journal." >> a new study shows less than a third of americans have a financial plan for their future. we would like to hear if you do or don't and why. here are the numbers to call --

you can also find us online. send us a tweet. join the conversation on facebook by looking for c-span. or e-mail us. the new study is by the consumer federation of america. and the certified financial planner board. here's a story from "usa today covering it. that according to this new survey at. only 31% of americans have put together a financial plan, the .tory goes on to seay

that was the same percentage in 1997. what do you think about your financial planning? are you ready for the future? do you have a plan that you have put together on your own or with professional? are you concerned about what awaits you in the future? here's a piece by nbc news. that's from this week.

here's some information about saving for retirement by age, how it breaks down demographically. this story in the "usa today" says although attitudes have changed and concerns of prison, there is one constant, people who have a financial plan feel more confident about their financial future and report more success managing money.

that is according to the ceo of the certified financial planner board. here are more statistics about financial plan ning. our first caller on our independent line in connecticut's, russ. caller: how are you? i am retired. i made a financial plan.

what i want to say is that one thing people don't talk about it, we keep hearing about how great the low interest rate is, low mortgage rates, finance rates, but the dark side of this and for retirees and for other people are low interest savings bank cd's, on accounts, you are lucky if you can find one%. is pensions. it is really hurting. it's the dark side of all this stuff with the fed buying up long-term bonds. there's no place to go and get even a reasonable return on interest rates anymore. host: how did you manage to plan for your future? caller: with a spread sheet on my computer. i put in my income, estimated

spending, i went up 3% per year on spending. i set it up with about 3.5% return on my bank account. i buy things like 30-year bonds, 30-year treasuries. so far it has been stable. maturing ande interest rates are going down to 1% and 0.5% sometimes, it is getting pinched. i'd feel really bad for people who don't have this type of plan or the resources i have been able to accumulate, because they are doing very badly from these low-interest rates. that's the dark side of what the fed is doing. host: we will look at a little bit of that today. ere's what tom tweets --

who can afford to put money to the side with wages being stagnant for the last 20 years? --ybeth rightwrites our next caller is in massachusetts. stanley on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: do you have a financial plan? caller: no, because i liked what i was doing, engineering. i have been out of work 14

years, saved by social security, which is all we have. host: were you planning before you lost your job? caller: i always could get a temporary job. everything was outsourced. the visa program, they work for less, and they kill me. john wayne's advice from 1968, "retirement is a fantasy indulged in by people who don't like what they are doing." so now i do my own thing. i cannot get a job and work for someone else, so i look for a good deal on something like an antique, whatever. you cannot trust the banks. the scams are out there. you can live on social security and have a dinner out

occasionally, and i have learned how to cook. the family has to stick together. if i lose everything i have and keep my kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren, i will have it all back in three years. it hurts later on when you want to get -- if you have a big bank account, you get shut out. host: banks for sharing. let's hear from bob on our democrat line. we are talking about whether you have a financial plan for the future. go ahead in philadelphia. caller: i don't. i am in public housing and i have food stamps and things. they don't even pay you enough to live a decent life. if they were to raise that, i could take a vacation now and

then. they need to raise the benefits and not think about cutting them. i don't know what's wrong with these people out there. host: here are the numbers to call if you would like to join the conversation -- the question is whether you have a financial plan. a new study shows only one-third of americans have put together a financial plan to prepare for their future. "usa today" is covering this recent survey. it says --

jack in davenport, iowa, democratic line. caller: good morning. yes, i have a financial plan. -- i developed it because of microsoft money computer program that i bought about five or 10 years ago. they don't sell it anymore for some reason. it pretty much collapsed when buss -- bush got up on tv and said the country is going into depression. for to lead, i had most of my money switched to cash, so i avoided a large part of the financial collapse. -- fortunately.

---: here's a tweet juanita is a republican in indianapolis. do you have a financial plan? caller: i do. there was a note on the door of the bank the other day which has been there three months or more. it says, "now hiring." i wonder, if the bank needs so many people to work for it, why not build their own college and send their people to college to supply their needs? hen i thought, why don't businesses purchased colleges that have gone broke that a program that is supporting? businesses should know what the

needs are in education in order to keep the labor force -- or the people. do you see a disconnect?connec caller: yes, i think businesses should have a say so in education. i think the federal government should only supply education and security, such as armed services, doctors, nurses, things that would supply the needs for security, because if we had an emergency like we did in 2001 -- whenever they have a terror attack, and how we should never enough doctors and nurses and hospitals to supply the needs of people if we ever have another emergency like that.

host: let's hear from ellen, republican caller in pennsylvania. do you have a plan? caller: we do. host: do you budget as a family? caller: yes and no, because it's just my husband and i, but we started with six children. host: tell us how you plan. caller: my husband is 90. he got an annuity. it has been going on and on, which helps me, because i am an assisted living place. although i get to go home some days. he has planned so well. i am proud of him. host: you think it has helped you at this point in your life? caller: oh, yes.

host: how old were you when you started planning? caller: he has always been a planner. i know he has outlived the annuity by about 10 years. i am really not sure how long ago. host: maybe in middle age or when you were young? caller: i would imagine middle- aged. host: thanks for sharing your story. let's look at some facebook comments. and you can join the conversation. danny writes -- my financial plan is called working from week to week, paycheck to paycheck. the reason why only a third of the people have a financial plan is because of a third of the people make enough excess income to do so. tom says -- by diamonds instead of silver and gold. our next caller is on the

independent line. good morning, harold. do you have a plan for the future? caller: we do. on a spread sheet on the computer. we have planned for six months for the children and in case of emergency. host: are you putting things away for retirement? caller: yes, we did. host: is hard to make your income stretch that far to also put money away for retirement? caller: not difficult, because my wife and i are both retired. host: did you plan ahead before you retired? caller: yes, we did. i was watching fox news and they were teaching young children to

be rude, about getting a job and being independent -- interdependency is a big part of life. what president obama was trying to explain is that we all depend upon each other to survive. you cannot survive without paying your electric bill, because you don't make electricity. on fox news they had two young white kids on their and he said the president was very rude. i think that is sad to teach children at an early age to disrespect president of united states and his office. host: we are talking about financial planning and whether you have a plan in place and why you have one and if you don't, why? maverick tweets that the data showed fewer people had not done financial planning and it seemed proportional to pensions

being wiped out and wages going down. this is from the washington post --

ohio, russell on the democratic line joining us now. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i worked on an extraordinarily profitable middle-income jobs. i am retired and ione everything i have. it's paid for. i have a very comfortable pension. -- i own everything i have. the secret is to save and plan for the future. the sooner you start, the

younger you are, the better it is. if you are very young, 10 cents on every dollar that you earn, if you set that aside and don't touch it for anything but your savings, it will provide you with more than enough money. if you are middle-aged, it requires about 20%. if you wait later to do it, it will require up to 30% of your income. the secret to it is social security, some form of a pension plan, and savings. there are three prongs to that retirement. i retired at age 52 and i have live very comfortably ever since. the fellow that called earlier and said he did not know what to do with the money he had saved and the cannot get a return on it, he should look at municipal bonds, because they return a very nice interest income and they aren't just about as safe

as anything you can invest in. host: grant is a republican caller in sacramento, good morning. you have a financial plan for the future? caller: yes, i have the california public employees retirement which i started in 1964. i also have social security and a small military pensions because of a disability. i was in the army. also, the fact that we paid 10% to ourselves over the years and we raised six children and we have 12 grandchildren. we made money in the 30 years or 38 years we have have homes and we made money on those homes and reinvested and i have never touched one penny of my retirement in over 45 years. host: in your state of

california do you think future generations will be able to do what you have done in light of what has happened with the pension system? typicali'm not a californian. i am conservative. i vote for the man and not for the party. if they go for a simple idea that business makes money and business pays taxes. ot fool yourself. host: liz tweets -- it seems offensive for me to tell young people to save when they don't have a job. let's look at other stores in the news. sally ride, age 61, but first u.s. woman to go into outer space has died. this is the story from the new york post --

the former astronauts died peacefully in california following a struggle with pancreatic cancer. president obama released a statement saying she inspired generations of young girls to reach for the stars and later fought tirelessly to help them get there, by advocating for a greater focus on science and math in schools. her life showed us that there are no limits. the baltimore sun and many other newspapers give obituary profiles of her. there headline is -- science website, her organization released in permission about her death and revealed that she is survived by her mother, a sister, denise, and a nephew, and a life partner. that gives insight into the private life of sally ride. other stories in the news looking at politics. romney is trusted more on the

economy. obama has an edge on understanding. this is written by susan paige ford "usa today." -- for "usa today." looking at other stories from the campaign trail, obama and romney don't change course over outcry on gun violence. for the new york times, this report --

both candidates have supported gun laws in the past, but their views have shifted as americans have backed away from stricter gun laws and both men have felt a political sting from earlier positions. obama and montgomery campaigns go global, another story.

secretary of state clinton says the u.s. is committed to an aids-free generation. the u.s. will keep pushing for an aids degeneration, funding more hiv drugs and medical intervention to and help turn

back the global epidemic, yesterday speaking at an aids conference in washington, d.c. our question this morning is revenue have a financial plan for the picture. michael is in portland, oregon, on our independent line. the president will be in your neck of the woods today. caller: i am honored. host: talk about your financial plan. caller: it is a lack thereof. i represent a large majority concerned about next week and next month. i know that i should be planning for the future, but it currently being unemployed, i can only echo that tweet from liz smith saying how could i saved if i am not been employed? if all the savings were wiped out during the time of unemployment and you have to keep rebuilding, the paltry hundreds of dollars you could put into a 401k plan over a couple of years working on minimum wage jobs will not be adequate. host: how old are you?

caller: 37. host: do you have an idea what you would like to do for fun into planning? one story said many people don't start think about it until five years before they consider retirement. caller: i think that is understandable, considering it is a large question. your doctor answer where do you want to be when you are older. can only be honest and say i had hoped to find perhaps more professional employment that can provide me with and a salary that i could address these issues rather than living for the next week or the next month or the next year. .ost: thanks for callingdo don writes -- budgeting is overrated. it would impact my threadbare and lifestyle. now on the phone is our next caller. are you planning for the future

financial it? caller: already, yes. it's wonderful what i did. i'm 68. when i turned 65, i sold my house. i went with new york life because they offer a good retirement plan. if you start with them, not to have $20,000. after that every year it is. is thousands say you have $100,000 in that plan, that is $508 the rest of your life. , you getou get older more money as long as you stay in the plan. i think that's a good plan. i think everyone should invest their money with new york life. host: do you have any concerns about what happens to you in 10 years or 20 years? caller: not really, because i am

set. i get my social security, also. i would tell everyone to invest with new york life. there recently started this plan about three years ago, i believe, this retirement plan. it is something the younger generation should look into, because it is wonderful. i am living the life of riley. you cannot beat that. it's better than a 401k plan, because you put your money in a 401k plan and they match it, but you, also, i have known people that have lost their jobs and the 401k plan did not help them at all. they lost their money also. host: we are talking about whether or not people are planning for the future. jane is a republican called for mount vernon, new york. caller: i'm excited, first time getting through. host: thanks for calling.

caller: what i have to say is, hopefully, it will help the younger people or at least a younger than me. i'm 65. i retired early at the age of 62. what happened with me is i had five credit cards. i used them for helping my family. i did not spend that much money. what happened was the interest on those cards built to at least four times the amount of money actually spent. i kept thinking to myself, well, the interest on that card, well, i would expect that on myself anyway. each time the bill came, i would say that about each one of the credit cards. then i started watching some program where the announcer was

saying to cut up your credit cards, this is what the big problem is, he said. i said, well i cannot cut them up because i don't know if i will need them, put them in a drawer. i am so nervous. host: you are doing great. tell us how did you curb and habit? caller: on my job i had finally thing. $50,000 per year not i say i am now in middle class. i got paid every two weeks. i am from the poorer side of town. i said i remember when i was really poor and barely had to to

put on the table and now i have my tv set and my beautiful sopa and this and that, so now i don't need to buy anything, i have my computer. host: so you started saving money? caller: i had never been able to save money until now. to make a long story short, i was being paid every two weeks. what i did was i lived off one paycheck, because i,a co-op. host: you use the other one to pay off your debt. caller: >> yes. i paid the most for the cards with the highest interest rate and pay the normal payment to the others. it took me six years to do this. i retired at the age of 62. the reason why i did that is because of the crash or wherever

you want to call it that we had. i lost half of the money that i had in my 401k plan. before i and robbed any more, i thought, i will. just get out will. host: thanks for sharing. we are talking about whether you have a financial plan for the future, how you have been able to turn things around, or if you are still working on that. we will go to your comments on facebook and twitter. next we have been independent caller in indiana. last chance. we will move on to our next caller. a republican in howard, pennsylvania, cody. caller: thanks for taking my call. a quick comment on planning for the future. this is in the near distant future. today on capitol hill, the house

will vote on a bill called hr- 459 to audit the federal reserve. this is a brilliant plan brought forth by ron paul to plan for the future. this man has been planning vigorously 30 years to bring this bill to pass. if you look at the dollar bills we have, you will notice that at the top or at the bottom of every dollar bill that we have, it says, "federal reserve note." before the federal reserve was established in 1913, you will notice at the bottom or top of each of those bills it will say, "silver certificates." our currency should be based on a silver or gold. host: let's go to jan. she's as we told all our kids to save for retirement even if it's just $5 a week and to be smarter than me, who waited until my

40's. now we have a caller on the democratic line. you have a financial plan? caller: i have a 401k plan that is not doing very well. anything.ot making my question is, when back a few years ago, talk about the $3 trillion turnover that the baby boomers were going to receive from their parents, where their parents had saved and then it seemed all of a sudden this financial crisis happened. i was thinking perhaps they thought the $3 trillion would be handed to the kids and denver people who bought these homes and did not happen, so it collapsed the market. i'm not sure if the $3 trillion had any significance in the

financial markets, but it seemed right after that was brought forward -- and i don't know who did the math to discover the savings, but that seemed to be when we fell apart in this country. writes --dy wrigh sarasota, florida, mike is on the republican line. caller: i feel like the biggest loser of all. my financial plan has not worked. host: is that because you cannot get a job? caller: i am disabled, so i am not able to work. my income is based on disability income primarily.

my spouse has a 401k plan. it's not doing very well. the biggest upset in florida for many of us has been the. upside down the. some of us have mortgages that are higher than the values of our property. -- the biggest upset in florida for many of us has been the upside down real estate market. i had to fire my lawn man because i cannot afford him. it hurts when you have an insufficient retirement fund. it's difficult to hire people and it really hurt the economy in a broad way. i have two sons who may someday need social security, and i am not certain it will be there for them. there is one positive note.

i have a retirement plan in happen and that will always be there waiting on me when this life is over. thank you. host: michael says -- make a plan, but be flexible. this from the financial times -- and here's a headline that comes to us from the washington post -- a shoe shop in lisbon advertising a liquidation sale.

we are asking whether you have a financial plan for the future. in's hear from steve shreveport, louisiana on our independent line. caller: good morning. i'm sure you have heard my voice before. has a the problems is it lot to do with the way you are raised. i am a foreigner. they do very good in this country. the reason for that is many reasons. number one, we are very good with . with number two, we get a good education. we have a very good skill in money-management. we try to establish good credit.

we use credit cards. divorce and we try not to be selfish. i have been secure. 10 years ago i went to school. my family paid for my education. i lived a comfortable life. my wife never worked. i provide for my family. i have two daughters, one of them became a lawyer. they are buying their houses. my house is paid for. i have bought a new car for my family every five years. this all has to do with money management. host: laura says her financial plan is to work and that she

does not the retirement in her future anytime soon. share your tweets with us. here's another one that says saving reduces your buying power and that our people borrow instead of saving. we are looking at a new study that analyzes saving and financial plans in america. it says -- there's the headline -- many families struggle to make ends meet.

waldorf, maryland, steve is a democrat. caller: hi. i want to commend a caller who said something about keeping a positive attitude. that's what you have to do. and yet to cut your costs. what i did, get rid of cable television, pay your car insurance in a lump sum so you don't have finance charges. get rid of the credit cards. your bank, as two bank accounts. i said to go with the credit union. he did not listen. when he got his statement, he was crying about their taking all of my money. but the credit unions are nonprofit. they are the answer. also, you have to make smart decisions. when you are shopping, you have to make sure you get the stuff on sale. you have to get good food that point last. beans, rice, chicken. you can expand your shopping

budget like that. make the decisions that keep a positive attitude. host: mike, a republican in florida. caller: good morning. i am just living day-to-day. i am a carpenter and a handyman. work got scarce towards the end of bush. it really died when obama got elected. i am getting work again now. my wife has a really good job. she has a retirement plan and everything. she is the reason i'm not homeless. she has stuck by me for ever. may i explain why i believe obama is a marxist? host: right now we're focused on financial plans for the future. we will talk about politics later in the program. here's a comment from mike on twitter -- over the years,

middle-class buying power has declined. that puts pressure on. family budgets coming up next we will talk with congressman chris van hollen, a democrat of maryland. we will look at democratic efforts on campaign finance as well as the impending fiscal clift. , ron paul will join us to talk about his effort to audit the federal reserve. we will be right back. - >> ♪ [video clip] >> this is the kind of job that

if you cannot disagree without taking it personally and hating the person on the other side, you better find another job. >> supreme court justice antonin scalia reflects on 25 years on the bench and interpreting legal documents in his latest book sunday at 8:00 on c-span. >> watch "book tv" and american history to be the weekend of august 4 and august 5 as a c- span of the local content vehicle exports louisville, kentucky, a home of trickle- down, a louisville slugger, and its oldest independent bookstore, carmichael. greta lot of store and a failed are stores that were opened by people interested in having a business, not that they had an

attachment to books or a love of books. there were business people. i think you really have to have kind of a gut attachment to books to care about them, because your customers will like that. they come because they're really care about. >> watch for that on august 4 and august of on c-span 2 and 23. "washington journal" continues. host: congressman chris van hollen, democrat of maryland and ranking member of the budget committee, thanks for coming to talk with us. the disclose act was blocked in the senate last week. tell us about the act and whether you think there are changes that could be made to win bipartisan support. host: guest: i was disappointed that it was blocked. it was an example of a republicans filibustered that prevented from coming to a vote. a majority supported it in thei

senate. the disclose act is straightforward. t has been changed to make. it very make the idea is that voters have a right to know who is bankrolling all the television political commercials that they're watching. we believe that transparency is important. it adds to accountability in the democratic system. after all, these groups are spending millions and millions of dollars to try to influence the outcome of elections for certain purposes. we think voters should note who is behind them. it is that simple. what is unfortunate is many of our republican colleagues used to be for disclosure before they decided to be against it. we would like to go back to what was a bipartisan idea. host: let's look at the details of that. the disclose act requires organizations that spend $10,000 or more to report within 24

hours. it identifies donors who give above $10,000. it requires the reporting a third party transfers. are their compromises in sight? are there ways to get to advancing? guest: we have invited our republican colleagues to come forward with amendments to change the bill if they want to. we have gotten no takers so far. what you have among our republican colleagues is opposition to the very concept of disclosure. otherwise, they should be coming forward and offer amendments, if they want to change the threshold levels, if they want to lower those from $10,000, that's fine. but they have proposed no amendments to this particular bill. senator mitch mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate, used to be in favor of disclosure. he said that was the answer to a

lot of our campaign finance challenges. he has not taken the opposite position. the reality is, unless we change this law, there continue to be a lot of groups that want to secretly financed elections, there are still issues in campaign finance. one of them is the huge volume of money pouring into it. people should be concerned. this is a subset of that issue. this just says let's stop the secret money that's flowing in the system, the voters know who is behind these campaign ads. how do you look at the big picture? a story from "usa today" yesterday shows that while the owners for mitt romney are hitting their maximum, they can then turn to the super pac and give money. guest: the supreme court in citizens united and another one in speech now just opened the floodgates to this kind of

funding, unlimited funding. we already had a broken campaign finance system. this just made its worse. there are couple ways to address the issue. one, to require disclosure, at least. second, is to look at campaign finance reform, to try to reduce big money in the system by incentivizing smaller contributions. there are ways to do that. there are different pieces of legislation that would help to do that. another possibility is a constitutional amendment, which would essentially overturn the very bad and very radical decision of citizens united, which said corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money just like people. a constitutional amendment will not happen tomorrow. that would require a process. the one thing where there is consensus among the public is the idea of disclosure. so it is unfortunate that in the

congress you have a republican project-- our republican colleagues blocking that it. host: here is information from opensecrets.org -- if you would like to talk with congressman chris van hollen, here are the numbers to call -- let's go to fort bragg, north carolina, felix is on the. democratic the caller: good morning. how were you? i have a couple quick things. i have been a democrat since 1964, because when the republicans started dividing america with their southern strategy, i cannot put up with that. unemployment, if this sale, has

the worst unemployment, but when you compare that with ronald reagan's first three years or the first time the budget came into effect until today, he beats him by 0.2%, which is a better average. ronald reagan had 10 months of over 10%. % if you read an article on temporary 9, wall street journal, 2009, bush on jobs, it shows clearly that the democrats are far superior, even with the small tax rate. i think obama wants to raise t itso 4% obverses gigantic amounts being portrayed. the last thing, since 1970 there has been basically a 17 bailouts. 15 of those have been under republicans, two hundred democrats. the democrats had their money paid back by the ones they invested in. so that is an investment.

last, could you explain the distance between lobbying and bribery? host: that's a lot to address. guest: a lot to talk about. first, on what the president has proposed with respect to taxes, with the president has said is congress should act now today to extend tax relief for middle- income americans. 98% of american families. everybody earning less than $250,000 per year. he said let's do that now. what is holding that up is our republican colleagues that it even though they are for that, providing tax relief to people under 200 deposit thousand dollars a year income, they will only allow that if you provide tax breaks to the folks at the very top. what the president has said is that we need to get our long- term deficit under control, and i agree. in order to and do that, we need

to do two things. we need. to make need we have made $1 trillion in cuts as part of the budget control act. we also need to deal with revenue. we need to close the tax loopholes to help reduce the deficit. if we don't take that approach, endicott hurting seniors on medicare, we end up cutting deeply from education. so that's not an answer. with respect to jobs, when the president was sworn in, we were losing over 800,000 jobs every month. our economy was in freefall. as a result of actions taken by the congress, the president, the federal reserve, and the resilience of small businesses and the american people, we have been able to turn the corner and we have had positive job growth in jobfor many continuous months now. we have a long way to go. it would be great if the house would take up president's jobs bill that has been sitting there

since september. that would help. we need our republican colleagues to help work with us to get that kind of bill passed in order to take us to the next. host: the caller mentioned tax cuts. let's look at comments made by the minority leader mitch mcconnell, responding last thursday to ideas by senator patty murray that some of the tax cuts could expire. he talks about what he thinks it would do. [video clip] >> democrats think it would be a good idea to drive out the economy off the fiscal cliff this january. you might call this "thelma and louise"economics. whatever you want to call it, democrats are evidently so determined to raise taxes on america's job creators that if we don't let them do it they would actually welcome an economic calamity that would brought not only the american

economy but the global economy as well -- would rock the american economy and the global economy. they want to threaten our economy and the global economy. needless to say, this is not a program for jobs or economic growth. it is an illogical crusade. host: senator mitch mcconnell. can you respond? guest: he is the one who infamously said that his top priority, republican's top priority was not the economy, not jobs, it was to defeat president obama. what you just heard was a total misstatement of the president's position. the president has asked congress to act today, as i said, to extend middle-class tax cuts. 98% of the american people. let's do it now. republicans, as you just heard from senator mitch mcconnell, have said we are not going to do that unless you also then continue tax breaks for people at the very high end of the

income ladder. now republicans hcannot have it both ways. they cannot continuously refused to take a balanced approach. cutting, yes, but also revenue. we talked about it is the logical straitjackets. that is what the grover norquist pledged duster republicans. 98% of them have signed that pledge. it says that you cannot close one tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit. you cannot eliminate one taxpayer subsidy for an oil company to reduce the deficit. they have taken the whole issue of revenue off the table. every bipartisan group that has looked at our deficit challenge says that you have to a mix of cuts and some revenue in closing some of these loopholes and asking folks at the top to pay little more. republicans are saying we're not going to ask people making a lot

available more to reduce the debts it. so they want to hit everybody else through the budget process. i mentioned seniors on medicare and children getting an education. the problem has been their refusal to take a balanced approach to cutting the deposition. as the president said, let's agree on what we can agree on. if republicans really believe we should provide tax relief to people under $250,000 a year, let's do that right now. if you want to argue about the other part later, providing tax breaks to folks at the very top of that argument can wait, but let's take care of the vast middle class right now. republicans don't want to. host: let's hear from republican caller for michigan, marty. caller: good morning, thanks for c-span. i love your show. good morning.orni

caller: i would like to the demd republicans. congress does not have a balanced approach but you forget the senate that has not balance the budget since this president has been in office. it would be fair to say that i only see taking major problems in our caucus -- entire country, and that is the democratic and republican party, sir. our debt, unfunded liabilities. you guys will not balance the budget. my daughter is in extreme debt to this country at 10 years old and i asked you guys, for god's sakes, sir, please, just stop, both of you. you are the least bipartisan guy i know, you guys all are. every single one of you. i tried to say this respectfully because you guys have crumbled our economy, and violated every part of the and the only ones who have done it is you guys and the republican party. respectfully, sir, because i in

a republican. stop? ! guest: with all respect, there are plenty of us who are not only willing but eager to come up with a compromise solution. many of us recognize that no party is going to get things 100% their way and the only way to achieve deficit reduction, long-term deficit reduction and reduce our debt, it is through the kind of balanced approach that bipartisan groups like simpson-bowles has suggested. i do not agree with every one of their recommendations but i support their framework. but the reality is is not a single one of the republicans in the house that were served on that commission voted for that report. for many of the republicans -- especially in the tea party caucus -- not everybody, compromise is a dirty word. i beg to differ with you with respect to many of us who have been willing and demonstrated willingness to take that kind of balanced approach, which it's

going to be necessary. and reach a compromise. after all, it is part of the budget control act. we reduced the deficit projections by a trillion dollars and that was cuts only. but what we said is we should follow the framework of these bipartisan groups and do a combination of cuts but also close tax loopholes. so, when you've got a group of folks who sign a pledge to an individual, in this case grover norquist and they said they would not talk about revenues to reduce the deficit, it makes it difficult. it is very important that people throughout the country listen to this debate carefully and understand clearly what people's positions are. there was a book recently written by two scholars of the congress, two people who were non-partisan and ibp, will always calls the shots as they saw them and they say they could no local pretend that the truth lay somewhere between what one party says and the other party

says. thus there is some objective reality. they say that this new class of tea partiers and the house are dedicated to obstruction and they believe compromise is a dirty word. it is easy to cast aspersions everywhere, on all your houses, but it would be better if everybody looked at the specific issues. you mentioned the economy. you mentioned a free fall when the president was sworn in. we had a financial disaster. history tells us it is very difficult to dig your way out of a financial disaster, one where you have a meltdown in the financial sector. the last one we have like that was of course the great depression. we have dug ourselves out and we have climbed out of that and we have now seen positive private- sector job growth, but we got a long way to go. but it doesn't help when we have statements from the leading republican leader in the senate that his number one objective is to defeat the president rather

than to get the economy moving. host: congressman chris van hollen for bis said maryland's eighth district and serving his fifth term. first elected back in 2002. he served as chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee and also spent a dozen years in the maryland general assembly. ken, independent caller from utah. caller: how are you doing? the morning to you, libby and the congressman. -- good morning to you and to the congressman. i have a couple of days. i don't know how good they are. it seems to me most of the corruption from d.c. comes from lobbyist money and super pac money. isn't there a way that we can stop lobbyists and super pac money so we can go to a process where it is all private and total transparency in it? the bill that you've got sitting in front of them, where they are

unknown transparency, is really a good thing. however, as long as lobbyists and super pacs are sending money to washington, it is almost like legalized bribery. i of wondering if i can get your take on that. guest: first, on disclosure and transparency -- as you indicated, that is very important. it is important for accountability in the system because that let the voters at least know which individuals and which corporations in groups are spending all of that money to try to influence the outcome of elections. so, i know it is a bipartisan i get outside the beltway. i just wish it was more bipartisan support for it inside the beltway in washington, d.c. with respect to the money being spent by super pacs, that is in part a direct result of the supreme court decision, citizens united, where the court held that corporations and other

entities have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections. and the only way to deal with that over the long term is to consider some sort of constitutional amendment to change that court decision. i thought it was a very bad court decision, 5-4. i would say that the one piece of light in that court decision was eight out of the nine justices not only said that disclosure was constitutional but important to the strength of our democracy. these are justices from across the political spectrum. the only justice that i thought that disclosure could be unconstitutional was clarence thomas. but the other eight supported the whole fundamental idea of disclosure. and they urged in fact the congress to take action. i just wish our colleagues would join us in the senate as we discussed. unfortunately it was blocked by a republican procedural motion.

in the house, we have not even have a hearing, a chance to have a hearing on the disclose act. i house that claims to be very open has refused to even have a hearing on a bill that would add to the openness and transparency. i filed what is called a discharge petition recently -- the bill to come out of the committee, out of the chairman is george -- chairman's drawer out to the full house to have a vote on it. if people want to vote no, do it in the light of day. so it has been very for setting that an idea that until recently had bipartisan support -- disclosure, that voters have the right to know, has not been blocked in both the house and senate. again, by congressional republicans to in this case i did not think reflecting the views of republicans around the country. host: congressman van hollen, you serve as chairman of dccc

the past few years. here is a headline we are looking at in "the washington post." more intra-party incumbent fights than ever. the story says -- it talks about some democratic races and the two incumbents battles on august 7 in michigan and missouri, where shrinking populations in detroit and st. louis forced lawmakers to represent the urban corridors into a single larger district. how does this bode and what are you watching in these races to see what it means for the democratic party? guest: this is a consequence of the fact that under the constitution every 10 years we do a census, we do a recount of the population and based on that some states gain congressional seats and others lose congressional seats and even

within states because of shifting populations within the geography of the state. you have to reapportion. as a result, you have a lot of instances where two members of the same party are thrown into a battle against each other, two incumbent members. in these cases, as the article said, it is intra family battles. it is tough for the members. you asked me as a former chairman -- our focus is on the general election, and so in these battles, i think most people, especially if they are not from that state, they sort of watched the battle and hold a strong candidate, urges for the general election and will support our candidate in the general alexian. >> what can you learn from the members when a more liberal member survives or a blue dog democrat loses his or her seat

to a fellow democrat. what do you learn from that as a party? >> it depends so much on the particular district. it is hard to find a general pattern in these races. you have a number of them -- obviously in california you have howard berman and brad sherman. it took these races -- you have dennis kucinich and marcy captor in ohio. those are not in either case a blue dog democrat against a progressive candidate. you don't see wild swings within the ideologies in those particular districts. you find that more comparing one congressional district to another one, sometimes in different states are different parts of the states. so i guess to answer the question, it is hard to draw any lesson from any particular or a number of these battles. the focus will of course be turning to november, the general

election, and in the general election, of course, there will be a major contest and the democrats are working hard to try to gain a majority of seats in the house right now. 25 seats separate the democrats from the majority. i do believe what people watch the antics last summer, for example, the republican threats to prevent the united states from meeting its obligation and paying its debts, that that was a spectacle people want to avoid and it was a spectacle caused by a view that you just want to bring the entire government, and in that case, potentially the economy, to a halt if they did not get their way and i do not think it went over there well. host: santa clara, california. jackie on the democrats' line. caller: i love c-span. i am glad you took the time to come today. i have a couple of comments and

that the questions. i remember when the first bush tax cuts came out and i saw something on a program that showed how much i was going to get back as a single household person versus what the wealthy were going to get back and i thought, are you guys crazy -- why would you do that? and then on the payroll tax withholdings being reduced, isn't that reducing the person's social security down the road, which i did not think is a good idea? i watched c-span, cnn, fox, and msnbc and it seems like between the -- it is so clear to me how the republicans are distorting the truth and very seldom do i care to the democrats distorting the truth. but my biggest question is, with

the grover norquist tax thing and going over the cliff, if you have ever watched lawrence o'donnell on msnbc, he is encouraging everyone to go over the cliff because of that will go away with the bush tax cuts and everybody would be the to vote to lower the tax rates like grover norquist likes. could you talk about the idea of going over the cliff as being a good idea question of guest: first, let me quickly addressed the issue of the payroll tax holiday. we are in our second year of that. social security actuary, a nonpartisan independent guy looks at that and said very conclusively that in no way will it affect the solvency of the social security system. the reason for that is, for every penny not flowing into the system through payroll taxes,

the law provides that the general fund will compensate the social security fund so it is totally whole. with respect to the issue of the fiscal cliff, it is important to be really clear here. what the president has said and what the democrats and congress have said is we want to act now in order to extend tax relief for middle-class americans. 98% of the american people, everybody with an income below $250,000 a year. that is our preference. republicans have said they are not going to let that happen, that they are going to hold that 90% of the american people hostage until they get tax breaks for the folks at the very top which, as you pointed out, the bush tax cuts did disproportionately benefit folks at the higher -- very high end of the income scale. what we said is we need to get the long term deficit under control and the folks at the very top have to contribute to

that effort because if they don't put in something, everybody else gets hurt that much more. with respect to the fiscal cliff, what we said is we prefer to act now but republicans hold the keys to this in their hands. as soon as they decide not to hold the 90 been set -- 90% hostage to the 2%, we can move forward but we take the idea of deficit reduction seriously. so, they've got to finally let that hostage go, so to speak, so we can move forward. we will not be bullied by the republicans in to providing another round of tax breaks for the folks at the very top when we have to get our fiscal house in order and where we want to make sure that folks on medicare and social security don't take a big hit in order to provide another round of tax breaks for folks at the very

top. it is true that at the end of the year by law all of those tax cuts expire so you would be sort of starting from a new base line, starting from scratch, but i should just emphasize again, we hope we don't get to that point. but the keys to the lock are in a republican hands right now and all they have to do is do what the president said -- let's move forward with what we agree on, what republicans say they agree on, which is extending tax relief to people under $250,000. i should point out and the republican budget they also have a tax proposal which would provide another round of tax breaks to the folks at the very top at the expense of middle income taxpayers because they would drop the top rate 25% but they cling to do it in a revenue-neutral way which means they are going to take away a lot of the provisions of the tax code that benefit the low income families. host: senator patty murray, a

democrat from washington state got attention recently. here is a headline from yemen news. democrats will go over the fiscal cliff unless the gop regions. she recently said along the lines -- republicans need to be the ones coming closer. is there a danger of pushing this over the edge in a way that makes democrats suffer? guest: just to emphasize what we have been talking about, what the president said and what senator patty murray said. it is not that she wants to go over the fiscal cliff. the democrats would like to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. what we said is there is a very easy way to do that. at the end of the year of the tax cuts expire, all of them from 2001-2003, so that all income groups. we said instead of waiting until we get there, let's act now and extend tax relief for middle income taxpayers. republicans say we won't do it now unless you decide today to

provide tax breaks to folks at the very top. we think that is not fiscally responsible. host: she said -- guest: exactly right. unless we can get a balanced deal, which is what the american people one according to almost every survey, which is what the bipartisan commission has called for, that all called for balance of deals, meaning if we reduce our long-term deficit, a combination of spending cuts but also revenues -- if we cannot get a balance deal, then we will have to deal with this issue in january but we could get a balanced deal right now if republicans would abandon their pledge to grover norquist and

adopt a bipartisan approach of the different fiscal conditions. not only when it comes to the tax piece but also the sequester. if we do not act by january 1 of these across the board cuts -- we said do it by reducing the deficit the same amount but the balanced approach, combination of cuts but also revenues by closing loopholes. host: margaret, a republican from ohio. caller: good morning. i was going to say that i don't think anyone -- democrats were concerned about the fairness of the money coming in, as long as obama had more financing than anyone else. i also want to say won -- i saw you are on the budget committee. i think anyone on the budget committees, the oversight committees, should be hun gup by the toes because nobody is

overseeing any of the departments and they do not have a budget -- if that a strict budget they would not have all of this money to be spending on conferences and parties. i think you guys are responsible. i don't care if it is democrats or republicans, if they have a budget name of defending should be held responsible. we should not have any more money coming in until you got straightened out every department in the united states. thank you. guest: the caller is absolutely right, part of the role of congress is to perform oversight over the different government agencies. that is an essential function. it should be done better. now, there are many instances where congress has been able to uncover waste and abuse, but certainly more needs to be done in that area. i would point out that with respect to the budget committee,

what the budget committee does is provide for the overall funding buss then goes to the other appropriation committees to take a look at. just on a bipartisan note, the chairman of the house budget committee actually introduced a bill together jointly that would create a process to eliminate unnecessary spending. what it would do is to say that when congress sends one of these appropriations bills to the president, all these spending items, the president can identify which items the president thinks are not necessary. send us back to the congress and then congress has to have and an up or down vote and there is a time like to expedite the process. we were able to pass it out of the house on a bipartisan basis. there is bipartisan support for that in the senate. since we are talking this morning about a lot of the differences between republicans and democrats -- that is an example of something i think we

can and should be. host: let's go to greg from alexandria, virginia, on the independent line. are speaking with representative chris van hollen from maryland. caller: good morning, congressman gary i have a question about -- good morning, congressman. i've a question about taxing corporate income and reducing the deficit. i read an article on bbc news about a lobbyist called win america, large technology companies advocating for a temporary tax amnesty for bringing foreign profit back to the states -- one to reduce the rate from 31% to 5.5. it is now $1.40 trillion, a large amount of money. i remember it happen in 2004. the same idea where it is temporary amnesty to get the money back and the congressional budget office says it is not useful and job creation or investment.

i question is in three parts. -- my question is in three parts. is there a level of political discussion on both sides of the aisle? is it seen as good or bad? and regarding temporary amnesty of corporations, d you see it as a long-term negative incentive in that a company like apple tense board tends if not hundreds of billions of dollars off shore and the will not get it this year but next, tax cut 5.5% from 31 -- it seems to be a pattern. third, what are the operational difficulties that you have encountered in addressing these issues? i recognize it as a very tough issue, issues of international finance and taxation require multiple partners and the lot of different players. but i would love to get your take on that. guest: thank you for your question and you raise the issue connected to the whole area of corporate tax reform. i think most of us believe we need to undertake some corporate

tax reform because we of a system where we have a relatively higher rates compared to many of our competitors. but we also have a lot of breaks and deductions. so, the effective corporate tax rate is actually not at all high compared to our foreign competitors but there are a lot of u.s. corporations paying close to the higher rate but many, because they use a lot of deductions, pay a lot lower effective rate. you raise a very good point that and you have a very good memory. the last time there was this kind of amnesty for overseas profits, the idea was this money was going to come home and it would be invested in jobs and the economy. that didn't happen. there is another proposal to do exactly that. the nonpartisan joint tax committee, the referees who score and tell us what the consequences and cost would be to various policy choices, said

you will have exactly the effect the caller talked about, which is, if you provide this amnesty now, it would simply encourage more u.s. corporations to move their operations overseas, generate more and more profits overseas, because there will may be another amnesty. it goes to the fundamental question of the debate between what is called the territorial tax system and the world wide tax system. at the end of the day, those are sort of simple titles to put on complicated areas. but the bottom line is, if you do what is being proposed in terms of tax holiday, you will uncovered to the offshoreing of more american jobs and that is why the president made clear he would not support going to a purely territorial system because it would encourage more u.s. companies to take jobs

overseas, and that would be a big mistake. so, that will be a debate between the president and mitt romney because governor romney has supported the idea that the non-partisan groups indicate could lead to more offshoring of american jobs. host: democrat from ohio. amoco welcome, congressman. i love c-span. -- caller: welcome, congressman. i love c-span. i do watch the action on the floor of the senate and house and i just kind of saw a movie recently that brings it all home. "planet of the apes." you have humans, you have the supposedly intelligent chimps grover norquist and big business are the 800 pound gorilla in the room. if people cannot what some of the people who made the most

radical, as they are probably like my own daughter, a radical conservative, she thinks they are all stage. she does what fox news tells them and their church, evangelical church. host: leave it there and get a response. guest: let me just say the caller then to the grover norquist pledge and it has come up another of times this morning and it comes up continually in our conversations about the best way forward on jobs and the deficit. simple math will tell you that if you say from the beginning that you refuse to consider reducing the deficit in part by closing a tax loophole or getting rid of a tax subsidy, it makes it that much harder because it means you have to deal with the deficit only through cutting and what it means is asking seniors on medicare to pay more, and that is part of the republican budget plan. it means deeper cuts to education. so, if you've got folks who

signed a pledge saleh and you can't close -- you can't get rid of a taxpayer subsidy for an oil company to reduce the deficit, you can't generate income to reduce the deficit that way, it means you got to find another way and that means you are going to be hitting somebody else, if you are serious about doing the deficit, and you should be serious about reducing the that the law over a long period of time. we need to focus right now on jobs and job creation, the most effective way to reduce the deficit in the short term, which is why it would be very helpful if you did take up the president's jobs bill. he is calling for major new investment in our national and destruction -- roads, bridges, transit. the army corps of engineers has given us a d for the state and the structure but it you have 14% unemployment and the instruction industry. it's a no-brainer to put those together. we have the lowest interest

rates we have seen, so you need a plan to invest now with a long-term plan to reduce the deficit through the balanced approach. host: tony tweets in -- guest: as part of the budget control act, we did do cuts. in fact, it was 100% cut. it is part of the measure that was enacted last summer and it had two parts. one, a trillion dollars of cuts over 12 years. but then there was a disagreement over the way to move forward in terms of deficit reduction because many of us believe we should adopt the brain were of the bipartisan group -- let's do a combination of cuts but let's close some of the tax loopholes and ask folks at the very high and to contribute more to deficit- reduction. that is where our republican colleagues objected because of

this pledge. that is out a whole sequester got set up because of was not an agreement on the balanced approach. again, the way to avoid its is to take the framework provided by these bipartisan groups. i understand the frustration of callerss, saying republicans and democrats but we have a template, we have a model, a framework from these bipartisan groups and if you really want a bipartisan solution you got to look at the frameworks. again, i don't expect everybody to agree with every specific recommendation in those, i don't. but if you look at the overall framework and ratio of cuts to revenue it does provide a path for those willing to compromise. host: congressman chris van hollen, a democrat from maryland and ranking member of the budget committee and also former chairman of the dccc. thanks for coming in. coming up next, congressman ron

paul joins us, republican of texas, to talk about his legislation on the federal reserve. also later on today, and looked at states in budget crisis with richard ravitch of the state budget crisis taskforce. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this is a kind of a job if he can disagree, even disagree vehemently on the law without taking it personally and without hating the person who is on the other side, you ought to find another job. >> supreme court associate

justice antonin scalia reflects on over 25 years on the bench and interpreting legal documents. in his latest -- sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's q&a. ♪ >> watch book tv and american history tv the weekend of august 4-fifth as a c-span's local content vehicles explore the hearts and but a vermiculture of louisville ky, all but church bill downs, louisville slugger -- slugger, and the oldest book store. >> a lot of the stores i have seen fail are stores that were opened by people who were interested in having a business, not that they had an attachment to books or a love of books but they were business people. i think you really have to have kind of a gut attachment to books to care enough about them,

because your customers are like that. they come because they really care about books. >> what the book tv and american history to be in louisville, august 4 best fit on c-span2 and 3. "washington journal" continues. host: congressman ron paul, republican from texas. you have a bill getting a run through in the house this week. tell us about what it would do to audit the federal reserve? guest: it would do exactly that. we will be once again -- or, matter of fact, for the first time, be able to audit the fed. it has never been audited. it has been around 100 years and the budget is much bigger than the congress. during the tri system of the generated $15 trillion of credit that they loaned out to system -- in secret. the constitution is clear -- monetary policy is this possibility of the congress,

oversight is the fund's ability of the contras but when they try to clarify what congress could do in the 1970's they referenced a law setting, sure, you can audit the fed except for unborn things like monetary policy and agreements with foreign banks and agreement with foreign governments and other central banks and international organizations like the imf. my bill merely removes the prohibitions that allows congress to perform its responsibility, to audit the fed and the transparency of the fed. and under these conditions, it has become more important. as a matter of fact, the american people are very, very strongly in support of the legislation. host: it would require auditing of board of governments and all regional banks -- the chairman of the federal reserve ben bernanke has had push back on this. you talked with him last week at

a testified before congress. let's hear what he had to say. [video clip] >> there is, however, one important exception to what the deal is allowed to all but according to law, and that is monetary policy deliberations and decisions. but the audit the fed bill would do would eliminate the exemption for monetary policy deliberations and decisions romney gao of it -- from the gao audit. it would allow congress to as the gao to audit the decision taken by the fed about interest rates, for example. but that is disturbing because there is evidence that independent but will banks making decisions based purely on economic situation and not pressure will deliver lower inflation and better economic results in the longer term. again, i want to agree with the basic premise that the bottom of reserve should be thoroughly transparent and beverly accountable. i will work with everyone here

to make sure that is the case. but i do feel it is a mistake to eliminate the exemption for monetary policy and deliberations, which would effectively at least to some extent create a political influence or political dampening affect on the federal reserve policy polis -- policy decisions. host: but will reserve chairman ben bernanke testified last week. headline on reuters -- guest: i would expect and to because he wants secrecy. when he talks about independence, he is talking about secrecy. talks about politics? it is a very political organization. what they can do is -- he does not want the congress to have oversight, but he talks to and works with the treasury department, he works with the executive branch. the executive branch does not have the authority to manipulate monetary policy, either. if he can get loans to private banks and private corporations

in secret, how much more political can you get? and then be protected? he says the only thing we want to our protection over its monetary policy. that is what his business is, monetary policy. he is the lender of last resort. the bailer out of last resort. he can spend $15 to show it off budget and he says we need to do it in secret. but the financial crisis has changed all this. that is ancient history. the fed has been able to do that from 1913 until 2008 but now the people know how important it is and they are understanding how the fed creates bubbles and how they claim that income to the rescue and bail everybody out and they need total secrecy, so if they allow one company to go bankrupt and bailout another company and then have no exposure and keep the information secret, i think that is ancient history. no, we don't have our way -- we don't have a total of it, we don't have monetary reform yet but the handwriting as on the

wall. this system can't work. especially since 1971, when we went on a worldwide fee at dollars standard. it has never been done in the history of the world, having one single paper standard running the whole financial institutions. it is coming to an end. i think when they look at the libor standard, our fed was concurred -- conversing with european banks setting interest rates and our central bank is always setting rates, that is their business. but i think the failure of the policy, the transparency of the fiat will come, because of will be more obvious to everyone the system cannot be maintained. host: a tweet -- referring to the fact that you are retiring from congress. have you moved the needle? have you gained traction? guest: i have other people

talking about it, so i will say, yes. it is a big change. i have been talking about a for 30 years. the last five years we got about 100 times more attention than we did the previous 25. and the whole idea of downplaying it -- did not have money to reform and we don't have the full of it. but the knowledge is there. host: why has it changed? guest: because of the crisis and the realization that that was responsible, because of education, the study of the free-market economics. before, this was not well- understood. but it is better understood now than ever before. and i think the other thing that helped is the younger generation for some reason are fascinated with the idea and information is so much more available on the internet. i have young people -- i talk to a lot of people and they are studying this and it will change. whether there will be changed before i leave congress or not,

most people realize -- the senate will give us trouble, but the attention keeps growing and growing and the understanding he is growing. i worked as much outside the congress as with in the congress to change people's attitudes and understanding and help educate, because that is what you need first, and then the congress will respond. i think that is what is happening right now. congress is responding to the people waking up and realizing how important that issue is. up until now, but always just said what ever the fed chairman says, we will go along with it because they always solve our problems. it will not have been any longer. host: sarah is a republican from the edge of water, maryland. caller: good morning. it is such a pleasure having an opportunity to talk to you, mr. paul. i am a very big credit because of the fed, and because of the crisis i did a lot of reading about it. what troubles me is it still

seems a lot of members in congress don't truly understand the controversy about the fed, how it was created and what it truly does to undermine the system. what i was wondering is, would you agree with the statement that america is bankrupt? that is my first question. and the second one is, it seems that the united states as well as europe -- basically no more money to finance any thing and would the new financial system need to be implemented in order to include some sort of debt forgiveness on a massive scale? that would be my question. thank you so much. it was a pleasure having an opportunity to talk to you. guest: thank you. you are right, the country is bankrupt. it has not been declared yet because the world still trust our dollars. we keep printing them and a former state it and we buy goods. yes, and there is going to be

monitored reform and there will be liquidation of debt. the only question is, how does a country liquidate its debt? states and cities can live with the debt sometimes by writing off the books. small countries tenorite the debt off, but they don't like to do it. spain and greece should just wipe their debt off the books but instead they will keep bailing out of attending they can salvage of the system. the open goal of unreserve and all the authorities is to get rid of that by reducing the debt in real terms, and that is just printing money. so, if you have a national debt of $15 trillion and you devalues currency by 50% and prices go up, you just liquidated $7.50 trillion of real money. eventually the trust will be lost and there will be monetary reform. there has to be reformed because countries have done this for centuries where they have to

finally restore confidence, but there is no way you can keep confidence going into a system where all you have to do is print more money. this is why congress is irresponsible because there was a the fed is there. if they have to borrow the money in the marketplace, interest rates would go up and it would come to the end. the federal reserve provides the incentive for congress to spend money. some like runaway spending overseas and miller to resign, the others like to spend on welfare -- overseas and militarism, and others like to spend on welfare. it will come to an end. we are truly an and saw the nation because if we had to pay our bills today, it would be impossible. host: a tweet from wild and wonderful -- guest: that is an incorrect statement. when we were on the gold standard, the congress have the response below the of guaranteeing that the dollar was as good as gold and the dollar

was a stable currency. so, no, you don't have to have congress -- you don't want congress to do it. congress might print even more than the federal reserve. but they would be a lot of different people. they may bailout the mortgage holder and the farmers where the fed bails out the big banks and the big corporations and foreign banks and foreign corporations. whose special benefits? i don't want the fed to bail out the very super wealthy and i don't want congress to say that we can just print out money and bailout every mortgage holder. what you want is the market to operate with interest rates go up by the market, the supply of money goes -- comes into the marketplace and people go bankrupt, nobody bailed them out. they just have to write the debt off. and you would not get into these huge financial bobbles like housing and assets. it is all the creature of the federal reserve that a monetary policy. host: gary n. butler,

pennsylvania. caller: mr. paul. it is a shame -- the media coverage. i want to ask you about the u .n. rio plus 20 -- in june, it , talking about the grain economy. -- green economy. it affects every aspect of our lives as a big country. it wants to create an international monetary fund -- to explore the potential for innovative world currency at

special drawing rates. guest: i think his concerns are justified because i think those who manage the world financial system and those who manage our dollar, both nationally and internationally, know exactly what i am saying. this is destined to fail. so, they are sitting around trying to make plans about what it should be replaced with. and i think they're absolutely right. they want to replace it with an international currency. they would like to use the imf -- the engine is a world government. i am interested in not even benging to the united nations. i do not want to give out our national sovereignty and any way and i certainly don't want them to have the currency. so, this is the plan that they have and i don't want our country going to war under u.n. resolutions or nato resolutions. i believe a national sovereignty. i believe that our constitution and we want to influence the world we should do it by setting a good example. but not allowing international

governments and international banks like the imf did the job that we in congress should be doing. host: congressman ron paul, republican from texas, representing the 14th district -- galveston, like jackson, victoria, freeport, also a presidential candidate. let us go to a democratic caller in arkansas. you are in the air. turn down your tv. caller: how are you doing? thank you all for what all of you all do it on c-span. i just want to ask congressman paul -- why not mitt romney release tax records? guest: >> it is statement on that and i think the american people would like to see it happen.

i have not volunteered to instruct him on what he should do. i tried to instruct myself what i should do. i think the american broadcast board and i made a statement it would probably be helpful to him to let the people know, if that is what they want, since he is the likely nominee for the republican party. host: have you spoken with mitt romney? guest: i have off and on the past months. i saw him a bit during the campaign. host: have you talk about endorsing him? guest: not directly. host: you have a plan you are willing to share? guest: no, i have no plan their we still have a convention to go through. host: tell us about the convention. we had questions of the facebook page asking what would you be doing. mark asks, are you speaking at the dimension and who would you invite if you were organizing the convention was in the guest: a rally before the convention will be on a sunday. i will be speaking on that a

rally. i have to have my own in order to speak. i have not been invited to speak at the national convention. it doesn't mean i absolutely will not be speaking at the national convention but as of now i have not been invited to speak there. host: who would you like to hear from -- if mark had his way and you got to pick the roster, what leaders of the republican party would you like to hear from? guest: unfortunately i end up picking a lot of the individuals are a lot more academically inclined than politically inclined. in our rally we are having, we are half -- having people around the country who have been successful during our campaign who have become state chairman, who have become nominees for senate races, who have great potential. some are in office already. quite a few. usually those who have been successful with the same message i have been talking about, those individuals who believe in personal liberty, a different foreign-policy, understanding of the federal reserve, and a

market economy. we put it is altogether, and there's quite a few. but the risk of missing somebody, i would say there are quite a few and take a look of the risk of people who will be coming to our meeting on 26 august. host: a story from "usa today" describes the status of your campaign -- saying you have not officially suspended your bid. you are still in the running to that degree. years of the latest delegate counts we see from the associated press. but romney, 1522, congressman ron paul, 158 -- mr. romney, 1005 funded 22. can you share more with us your plans at the convention -- releasing delegates are sharing your message of what you would like to see it at tampa coming out of the republican party? guest: i look at this a little differently. it is not like i own my delegates. i can't tell them what to do a

lot of. the convention will probably clarify the numbers, because we've called all of our delegates and alternates and people who are there who might not be able to vote for me on the first go round, it is closer to 500. that is a significant amount of people who will be participating in the process in participating in the platform. we will just do what we can to promote what we believe in and what we think republicans said they believed in because for years and years they argue they believe in limited government, and a group of people who will be attending the paul conference and are delicate, believe me, they are not looking for bigger government. this country does not need bigger government. and republicans, we profess they want less government but we actually believe in it. we just do not want to cut on the proposed increases. that is all that has happened last 30 or 40 years, no matter

who is an office. it is always tinkering around the edges. we want to change the philosophy of this government, liberty -- the philosophy of liberty and competition and defending everybody's individual rights. host: richard, a republican from indiana. good morning. caller: two questions. first -- this was intended for the previous speaker but i got put on hold until now. first is campaign finance and the other is morality in campaigning. how want to ask -- why is it the huge cost of the media, the press, put into this equation on a campaign financing? i am not talking about news, but political analysis of the news. the amount of money contributed by fox news and the liberal

media to the whole campaign businesses millions of dollars. that is not figured into the equation and it ought to be. guest: a great point because of lot of people look at a superficially and they say why is it so much money, all these donations and all of these lobbying efforts, millions of dollars? that is because government is too big and the politicians are yielding to the contagion of being influenced by money. but then they come around and they say too much money and too many special interest, so therefore we have to write another law setting people can't do that. his point is -- let's say corporations and individuals cannot spend a penny. they would go underground, they would spend it one way or the other. but the whole thing is, let's say you take all the corporations out of the money and all of the private money out, you still have the media. then you have the left wing and the right wing on their news and they are corporations.

why should they have a free ride on this? i would say you did not solve the problem by more regulations, telling people how to spend money. you do it by shrinking the size of government so there is no incentive to go to the auction did the government is a big auction, auctioning off all the benefits and privileges. unless you have. the of thought of everybody in washington, believe me, the problem will exist. the answer is the shrinking of government, but just to regulate private financing and then allowing the corporation to run all of the tv companies -- then they would have free rein. host: preston jones as from new york, new york, on the independent line. caller good morning. how're you doing? i want to echo the spirit of the earlier tweet. here is what i don't get -- you what congressional oversight of the fed, right?

guest: that is correct. caller: congress is broken. what are you think of? it is so locked up by politics that it is almost completely dysfunctional. i don't get it. i tell you what -- i will accept congress can have oversight of the fed when congress can get its act together. the first thing congress should be concentrating on is something like more realistic lobbying reform or campaign finance reform. that is far more realistic and will even in this ridiculous environment. i'd think it is more important. why don't you try something radical like working with jack ff, who seems to have turned his life around and focus is on lobbying because nobody knows of like he does. you will not get the oversight of the fed through, sir. guest: oh, well, you are finding an excuse to duck the issue. yes, congress has a lot of shortcomings but if you want to straighten out progress, just

three of them up and have been the response ability. as a matter of fact, the gao is one of the few agencies and government that has a decent reputation. you don't have the members of congress actually doing it, you have the gao doing an audit and giving the information. just to say because congress is inept -- they have been inapt for 100 years on monetary policy, that does not mean you state they can't do it. let us have them go on and do this forever and ever. yes, they have shortcomings but i believe that you don't just reneged on your responsibility because it don't get good results. host: david, democrats' line. birmingham, alabama. caller: mr. paul, i find you rather disingenuous. you are in social security programs -- and also you are against the civil rights act of 1964. another thing -- what you're saying, i found out you also

have a lot of money invested in gold. so basically you are looking out for your own interest. the united states is not bankrupt. it can print money anytime it once did. it is different from greece and eurozone. also the price of gold has nothing to do with the dollar. the dollar is based on oil, the price of a barrel of oil which is being manipulated by china because china previously went in and have contracts where it has a fixed price on a barrel of oil such as $20 -- when the price rise as it stays at that price. guest: what is his question? host: the civil-rights act -- guest: he does not have the full story. the civil rights act is basically every good but it also undermines a very important principle -- printable a free society which has to do with property rights. the real problem when we had the

civil rights crisis was the fact that jim crow laws, they should all have been abolished because it is always government that gives us problem with race relations. just look at how the drug laws are enforced -- very biased against minorities. and i am against this drug war. but if you really want to have fairness and civil liberties you have to deal with the drug war, and why is way out of proportion the people arrested and put into prison are minorities with the drugs? way out of proportion on the use of drugs? but when you look of the problems, the government is basically the problem even with the racial problem? first it endorsed and legalized slavery, then it comes along and it was the jim crow laws that provided the integration -- and who was the biggest segregationists'? it was our military up until after world war ii. all i want to do is get rid of the government and get out of the way when they create these

problems of racism. you can't do this by invading somebody private property and saying we will tell you what you can do in your own houses and what you can do with your own liberty, so you do not throw out all property rights and when this. you throw out all the bad laws and the protection given. but this whole idea about bold and all -- gold is something that is in the constitution. has never been repealed. it said only gold and silver can be legal tender. to say that i am somehow unpatriotic or disingenuous because i think we should not allow the rich banks to get to print the money. he sort of like of the system. he thinks he's going to help poor people but this attitude is the one that bails out the big banks. $15 trillion and the middle- class lost their jobs and houses. so if you care about the middle class and the care about poor people you have to understand

the monetary policy. you don't want a system that bails out the world and bills of the banks of the military- industrial complex. that is to get all of the money. i think a little more investigation would reveal a great deal of enlightenment for people who have those attitudes. host: our caller also brought social security. guest: i offer young people a chance to get out. young people want to get out because they know it is a bad deal. people who have paid into it, it is their money. it was supposed to be returned to them at a certain age. if you want to take some of your own money back, i don't see any problem with that. this system is not a workable system. i would like to see young people be able to opt out of it.

that is my argument. it is nothing more than getting your own money back that you were promised -- that was promised to people and the social security system and it paid into it for a long time. host: here's a story from huffington post -- is this a symbolic issue that gets you into hot water? guest: the principal and consistency that gets me into the good position i'm in where people respect me and i know that i will argue consistently for the cause of liberty and for the constitution. every time people say that we love what you were doing, you are a good fiscal conservative, but you can really get somewhere

if you drop this idea that we should not go to war unless you have a declaration. we want you to be more militant. they said if you change your phone -- foreign policy -- the consistent argument is that the defend -- you defend markets and civil liberty and you don't tell countries have to live. this is the very issue that people climb was hurting me is the reason that people will come out to the tune of 8000 people on college campuses because they know i will not send these young people off to war or tax them forever or run up the debt on wars that are not declared. look at all the countries we are in. they want someone to take a consistent viewpoint and for some reason, delightfully so, the young people seem to respect that. host: let's hear from a republican kohler in middletown, new york. caller: thank you for your service as a veteran and as a

doctor. i'm a veteran and was involved in marshall islands. everybody knows that the federal reserve is federal express and i'm watching your bill on the hill on it. i have been following you and you have more donations than the president and all the other candidates combined from veterans and military. i was wondering if you're going to speak and obama ann romney are paid for by the same people. i appreciate what you do. guest: i will be speaking at the rally i am putting together

sunday which is on august 6. your point is well taken about the military. the top four categories of donations come from the army, navy, marines, and airports. those are my top donations and i have been in the military. i got more money than anybody else put together. the accusation and washington is that you if you don't vote for the war and you don't vote to endorse the policies that got us into war, for some reason you are on american and unpatriotic and you don't clear -- care about the truth. where are the truths? i was in the military for five years in the 1960's and i was not looking forward to the expansion of the vietnam war. it made no sense whatsoever. people join the military for good reasons. they believe in the constitution and they believe we should have a good national sense of. they did not join so they can

have sex tours of duty to the middle east and not know why they are -- have six tours of duty to the middle east and not know why they are there. this is something the young people respond to. the ones inheriting this mess are opposed to this. host: independent caller from lawrence, kan., welcome. caller: dr. paul, i honor your commitment to reaching out -- rooting out the criminal cartels that go to the federal reserve and operate in high finance and are against the people of america and the planet. i would like to ask you to straighten out your record in terms of foreign policy. in many ways, i honor what they see as your non-interventionist

foreign policy but as we know, every single war that started by the united states of america is done through fraudulent and deceptive initiating event. it was september 11 and you took an oath to honor the constitution and that includes against domestic enemies. under the constitution, it is clear that the fraudulent nature of the september 11 attacks are treason and goes to the bells of our national security is complex and to the operatives who have invested many of the high positions in the pentagon. that would include people like michael chertoff -- host: do you think 9/11 was a domestic event that guest: no, i don't believe that. i don't believe the commission helped us. i believe the commission --

commissions whether they are assassination commissions or whether it is a commission for 9/11, i don't think they are set up to get information and settle this. i don't have the information to get to the point where he is. i am at a point or don't trust commissions. who was punished? what about the individual? what about the fbi agent that reported numerous times did not dozens of times why these people are learning to fly airplanes but not land them? there is something suspicious there and that was ignored. nobody goes through with this and finds out why was nobody punished. sometimes individuals get promotions on this. our big problem is depending on some of these commissions to sort it all out i think his point about going to war under false pretenses is pretty good.

whether it was the spanish- american war or even the disinformation on what happened prior to pearl harbor, the gulf of tonkin resolution, this whole idea and all the distortions about iran launching a nuclear weapon at us and justifying the going in there. one of his points with is that 9/11 occurred and i voted for the authority to go after who is responsible but iran had nothing to do with it. there is probably 1 million citizens in iraq over the last 20 years with the result of our intervention. now it is total chaos. there is more killing going on in iraq. iraq is aligned with iranians. such a foolish foreign policy.

ago under way -- to go into or under false pretenses and. --aid let's go to war unless i say let's not go to war unless there is a declaration of war and we know why we're there and we know what we're fighting for and we know when it's over instead of delaying 10 and 20 years of involvement around the world. host: ron paul representing the 14th district and he has been running for president but no longer actively campaigning but not as officially suspended his bid. he had a libertarian nomination for president in 1988 and he was a surgeon and served in the u.s. house. he is a doctor and served in the military in the air force and air national guard. we have a democratic caller, a libertarian on the line from new jersey. caller: good morning. i want to say how much we

appreciate what you do, dr. paul. i was one of the few who was so outstanding in philadelphia of watching you by the liberty bell. it was a magical day. i want to ask you about the economics of the drug policy. you touched on earlier -- you touched on it earlier. i want to hear you explain it so more people can understand it from an economic point of view. guest: there is not enough attention paid to it. it is a big economic issue. since the 1970's and this modern-day war on drugs, we have spent trillions of dollars which adds to the desk. it has accomplished nothing and prohibition does not work. it was worse than the prohibition of alcohol. the people who endorse the drug

war are drug dealers and some people who are misled into believing it is a moral issue and you can make people more and be paid by having these laws. there are other economic issues other than the debt involved. there are other special interests. if you take the drug marijuana, the one group of people who don't want to legalize it are the people who sell alcohol. alcohol is a much more dangerous drug than marijuana. if people used that, they would not by as much alcohol so they have special interests. also the drug companies are selling the pain medications and all kinds of medications for all kinds of things. if marijuana were legalized, maybe we would have less. think of the people who could be

held to are dying of cancer and cannot take anything else and cannot eat. my issue is not to defend drugs and marijuana. it costs a lot of money and it is your body, your life, you can drink alcohol if you want except if you are 18 and you have to get killed fighting overseas but you're not allowed to drink alcohol. it is a big economic issue. it is a personal liberty issue as well. host: a republican caller from california. caller: dr. paul, good morning. you have an outstanding mission for the country. i understand your reason is the federal reserve provides the policy of a central bank in

terms of monetary policy. [inaudible] what about getting us out of the debt? guest: the federal reserve has a lot to do with desperate if you did not have a federal reserve, the debt would be self limiting. the federal reserve is unable or for congress to expand and not be responsible. they can inflate the currency and print money. if you want welfare benefits for everybody and there is no limits, you like the fed because the debt can be run up and look at where we are today. interest rates are low because the fed is printing money like crazy. the only problem is that debt is unsustainable. that is why the markets are right here right now and

worldwide, it is a phenomenon. we are doing better than the rest because other countries are doing so badly. compared to greece and spain, we look pretty good but the debt is run up because there is a strong appetite from the american people to keep fighting and putting these troops overseas and a strong appetite. we can't allow anybody not to have a check from the government. about half the country now lives off the other half. that will inevitably run up the debt and cause the big crash that will be very devastating to all of us. host: an independent caller from georgia, good morning. caller: i just want to let dr. paul know that i appreciate him. i have watched him over the years and he is real consistent. he was the best candidate that we had. people just don't realize that.

i would also like to point out that a lot of african-americans and a lot of hispanics would probably vote for him if he would have been an independent. because he is a republican, that i think is holding him back as far as those two groups are concerned. i would also like to say that the issue with the currency that people don't really seem to get is the federal reserve seems to on the currency. the united states does not even on the currency and more. the fed is a private corporation and when they print that money, the loan it to the government at interest which we pay for our income tax. i think that is something that people just miss, they don't understand that. maybe dr. paul can shed some

light on that. i think people would start scratching their heads and trying to understand exactly what is going on. if we own the currency, why are we paying the federal reserve that interest? guest: that is a pretty good point. payment has to be done and it is paid for mostly by middle class and the poor because they print the money and it goes to the government and government programs and big corporations and big banks. people who get the counterfeit money -- this is literally counterfeit money -- you get a better deal put it into the economy -- putting it into the economy than it is worth a few years later. people's standard of living is going down so it is unfair. the monetary system inevitably

destroy as the middle class and enhances the rich. we have a 1% problem. the 1% is not because they have earned the money because of their special benefit from the government. you are right about appealing to minorities. it is more difficult in the republican party. i tried to change that but i keep thinking about one time when i brought the subject of the drug was being unfair to minorities and i believe i got booed. i probably got booed more than any other candidate in the republican party. i have a radical idea that we should have a foreign policy based on the golden rule. it turns out that i know -- i get stronger support from minorities on the foreign-policy issue. i think it is because the draft has been unfair to minorities in the past and even today, minorities are unfortunate in

the military because of economic reasons and they carry an unfair burden. host: two questions on twitter -- expecting aot cabinet position would be offered to me. that would be a big surprise. that's not going to happen. i will probably continue to do exactly what i am doing. i am very interested in promoting ideas of personal liberty, sound economic policy, and foreign policy since 1970. politics was really an aside. i did that without the expectation that i would ever be in politics.

i just wanted to be able to talk about these issues. i will continue to do it. campaign for liberty is what i have spent my life doing. i dropped out for 12 years and went back to madison. i will continue to do this because i think this whole idea of liberty and limited government is coming alive right now. i am really excited. we're getting there on capitol hill but the country is waking up especially the younger generation and i am excited about that. host: congressman ron paul, thank you for being here. coming up next, we'll talk with richard ravitch about the state budget crisis. first a look at the latest congressional connection poll put out by the national journal. here to talk about it is matthew cooper. good morning. guest: good morning. host: remind us about this poll.

guest: we do it throughout the year when congress is in session. it is sponsored by united technologies corp. and done with "the national journal." we do with the princeton research survey. it goes deeper on issues than your typical poll and to give congress a sense of what the public feels. we digging deep. host: this week's focus is looking on -- at this congress and how compares to ones in the past. when america -- when americans are as whether republicans and democrats are working together, what do they say? guest: you will be shocked to hear that they are not working together. people really see a connection between that and a bad economy. they think of congress were to work together more, they might see some better results.

they are more inclined to want congress to work together. there has been a 10th-point increase in our poll since 2010. people want congress to work together. people were more fired up since the 2010 election. now we are seeing more support for compromised especially among republican-leaning voters host: how people perceive congress is doing work -- as doing work? guest: in terms of productivity and getting things done and getting along -- it is quite low at the moment. that was not always the case. there were times after president obama's election or there was hope in the country that congress and the president could get along and congress could get along with each other and the

numbers spiked at that time. right now, we or at a low point where people don't have the confidence that congress can get along and can get things done and help the economy. host: do people think congress can affect high unemployment in america? not realey're optimistic that they are confident that congress can do something. whatever you believe, there are ideas out there. the question of whether congress can get along is of great interest to people all all political persuasions. host: the congressional fast whatn poll - quality people admire and their leaders. -- admired in their leaders. guest: after a couple of years

of watching congress duke it out and go to the brink of a number of issues, they want to see compromise from all sides. i think people are a little tired of this. they also realize the stakes are high. the economy is in tough shape and they want congress to get together on some policies to remedy that. host: do americans think the parties will come together after the november election? guest: they are not terribly optimistic about that. only 22% thought congress could get together and compromise and get things done. people are still pretty skeptical. host: the congressional connection poll also asked who

works with congress on a more effective level, mitt romney or president obama? guest: i think it is fairly split along party lines. there tended to be a proxy for who you support in the fall. it offered an insight. i think that number will be even more interesting in the fall and people are even more into effect of the presidential campaign and they have debate going on. many people will be as the kind of question again. host: looking at the 2012 congressional election, the poll asked folks who they would be more likely to vote for a long glide to the candidate who compromises or one who was brand new to politics. guest: you are seeing a little

more support for candidates who are willing to compromise and willing to show some flexibility in 2010, there were inclined to want people to dig in and shake things up and now after a couple of years, they are more inclined to favor flexibility. host: matthew cooper, national journal editor, thank you for talking with us today. we will now go to new york or richard ravitch joins us who is co-chair of the state budget crisis taskforce. guest: good morning. host: what prompted the creation of this task force? guest: when i was lieutenant governor of new york state, i became very concerned about the way the state budget was treating borrowed money and

asset sales as revenues and i made some suggestions to change the budget process. in new york state which got a lot of support from around the country, a lot of interest. it was rejected by the political establishment in new york state. out of bed grew the thought that maybe we should examine the sustainability of state budgets generally. when i left public office along with my friend and partner paul volcker, we put together a group of like-minded former public officials who share our concerns about the disconnect between the federal budget discussions and what was happening in state and local levels and we read the money and put together this research project at last week issued our

report and their findings. host: our guest used to be lieutenant governor of new york and cochaired with paul volcker, the former federal reserve chairman, this report of the state budget crisis. what are states facing? what is their biggest challenge? guest: there are a number of them. we have more than six of them but the major ones are medicaid expenses and retirement expenses. that is not just pension obligations. it is also health-care obligations to health care employees. those matters are growing at a much faster rate than local revenues. there is no short-term prospect that that will change and there for as long as that gap continues to grow, states and cities and counties will have to

keep cutting back on central -- on essential services if they are going to meet obligations that they are contractually or statutory late obligated to meet. host: we're talking about the fiscal crisis facing some states. richard ravitch participated in this new report. if you like to join the conversation, the numbers are on your screen. you looked at six states specifically. why focus on just these few and what are they? guest: we focused on new york and new jersey, illinois, california, texas, and virginia. we did six because we did not have the time or the resources to do 50. we took the states that we have the most service problems in.

we also took states that were located in parts of the country where there was more prosperity at the state level and we believe that there were better managed fiscally. those six states contain over 40% of the population of the united states. our report is focused not just on those six states. the report reflects the statistics on each category we looked into of all 50 states. that enabled us legitimately and honestly to come to some general conclusions about what was happening in the states. obviously, every state has its unique characteristics, you need constitutions, you need laws,

unique relationships with the municipalities and the county's and their own political cultures. there is not a simple uniform results for everyone but the common thread is their expenditures, their obligations, are growing faster than revenues. host: here is some information - thes hear from crest on democrats' line from connecticut. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you, lieutenant governor, for taking on this issue. in connecticut, what can i tell you? the gop tries to convince us that the more the government is

closer to the people the better it will work. in connecticut, we've got mayors that have been in jail, ex-con mayors, one mayor in jail for unspeakable crimes, a former governor who is also indicted for corruption. it seems that the more local our government gets, the worse it gets. the state budget crisis is a direct reflection of the fact that these guys get voted into office and get put until afterwards and don't have to pay any consequences in terms of what they did to the state. guest: your concern is appropriate but criminal behavior cannot dictate public policy with a few bad apples we tried to address the more

fundamental question which is that with the best of intentions and with total honor, this society made a lot of commitments and don't necessarily have the resources to meet them. host: this is a republican in wyoming, good morning. caller: good morning, i would like to see more people to vote and i don't care what or who they are voting for. we have so many people that will not even try to vote because they figure that vote don't count and it does count. if we get that -- if we don't get that back to our country, we will not have a country. that is how i feel. host: how you feel like wyoming is doing? guest: our state is doing fine because we have oil and coal and things people need and want to shed all down because the

government does not think we should have coal because it is causing all kinds of problems. global warming is just a joke. if they would go back to the old ways of earning coal, we would not have a global warming. guest: all i can say is i agree with you. the cure for democracy is more democracy, not less. i hope our lot of people vote. host: let's talk about what the task force has recommended. you identified a couple of the problems -- medicaid spending in the federal deficit reduction but how you solve these problems? guest: first of all, you try to persuade state governments and elected officials in the states to budget differently, to do

four-year budget forecasts, to make sure their recurring expenditures are met with recurring revenues, to make sure there is more transparency so the public knows what is going on, not to use borrowed money to balance budgets. that is why selling a different piece of furniture every day to be able to buy a steak dinner, this has to stop. it is leading to a potential catastrophe. the budget process seized should be changed -- processes should be changed and meat -- be made more transparent. there's a disconnect between the congress and what happens with state and local governments. people don't get elected to congress on the basis of what

happens in a particular school district. if 1/3 of the teachers are laid off because local and state government does not have enough money, that is not what determines the electability of a new congress person. they get elected or run on a platform that has to do with more broad issues like medicare or social security or getting out of afghanistan or staying in. it is not on the question of how many times a week does your garbage gets picked up and how many schoolteachers do you have and what are your pension obligations that you are creating for the people who perform those public services. that disconnect needs to be modified in society or a jeopardize all of us. host: here are some of the recommendations --

wire those important? why is accessing the information valuable to residents and how can you go about securing rainy day fund stacks guest: first of all, it is an obvious assumption that if the public is better informed, it is likely to elect more responsible people to public office who ultimately have the power to make these decisions. an informed public has to be the first priority of anybody who cares about changing the way the decision making process works in government. inst: let's hear from jose miami, fla., an independent

scholar. caller: i would like to comment on budgets and spending in general. in miami dade county, there is a budget of about $6 billion. the operating budget is approximately $4.8 billion. you have $1.2 billion you must use to repay debt. week, i was watching the county commission meeting and i see one of the commissioners advocating for the spending of $3 million to decorate a section of downtown miami. i have lived here over 50 years and a ruined it. they used to have docks here. there is no concrete everywhere. they don't care. they spend money. we are all in this together and they just spend the money. this is wasted money.

they just re-broke the streets to make concrete containers at -- to the tune of $750,000. wasting and spending is all levels. they say they have a balanced budget but they don't because they borrow money for medicare, for disability during these hard times. guest: you are the kind of citizen we need more of. i don't know the specifics of what you're talking about of the citizenry has the ability to understand how the people are spending their tax dollars. i hope more and more people will make it their business to learn what is happening. i think it is also important to understand what we all learned in high school which is that under our constitution, it is

the states in the united states, not the federal government, that has the primary responsibility for public safety, education, health care, for the public infrastructure. those responsibilities are the central -- are an essential functioning of our collective society and is often ignored or subordinated in the media discussion because it is much more fun to talk about politics like who is going to win and which is a better party. and what are we going to do about the state of the world. i am not to mention the significance of that but the problems you worry about are often too neglected. host: richard ravitch is the former lieutenant governor of new york state and serves at the new york state urban

development corporation and the metropolitan transportation authority of new york and cochaired the report of the state budget crisis along with paul volcker. let's talk more about some of the recommendations -- guest: i think people tend to austin -- underestimate what it takes to keep a pension fund adequately funded to meet all its obligations in the future. to do so would require a larger appropriation which means that elected officials would have to make more taxes or more cuts. the unions represent the people who are the beneficiaries of these funds and if they have internal conflicts, because the state or city passed to spend

more money on the pension fund, that means there could be layoffs of existing employees for the government to make those contributions. the second area of controversy is isn't it reasonable to assume that a pension fund and what would turn in the future. if you make an optimistic assumption that these funds can earn 7-8% at a time when there is nobody who believes that for the time being that returns could approximate those numbers at all. it is impossible. therefore, the real underlying question is who has the risk of

ultimately making sure the promised benefits get paid or does the political system want to affect those benefits? that is the kind of dialogue and controversy we have increasingly in this country at this point. what we tried to do in this report is to explain it so people understood and suggest that one has to take a responsible course not to make wild eyed assumptions about what you can turn with a fiduciary fund and recognize the fact that if, indeed, the obligation to pay the benefits is secured by constitutional or statutory language, that you should not take bigger risks with people's pensions. host: we're talking about a

state budget crisis taskforce cochaired by our guest richard ravitch. our next caller is from greensboro, n.c., democrats line. caller: i would like for your guest to comment on my comment. i think the american people need to understand how much damage to state and local budget was done by derivatives deals called interest-rate swaps. everybody has probably heard of jefferson county, alabama going bankrupt. i wonder if they know that a j.p. morgan official was convicted of bribery. i wonder if they know that pittsburg and kentucky, for a couple of examples, had big losses on interest rate swaps that were structured so that the risk was all on the municipalities and non on j.p.

morgan. guest: i think there are two parts to what you talked about. one is that states or trustees of pension funds in an effort to improve the yield did get talked into, by wall street, to buy some fairly esoteric securities by interest rate swaps. i know new york state lost a lot of money doing that. other states did as well. i don't think there was anything dishonest about it, per se, it was just an important set of decisions to make. second question is -- the creation of these derivatives, these mortgage-backed securities and piling one set of credits on to another, what did

that have to do with the financial collapse in 2007? with the states be in the same trouble they were in had been not had those things? probably not. host: more recommendations from the state budget crisis taskforce -- states are sandwiched between the fed and the local government. what are some of the challenge that -- challenges that come with those decisions? guest: there is over $600 billion in the federal budget that passes through the states. that is for medicaid, social services, infrastructure,

hundreds of separate programs. , education, etc. the states in turn pass on a substantial portion of what they received from the federal government to local governments. there are municipalities. for example, states generally don't run the public school systems within their borders. they are run by local school boards or a municipality. the states contribute significantly to the revenues of those individual school districts. it is kind of a ripple effect. when the federal government decides it has to reduce the growing deficit that is happening in washington and are growing dependency on borrowing money from places like china to balance our budget, they must

also be conscious of the impact that those cuts have on state and local governments. to our great concern, we see no evidence that the people who are focused on the federal deficit problem, we don't see them paying any attention whatsoever to the implications on states and cities. host: our next caller is a republican from savannah, georgia. caller: good morning, i have just had five operations. it took almost four months. i went back to the hospital to find out what was going on with the billing and they said medicare set the prices and they set the coast.

medicare said they could charge over $11,000 and the hospital said that was overcharged of the road of $9,000. medicare paid the difference less 20% and i had to pay it. this went on and all the operations were done periodically with the different specialists. when it ended up, i got five different bills for the same operation. host: do you think it has an application under state budget? guest: this is medicare and medicaid and the state picked up a part of that. i was supposed to get a wheelchair. i did not get one because i had three of them. guest: medicare is 100% federal program. there is no state money in medicare. medicaid, on the other hand, is a joint federal and state program. about 40% of all medicaid

expenditures her spent on people who get their hospitalization and the doctors paid for under medicare. medicaid will pay to assist poor people. it will pay the costs of nursing-home care, personal care, or home care. that is where the medicaid costs come out on top of the expenses that are subsidized by medicare. host: richard ravitch is our guest in our next caller is from hoboken, new jersey, on our independent line. caller: i have a question for the lieutenant governor. i want to know about the performance of chris christie. do you think there is any type

of pensions that are in tandem with local government? do you think -- there's a thing with pensions where they keep track of how closely the benefits are based on what they contribute. guest: governor christie has a lot of problems. the new jersey pension system was a very substantially underfunded because there was no statute in new jersey that required them to fund the system in a way that was actuarially determined to be prudent. they passed a statute this year for the first time that expressed the intent to get fully funded over seven years. people are skeptical whether

that is possible to do without raising taxes given the inflation so many of the other costs that states have to bear. secondly, new jersey has relatively higher tax rates than most states of the country. their property taxes are high. can you really continue to meet your responsibilities as a government at the present level of taxation? the governor expressed the hope he can reduce taxes and other people say there is no way they can meet inflation other than by increasing taxes. this is the debate that we have throughout this country.

it happens to be particularly conflicting in new jersey because of the history and budget deficits that have happened over a period of time. host: this is from twitter -- did states over reach? guest: yes, to a large degree. i think that is true. but so does our society as a whole. we have always been optimistic, successful, the greatest country in the face of the earth. we thought there was no problem that we could not solve that we won world war two and repeat the communists into submission without going to war. we seldom the enormous problem of racial divide.

we led the world and industry and technological genius. we created the internet. we were very optimistic society. we were growing at a rapid rate. therefore, i think, not out of malice and not out of reasons of corruption or anything else, we made a lot of promises and our rate of growth just did not sustain itself and we were never able to meet those obligations and that is the problem all levels that our society is struggling with today. host: n.y., republican line -- caller: good morning, i once lived in section 8 housing. if i could not get my own apartment on my own because i

worked a part-time job, to get into a place there which is nice but these apartments barely pass inspection. the bigger problem is i wound up losing about apartment because i could not make the round - rent. people tell you you are eligible for food stamps or other things. then you go out to dss which can be an all-day affair. i won't get into that. then they tell you that because

i was making over the budget for food stamps, you are not eligible for that sort of thing. host: it sounds like you're talking about being caught in between, not fully eligible for progress but still meeting held. caller: yes. host: lieutenant governor, is there a danger that states won't be able to help people like our last caller? guest: there is, indeed. there are many americans on food stamps now. there are more poor people and american banner ever have been before. the state's ability to provide support to services for those people is diminishing because of the fiscal squeeze that they are under. i think we concluded as a task force that that was the greatest risk and greatest problem that

we were headed towards was a dim and mission of the ability -- of the availability of functional services. host: this is the report of the state budget task force and our guest cochairs the task force along with paul volcker. new york is where our next call comes from, democrats line. good morning. last trial -- will move on to georgia where we have an independent college. caller: good morning, recently, the governors met and discussed budgetary problems that the states were having. i remember the health panel discussing how half of the females in the united states who gave birth were covered for medicaid. clearly, if half of the united

states has women on medicaid, they are clearly not able to afford these babies. where does it end? we have to do something in order to help people because the state can no longer afford to pay for every -- half of all the burt's tenure of the united states. thank you. -- half of all births in the united states. host: we just talked about how the task force found that one of the biggest problems is that the poor will not be able to taken care of. the safety net will not be sustainable and the states. where do you see it happening and what are some of your concerns? guest: first of all, some of the questions get into issues of

religion and what the role of government is in terms of birth control and abortion. if you qualify because your income falls below a certain range, indeed, you are entitled in most states to medicaid support for the delivery of your children. every state under medicaid can determine its own eligibility. every state has a different set of reimbursement rates and different -- for different medical conditions and for people of different quality. children are covered differently from one state to another and it is hard to be uniform. if you believe, as many do, that health care is a right and the

government should provide -- should be the provider of last resort for central health care in the united states, it is hard to argue that they should not reimburse poor people or pay the cost of giving birth for poor people. host: richard ravitch, co-chair of the state budget crisis test report. if there's one thing you would like to happen in the short term, what would it be? guest: i would like to see the states being forced through the exercise of federal budgetary power to reform their budget processes and be far more transparent and what they are getting and what they are spending and