the political argument. .ost: let's go to nebraska go ahead, charles.

caller: you have to bear with me. i had a stroke and my voice is all jacked up. with the drought and flooding in the united states, everybody is talking about climate change, which we have no control over. with this high-tech country we are supposed to be, i look at different programs. we're still doing stuff the old antiquated way with the farms and what not. why in good years do they not lay out pipes on the farms? they could push a button and let the sprinkler system come on. also, a sprinkler system for putting out fires instead of the

planes going to get water and coming back and dumping it on the forest fire. it reminds me of a little bird trying to do it. host: in massive infrastructure projects, has anything like that been proposed? guest: i do not think so. you would have people saying forests are natural and putting in a large irrigation system would interfere with nature. also, there are some good things about forest fires. they clear out old wood, etc. the biggest thing would be the cost, which would be enormous. host: the u.s. army corps of engineers or other federal groups, what could they do to prepare for these sorts of things? is there anything they could do to prepare? guest: i do not think so. this brings up a central issue

with agriculture. no matter what you do, farmers still grow things outside. remanufactures outdoors. that is one of the justifications for having a farm program. there has to be something to deal with this issue. we live in a high-tech society. we have fantastic modern agriculture equipment and new seats, but we are still dependent on the weather. but no one has found a way to control rainfall, hail, or other things that affect agriculture. host: "usa today" shows what is going on around the country. they note the river in kansas lhad one cubic feet flowing per

second. it was the lowest record for this time of year since records started being kept in 1902.

let's go to henry from south carolina to continue the discussion about the drought. caller: i have never been a farmer, but my mother had to quit school in 1929 in the seventh grade to pick cotton because she was from the sharecroppers family in south carolina. she is still the wisest woman i have ever known. my comments are referencing two things. first, the food stamps. i cannot figure out why our government is advertising in mexico about the food stamp program in the united states. i have heard that is happening. i get food stamps because i am on disability. i am in my mid 60's. i do not get too big of a check.

when i got a cost-of-living raise this year, i was happy for the first time since obama was president. then i was notified 1/3 of my food stamps were going to be taken away. as an income thing, i ended up losing about $500 a month. host: how much is the food stamp thing going to tie up the bill? guest: the current farm bill expires on september 30. provisions in the bill did not expire on that date. they expire at the end of the crop year. that varies from crop to crop. the pressure is on to pass the bill before september 30. in terms of what this man said about advertising food stamps in

mexico, i do not think that is true. but they have been advertising in spanish in the united states. they are afraid many hispanic people who qualify for food stamps were not getting in the program. host: john is from mississippi. good morning. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: being as corn has become so important in our daily lives, what is going to be the most important news for corn now that we're running into a shortage? guest: you most important use is still american food use. after that, ethanol and corn exports. there are pressures to get rid of the fuel standards.

some say it is not necessary because there is already ethanol in the pipeline. they are not so concerned about that. host: you hear terms like "total failure" with some of the crop production. explain the biggest fear for your right now. guest: i think the biggest fear is in the southwest with the situation of the cattle producers. i think they are the ones facing the biggest problem. skyrocketing costs would cause ripples throughout the economy. the rural economy has been one of the bright spots.

if everybody's food prices go up, that is like inducing another recession because people are already stretched financially. if food costs more, they feel even more stretched. host: jerry hagstrom of the hagstrom report, thank you for joining us today. you can check it out at hagstromreport.com up next, we will discuss what it means for u.s. consumers. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> this weekend -- >> 30 years of administrations have done more to confirm the prediction of the rich getting richer and everyone else falling

behind than 75 years of the soviet union. >> socialism in america. the history professor on the rise of socialism in 20th- century america tonight at 8:00 eastern. more on our series on key political figures. this week, thomas dewey rose to fame prosecuting depression-era gangsters. the new york republican would lose to fdr in 1944 and harry truman in 1948. american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> watch booktv and american history tv as we explore the heritage and literary culture of louisville, kentucky.

>> a lot of the stores are have seen fail our stores for opene -- were stores opened by people interested in having a business. not that they had an attachment to books or the love of books, but they were business people. i think you have to have a debt attachment -- gut attachment to books to care about them. the customers are like that. they come because they really love books. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have learned about the debt switch. some banks have gone to manipulate the offer rate. james angel joins us for a discussion on the so-called libor scandal.

help us understand why the average consumer should care about libor manipulations. guest: there are over 300 trillion dollars of financial instruments tied to libor, including perhaps your mortgage. a lot of mortgages are reset according to the libor rate. host: explain what caused some to get a $400 million fine. guest: in short, they were lying about their libor. they take a survey every morning at 11:00. they ask the banks, if you are going to borrow money today, how much would you have to pay? it is meant to be a representation of what the banks have to pay to borrow money from each other. there is not one libor. there are libors for 10

different currencies and 15 different maturities. are you talking about the u.s. dollar libor for 30 days? are you talking about the british pound sterling libor for 60 days? you have literally 150 different combinations. no one is saying borrow every combination of every day. but the bankers association takes a survey. they ask the banks, if he were to borrow money at 11:00, how much would you have to pay on these different currencies and maturities? the banks are not necessarily borrowing every day. they go, i think i would have to pay 0.8% on this one. that is what they turn in. the british bankers' association gets these numbers from up to 20 banks.

they put out the high and low ones. they throw out the highest and lowest 25%. they take the average of the rest. they try to get a number of what -- really representative of what it costs the banks to prop. the folks at barclays are caught lying about how much they would have to pay to borrow. e-mails show they were trying to manipulate the rate. sunday's up, sunday's down. s up, some days down. they injected noise into the system. at any given time, they have tremendous positions in instruments tied to libor. sometimes they benefit from the higher or lower rate depending on whether they are a borrower nor a lender. it varies from day to day.

the amount of manipulation does not sound like a lot. maybe it is only one or two basis points. a basis point is 1/100 of a percentage. our eyes glaze over when we see those numbers. but you take that and multiply it by $10 billion, it adds up. host: in the final segment, we're going back to the standard phone lines. professor angel, "the washington

post" had a graphic talking about how the -- talking about the libor rate. every morning, those banks individually submit their figures for the interest rate at which each firm borrows money from the others. the british bankers' association receives the rates, discards the highest and lowest, and averages the remaining ones. give us an idea of how the system came into place and why the british bankers' association runs the process. guest: it does back to the 1980's when floating instruments became common. the idea was everybody wanted a bench mark. the bankers like it because you can make a floating-rate loan to

a business and walk in a profit. you are a big corporation like ibm and want to borrow money. as a bank, i am happy to lend it to you at libor plus 1%. i will happily make this loan to you at my cost plus 1%. i locked in a 1% profit. in business, you need to have the benchmark everyone respects. the british bankers' association started compiling this. it was a reliable benchmark that everyone thought represented current market conditions. it gradually became the most accepted benchmark. it is widely disseminated. everybody can observe a on a daily basis. it seems to be calculated in a relatively trustworthy manner. it became the benchmark for literally $300 trillion plus

dollars of financial instruments. host: on twitter -- since the barclays scandal came up, how much has it undermined confidence in this system? guest: it certainly has undermined confidence in libor and illustrated cracks in the system. the problem has been known for years. it was on the front page of the financial papers over four years ago. the real scandal is why has it taken our regulators so long to do something about it. if they were misbehaving in 2007, why is it in 2012 that we're finally seeing action? host: congress is starting to get in on the question, correct?

guest: correct, but they will probably focus on the system and overlook the problem. that is dysfunctional nature of the regulatory system. host: the senate banking committee has been holding hearings. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke went before them to talk about libor. [video clip] >> it is likely concerns are less now because we are no longer in the crisis. . it was a. when transactions that many maturities were not taking place. i would like to see additional reforms to the libor process, assuming it will continue to be a benchmark. there are people looking at alternative benchmarks like the overnight effective swap rates which have the advantage over libor that they are market rates as opposed to simply reported rates.

host: mr. bernanke has been criticized for not doing more to raise a red flag about this issue when he knew about the libor rate being manipulated in 2008 and 2009. correct? guest: correct. it is easy to come in with a late hit and say you should have done this back then. when the world was falling apart in 2008, i think you could say he thought he had bigger fish to fry. host: let's take a few phone calls on the libor issue. pat is on the line from new jersey. caller: i will take my answer offline. on a day to day business, is it my credit cards or my margin accounts that might be affected?

guest: for you personally, if you have a floating rate mortgage, there is a big chance it is tied to the libor rate. it remains to be seen the extent of the manipulation. sometimes the banks were manipulating up or down. it is not clear whether you are paying too much or too little on the floating-rate mortgage. it indirectly affect you because a lot of the floating-rate loans that companies use to fund their operations are also tied to libor. when you buy things, you buy from companies. they have to come up with the money from somewhere to pay for their operations. that is also tied to libor. with over $300 trillion in instruments tied to libor, all of us are affected directly or indirectly. host: another question on

twitter on exactly what libor is. guest: what is going on with the scandal is the libor rate have been manipulated -- rates have been manipulated up or down. dodd-frankenstein is a monster bill with so many provisions. some are good. some are bad. some are not well thought out at all. we could get into a long debate on dodd-frank. there are some very troublesome parts of the bill. there are some very good things in it. the focus is on libor.

host: this is the second anniversary of the signing of dodd-frank. we will go to jill from wisconsin on the democratic line. jared, you are on with professor angel. caller: when we're talking about mortgage-backed securities or other derivatives, it is curious any manipulation regarding the financial institutions does not include criminal penalties. it is always financial penalties. berkeley's paid $450 million. -- barclays paid 450 lawyers million. these costs always get passed on to shareholders or consumers as higher rates for loans. if they were to attack criminal

penalties to specific people, you would see the financial industry clean up its act overnight. until there is real jail time and real criminal penalties, and this will never change. host: is there any push for that? guest: we have had plenty of pushes for that. the chief executive officers are not criminally liable for misstatements on financial reports. fraud has always been a criminal offense. after the savings and loan note them, hundreds of people went to jail. we already have laws that make many of these crimes criminal offenses where people go to jail. the question is, why have people not gone to jail? where are the indictments and prosecutions? host: arlington, virginia,

rohan is waiting on the independents' line. caller: i was not sure if you discussed i am more interested in being consumer borrowing sector, what it is like and the impact. this is a certain index. would retell borrow words -- borrows see t6he -- the effect.

? guest: you would probably not notice it big time. your typical credit card is tied to be traded rate in the united states and not be libor. the last couple of decimal points on the interest rate. if it does affect you directly, it would be a small amount. when you take a small amount of money times a large number of customers or a large bank position, it adds up. host: we want to point out that barclays may not be the only bank been affected by this. this is a sea and in money headline. the article goes on to say that in early 2010, two economics professors looked at libor manipulation and found that, according to one measure,

citibank had misstated its lending rate leading up to the financial crisis. there is the largest spread between them and what libor rate should be and what was reported between the world bank of canada. on average, citibank understated its costs by an average of a 0.2%. that may not sound like much, but it is 50% more than the 0.8% that barclays underreported its own borrowing costs. how much is this scandal going to spread to other banks? death it is going to spread to all of the banks that are -- guest: it is going to spread to all of the banks that are reporting to libor.

it takes more than one to have a conspiracy. e-mails that were released indicate that these people are talking to each other. i would not be surprised if more banks are not drawn into this. host: members of the administration are already being drawn into this. treasury secretary tim geithner, in one of his former roles, was being questioned by members on capitol hill. guest: clearly, this is an open scandal. it was on the front page of the financial press. it would be surprising if they had not been doing something. in 2008, they had other problems to worry about. from the study that was quoted, these banks were saying that

libor was less than it should have been because they did not want to admit how much they had to pay to borrow money. they did not want to make that they were in financial trouble -- admits they were in financial trouble -- admit that they were in financial trouble. they did not want people to know how shaky they were. there is the other part of the scandal where we can see traders manipulating rates to boost their own profitability for the day. host: just to be clear on treasury secretary daughter, he is the former head of the new york federal reserve -- treasuries secretary geithner, he is the federal -- former head of the new york federal reserve. guest: the new york fed is one of our primary regulators. the president of the new york fed is a powerful government regulator.

he is the front guy in the trenches regulating those top banks. host: back to the that. vicky is on the republican line. good morning, vicky. caller: i would like to know when this libor was created and why it is so important for us to be involved with these other countries making these interest rates and making them floating? i do not get it. it seems like it is one big mess. i do agree that these guys need to go to jail instead of paying fines. they are ripping people off right and left. thank you. what is your answer to that?

guest: this system goes back to the 1980's. 1960's,the '60s -- 1970's, and 19 80s, inflation took off. with inflation started going up -- and 1980's, inflation took off. inflation started going up and there were borrow words -- borrowers who were willing to accept a floating rate of interest. they said, i am willing to pay you whatever today's interest rate is. how do you figure out what today's interest rate is? that is how the libor system evolves. banks started putting together a survey of what they were paying to borrow money. because banks borrow money all

the time and when they make a loan, they say, i will lend you the money at whatever might cost of funds is plus my markup. that is a system that makes a lot of sense. our financial system is a global system. it is a global economy. we are much better off as a result of that. host: after the scandal, the banks of different governments decided to throw out libor because they did not trust it anymore and the public did not have just. what are the other options in figuring out this rate on a daily basis? guest: there are plenty of other options, especially options based on real lending and borrowing. the short-term markets are quite broad. there is literally trillions of dollars of activity going on. chairman bernanke mentioned repossession rates, the rate at which banks borrow money and

collateralized bad debt. the real question is, what is to mr. you look at it and who would calculate that number? host: what do -- the real question is, what do you used to calculate that number? host: what is the best system? guest: the data should be based on actual borrowing. not every bank borrowers in every currency every day. you need to have been rate sector or the government agency collecting the data to have some model to fill in the holes in the areas where no bank borrowers on that day. that is an easy technical problem. there are hundreds of good he

economists and i am sure they can figure out a reasonable solution. host: annette is on the democratic line. caller: i would like to give two examples to rise at the re- arrive at a conclusion. in the 1980's, we had the savings and loan fiasco. in the 1990's, there was the british bank in singapore where an employee lost $10 billion. later on, there was a french bank that lost a few billion. we remember the 2008 bank fiasco in the u.s. since then, since the fiasco, we have other problems. the robo-signing, the j.p.

morgan, barclays, and now we hear about libor. host: what you think the solution is? caller: let me finish my comment here, please. bankers say, we simply made a mistake. this is really not a mistake. these are not mistakes. this is a culture of greed among bankers. or a solution, i am not expert in solutions for bankers. it is hard to control them. more control may or may not work, because they would outfox the controllers. host: the real question is, what do we do about this? guest: money attracts bees like money -- let -- thieves like

garbage attracts flies. they need the resources to do regulation right. more versus less regulation is overly simplified. regulation is not something that we can say, let's turn the thermostat from 68 -- thermostat up from 68 degrees to 70 degrees. we need to rethink our structure from the top down. we need to say, how can we come up with a regulatory structure that really works? we have hundreds of financial regulatory agencies at the state and federal level. they do not always played nicely together. what led to the financial crisis was the fact that we had so many regulators that things fell between the cracks. people thought, this mortgage problem, it is not in my in basket. it is in somebody else's in basket. nobody thought it was in their

in basket. we need to overhaul our regulatory structure and our regulatory thinking. host: let's go to buffalo, new york. ralph is on the republican line. caller: professor, the question i have is, maybe all of our regulators and professors do not understand history. interest -- 1970's, rates were 22%. many companies were destroyed. after working a long time, you acquire some funds. now interest rates are so low, my mind cannot earn money. we should learn from the past episodes -- now it is rates are so low, my money cannot earn money. guest: during the financial meltdown, every time i heard somebody say, this is unprecedented, i wanted to show

-- throw my shoe at the television. it was like many other financial crises we have in our financial history. we definitely need to learn from the past. if not, we are condemned to repeat it. host: a piece of an article from the financial times banthis morning. libor casts a shadow.

i wanted you to give us more of a sense of the public outrage over the libor scandal.

is it undermining the banking system even more? and the banking system be more undermined in terms of consumer confidence right now? death it is one more black eye in an industry -- guest: it is one more black eye in an industry that has many black eyes. i am willing to give our regulators a pass in the fall of 2008. they had other things to think about. that was that one years ago. what has taken so long -- that was back on years ago -- four years ago. it is a question of timely regulation. there is an old saying, justice delayed is justice denied. we come back four or five years later?

these guys have been doing this stuff all this time? that is the scandal. host: georgia from richmond the jet is the with-richmond, virginia is on the line. -- from richmond, virginia is on the line. toler: isn't this similar the subprime mortgage scandal? anytime risk is manipulated down or up, not only does it ruined confidence, it is miss pricing the risk. -- mispricing the risk. anytime you manipulate markets, it is like knowing who is going to win the horse race.

guest: this is a different problem than what we faced with the subprime security. we are talking about people who are cheating by 0.10 percentage points. yes, it is a scandal. because so many financial system are based on this, they need to be above suspicion. we are not talking about trillions of dollars of loss to the financial system. we are not talking about items that undermine the solvency of our financial structure. we are talking about a bunch of traders lying around the edges trying to make that today's profit looks good. yes, we need to fix it. but it is one smaller problem compelled -- compared to the trillion dollar meltdown we had a couple of years ago. host: a viewer rights on twitter

-- guest: we tried that in the early 19th century and 20th- century. it sounds great in theory. no government can live up to it. we are putting a price control on whether that has said is, such as gold or silver. we are saying the price of gold ison whatever that asset such as gold or silver. we are saying the price of gold cannot ever change. when there are changes in the political situation and you have a war or some kind of foreign crisis and everyone goes to convert their currency into that commodity all at once, you have a mess. we learned from our experience in the 19th century and the 20th

century that those kinds of fixed asset-backed currency do not work. they worked for a period of time, but then they blow up in a worse crisis. in order to have stable currency, you have to have political and economic stability. if you do not have that, no matter what kind of system you have, you are going to have a mess. host: john is next on the democratic line. john you are on with professor angel. caller: i have a question for the host. is c-span private? host: c-span was created by a cable companies for you and everyone else watching. can you answer that? caller: there was a thing on that that we could not use that

for any movies or anything. winds get their money? are they getting it through the -- where do banks get their money? are they getting it to the fed for nothing? at one of the hearings, that means we are paying them to leave the money in there and that is why we are not getting it. the other thing is, i saw a thing on c-span when bank of america, when they had that credit card problem a year ago, they said one of their spokesmen was screaming at somebody yelling at him saying, you misunderstand, we are not a bank. you still think we are a bank. host: professor angel, you can respond. guest: the way banks make money is day borrow money from depositors like you and let it out to other people at a higher

interest rates. it also barred from other people. they borrow from other banks and the borrow from -- they also borrow from other people. they borrow from other banks and from corporations. most of the money they get, they get from borrowing. banks also get money from the federal reserve. that is why the federal reserve was created. they borrow money from the fed and laid it out. to deal with depositors, you can get your money -- they borrow money from the fed and lend it out. what are they going to do? say, do you know that car loan you got from us? why don't you pay me right now because i need the money? the fed is a lender of last resort. if the bank needs money, they

can borrow it from the fed. it is supposed to be a solvent bank that has good collateral to secure the loan. host: gregory is on the republican line from pennsylvania. caller: thank you, gentleman, for taking my call. to the professor, i hear the terms greed and crime and lack of regulation and other reflections on the libor, which is british and the prime rate, which is american. i am thinking to myself, there is such a thing and there is a mechanism for dealing with it. we have people flooding into the united states for bonds and their interest rates are zero. we also have people out there with huge fortunes.

where are our regulators who put this together saying, these people who got this excessive, outrageous amount of wealth all it to our treasury. -- owe it to our treasury. that would put a cap on this thing. a nazi officer during world war ii impersonated an american officer up until the time they shot him. somebody has got to be seeing this at the top and what it is worth. a dollar equals a dollar. the people who have its or should not have its should be accountable -- have it should be accountable to our treasury. guest: we have a number of different financial regulatory

agencies. every time there is a problem, congress comes up with another band-aid. when the financial crisis was unfolding, people like ben bernanke were saying, i do not have the authority to do what i want to do here. that is the problem. instead of having a grand vision, we have a fragmented, archaic regulatory structure that was designed almost 100 years ago. it might have been a great regulatory structure 100 years ago. we seriously need to rethink its in the modern world. host: we are at the second anniversary of the signing of the dodd-frank bill. does that crackdown on manipulation or could this stop it? guest: the problem with dodd- frank, it added so much work to what the regulators were doing. it might have slowed down their ability to deal with scandal.

there are some good things in dodd-frank. but a lot of things were not well thought out. things were thrown in at the last minute like the so-called volcker rule. a lot of people are trying to deal with this mess that congress adopt in their laps. in order to get the bill through, -- that congress drops in their laps. host: what are the good things about it? guest: an orderly resolution authority. there are issues about the details. but what we discovered is there is no such thing as a too big to fail institution. big institutions to fail and when they fail, we have to figure out how we will contain the damage. one of the problems with the last financial crisis was that every time an institution got into trouble, we got a different response from the government. we could see that they did not

plan for those events. one of the good things in dodd- frank is they are thinking carefully about the so-called living wills and what we are going to do when a big institution fails. but there is no institution that is too big to fail. sooner or later, something bad is going to happen. we need to have contingency plans in place for when they fail. host: we will go to dennis on the independent line in texas. you are on the line with professor angel. caller: i heard you say earlier that the federal reserve bank in new york was a linchpin or a mainstay of regulation in the market. i would just like to say that when banks are put in control of the regulation or the financial industry, that is like putting

the fox in charge of the chickens. i do not think that is a really good idea. economy would we see the great negative impact of the libor rate manipulation? i think it would be associated with the investments that are many sodalities and other government organizations -- municipalities and other government organizations. what kind of impact are we going to see from that libor rate manipulation in these investments? guest: the biggest impact is that there will be a wave of litigation. are going to back up huge fees. you are right. -- attorneys are going to rack up huge fees.

during the financial crisis, it seems that libor was manipulated down. other times, it seems like libor may have been manipulated up. it is too early to say where the financial damage is. clearly, there will be a wave of litigation involved here. that will be the biggest immediate impact. the secondary impact is, what are we going to do about it. we need intelligent regulation. we need to fix libor. but will be fixed be worse than what we have now. ? will be regulation be so poorly thought out that we end up worse off than we are now. we need -- we need better and faster regulation. but we also have to be careful

that we get it right. host: professor james angel, thank you for joining us today. that is our show for today. we want to make sure you come back tomorrow for several segments. we will talk about the latest in syria. we will have a political columnist for a discussion on his new book. in our last segment, we will have a discussion on the status aids in the united states. in our 9:15 segment, we will have ron