he will take your calls about his article between the generations. ♪ host: on the hill today, the flag is that have staff because of the colorado shootings. a lightning rod for critics on the left and the right where finding fault in his work as a regulator before he joined the treasury. on at the floor of the house, there will take up oversight of the federal reserve today. there will take a vote on that ron paul bill. in the senate, a key vote today.

whether to extend the bush-era tax cuts. president obama is in new orleans today. amid romney arrives in europe where he will continue to talk about foreign policy and his vision for the future. that is the subject of our first segment this morning. who do you trust more on foreign policy? president obama? or mitt romney? here are the numbers to call. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. beyond the phone calls, you can check with -- you can check in with us through twitter. also, facebook.com.

who'd you trust more on foreign policy? the washington post makes the mitt romney speech. the headline promises a foreign policy shift. we will hear from the republican candidate in just one second. mitt romney outlined american nationalism that calls for a more aggressive posture in confronting the rivals.

host: here is mitt romney. [video clip] >> in an unapologetic believer in the greatness of america. i'm not ashamed of american power. i take pride that threat history our power has brought justice when there was a tyranny. peace were there was conflict and hope for there was affliction and despair. i do not view america as just one more place on the map, one more power to be balanced. i believe our country is the greatest force for good that we have ever known and our influence is needed today more than ever before. host: we will hear from the president in a moment. this they did dress was heard with vigor. that is the word date used. at one point, mitt romney even

endorsed obama's plan. host: here is a little bit of what president obama had to sit at the same gathering the day before. [video clip] >> again, there are those who argued against a timeline for this war, at least argue against talking about it publicly. after 10-years of war, i felt it was important to the american people and our men and women in uniform to know our plan to end

this war responsibly. [applause] so, by the end of the summer, more than 30,000 of our troops will have come home. next year, afghans will take the lead for their own security. in 2014, the transition will be complete. even as our troops come home, we will have a strong partnership with the afghan people. we will stay vigilant so afghanistan is never again a source of attack for america. we're not just ending these wars. we're doing it in a way that achieves our objectives. war has allowed us to broaden our vision and began a new era of leadership. we are leaving from europe to the asian pacific with alliances that have never been stronger. we are leading the fight against nuclear dangers.

we have applied the strongest sanctions ever on iran and north korea, nations that cannot be allowed to threaten the world with nuclear weapons. [applause] we are leading on behalf of freedom, standing with people in the middle east and north africa who demand their rights. protecting the libyan people as they rid of the world of more gaddafi. host: before we get to calls, your thoughts on foreign policy. little more from the white house on foreign policy. this is from the "the washington post."

host: what do you think? first of, from columbus, ohio, on the democrat line. caller: i will try to be nice about this. vfw membership is not even applauded. mormons were the only ones allowed to get out of going to vietnam. now his sons are helping to become a president, so they cannot fight in afghanistan while my sons are. romney is an empty suit.

i am weary of anyone who tries to hide what happens in the olympics. as governor, he has hidden everything. s core of all of his papers. no taxes. this man should not be elected. he knows nothing. all he wants to do is sucked up to the jews. host: , bill, who you trust on foreign policy? caller: this president has hidden behind that so-called a birth certificate. anyway, his foreign policy has been an embarrassment. i was prior military. i was in the navy for five years in the early 1960's. i embarrassed of this man. never have i seen any other president fail to be commander- in-chief. host: give us a detail to

support your point. caller: the apologies this man has made over issues we should not be apologizing for. we do not need to apologize for situations that occur within military applications regarding prisoners and things like that. his policies here with the country and other countries, we are just not trusted any more. this poor man being held in pakistan, the doctor. we should be getting him out. not dancing around pakistan. host: are you still there? go ahead and finish up your point. caller: i just think he is

terrible. going on hi record, i would rather see someone come in like a governor romney who at least has america in his sights. host: jack from virginia, what do you say? caller: yes, good morning. there is all this with vitriol going around. one guy can not be right most of the time. the first call stole my thunder. i was going to say, all these people who want to go to war, show me the money. thank you. host: lots more time for your calls. as to listen to you, a poll

points out that an abc news poll published in may found that 48% of americans supported obama's handling of foreign affairs while 46% did not. if you're a reader of usa today, you know they have put out a poll as well. romney faces challenges in convincing americans. more than half say obama can better handle foreign policy concerns and the presumptive nominee. all over the papers today. not just the speeches by the candidates. they leave it by talking about what they see as obama's weakness. they write at the meeting that obama seeks praise on his record and people have a new

attitude towards america. we see it everywhere we go. the times says that this raises the question, where exactly has he been going? they finished up the editorial by saying that there is a reason he has not been a strong leader internationally. he never set out to be one because he is never believed in exceptional message of the united states. fairfax, virginia. a democrat. go ahead. caller: i have three points to make. this is about "the washington post." that is why nobody touches in this. there would rather get their news on line. if you do not listen to make

your own analysis, you find what they're talking about with empty seats. "the washington times" is but that it. he does not wear his foreign policy on his sleeve. it is what the man does. i have ever seen any smart leader that uses conventional technology to fight our enemies. look at this country today. four years later, america is safe. my other point is that barack obama has never fully apologize to any country. anybody that says he has apologized, for them to identify, the republicans do not have any point.

this is a leader who walks slowly but carries a big stick. we've never seen any leader leave for a long time. it is about what he has done. people do not give him credit for what he has done about been a lot in -- bin laden. that is huge. a look at the way he is handling iran. they have never had any pressure host: -- pressure. host: thank you for calling. we want to get some other viewpoints. scott, are you there? toler: i'm still listening the last guy. i'm not sure what he is talking about. so far, we have a continuation of the bush policies. the president, that is, denied and refuted the buildup.

when he was in office, he pushed it through so he could get it back down before the election. when he was in the senate, he fought against it. it makes no sense. he went around the world making these suppose it connections, i do not want to say allies and enemies, but other nations that may have been neglected in the past. the strategy has been to go in and say that we are the problem in the world. i do not know how that makes a stronger by being a good listener. the reason is because he does not have a lead. he has never let anything. he doesn't understand foreign- policy. host: that was a scot. a lot more calls coming in, but i want to hear the candidates.

these are from the speeches and nevada. we will hear first from governor romney on his plans for afghanistan should he become president. [video clip] >> if it were up to more war or to tax your home, it is a political retreat. as president, michael and afghanistan will be to complete a successful transition to afghanistan forces by the end of 2014. i will evaluate conditions on the ground and solicit the best advice of our military commanders. i will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation and the safety of our troops. host: from facebook this morning.

host: here is moses from virginia, an independent scholar -- caller, good morning. caller: my comment was on both obama and mitt romney. for the people to hear. [unintelligible] he is saying he loves his country. why, then, none of them were in

the military. [unintelligible] we need to be thinking, too. that is all i have to say. host: we have bethany on the line. a line for democrats. good morning. caller: i am stephanie. you said bethany. i just want to say that i believe president obama is the better foreign policy leader. i think he is very wise. he does act more humble than governor romney. i think he might be a dicey bad -- he might be a nice man, but i

think he does things that republicans want him to say. i do not like this arrogant saying that americans are better than other people and they should rule the world. they are always right. i think that is not wise. it does not make friends for americans. i think it is time that we act the way president obama is leading. he is very wives. he does not just say anything. he means what he says. he is sincere. i definitely believe that he is the better foreign policy leader. host: on facebook

host: here is a message on atwitter. not even close. back to the topic of afghanistan, here is the president on his plan to end u.s. activity there. [video clip] >> after 10 years of war, i felt it was important for the american people and our men and women in uniform know our plan to end of this war responsibly. [applause] by the end of this summer, more than 30,000 of our troops will have come home. next year, afghans will take the lead for their own security.

in 2014, the transition will be complete. even as our troops come home, we will have a strong partnership with the afghan people. we will stay vigilant so afghanistan is never again a source for attack on america. about the the president. host: end of fiat twitter. the republican line, good morning. caller: i tell you what. they both have their strengths. it is open to any american.

it will be difficult for us to compete with him on the campaign trail because i called obama drum of trauma is a kill the enemy. at the same time, i let him know that i am a republican. i want to vote romney because i was overseas with jimmy carter. we had a president like obama in that jimmy carter. if we were getting killed by soviet special forces in the deserts of in. and there were mormons over there. to that lady in columbus, ohio. i may nazarene. protestant nazarene. i disagree with the doctrine of the mormons, but they will fight and they did so overseas. thank you. host: jacob, independent call. caller: i think mr. romney is far-better qualified. mr. obama had nothing in his

resonate when he came to office. i am going to talk about israel. the reason he went to egypt and israel is because during the time he spent as a child in indonesia with his father, his father indoctrinate him to the point of view that israel was a colonial entity comprised of white western european people. anti-s father was very colonial. if you go back after the first world war, when winston churchill was a young man working in the administration, he was charged with the responsibility of drawing up the borders of the middle east. do not forget, after the first world war, there were nomadic tribes. they could not govern themselves. so churchill was given the responsibility of drawing the line.

he created the states of the middle east. those boundaries and they still stand today. that is the reason when the first thing obama did when he became president was walking to the oval office. if that does not tell people something about the mind-set of this man, they need to reexamine it. host: that was jacob from louisville, ky there. here is another twitter message. he cannot speak to his own foreign policy. he can only bash obama. here's a look to the more from it romney with his speech in reno about iran. [video clip] >> the lead a holiday by chance of death to america. there will not be talked out of nuclear weapons. the new the furnace, clarity, and courage that we and our allies can gather.

sanctions must be forced without exception. negotiations must secure access for inspections. as it is, the iranian regime claims the right to nuclear material for supposedly peaceful purposes. this claim is discredited by years of deception. a clear line has to be drawn. there must be a full suspension of any in richmond whatsoever, period. host: "usa today" writes on the trip to europe.

host: we will be tracking mitt romney's trip to europe and are hoping to bring you coverage from poland over the weekend. "the new york times" reported that the candidates talked foreign policy. they write that mr. romney spoke about foreign affairs and to that vfw. host: they have some supporting examples. a democrat from new jersey, good morning. caller: i do not trust romney on anything. especially foreign policy. he has all bush advisers in his campaign. in case americans have

forgotten, his approval ratings were not only low in the united states, i believe in the 20's, countries all over the world, including our allies hated and distrusted bush. obama is not an apologist. he is trying to undo the damage done by the bush and administration. host: lots more in the papers on different topics. 13 states to pinch medicaid benefits.

host: here is the headliner. one of them in "the washington post." the cbo says there will cut the cost of the health-care law. millions will be uninsured in a report that came out yesterday. in "the wallstreet journal" the talk about the fed moving closer to action. host: that is the lead item in "the wallstreet journal" this morning. back to europe. "the financial times," big

story. host: we go back to foreign policy and differentiating the two candidates here. who'd you trust more on foreign policy? this is steve, now. an independent from arlington, virginia. caller: you do have a great show. i love your station. i remember when you guys started back in the early 1980's. beautiful show. i am leaning towards a romney now just for a few reasons. that speech he gave yesterday, the open mike thing he said to the russian, the u.n., i will deal with you later. and then invite him over. that really bothers me. it bothers me so much.

host: why? caller: first of all, it is foolish to say something at of the u.n. you do it in private. but the whole world know that you go with the hard stuff later. though got more done that you want done. you cannot do on the campaign cycle. it just shows a pretty shallow and die. right about the same time, i remember george welsh. he is the former head of ge. he was on charlie rose. he says the biggest mistake he made in his life was the bundling of one-quarter of a million dollars to the obama campaign. he says he is going to set us back 20 years. and then discuss the bid for secretary treasury, you know.

in there. -- timothy geithner air. he was a banker. he didn't pay his taxes. he is in a ring her over there today. i cannot wait to watch this stuff on tv. host: final thought on the foreign policy aspects? caller: i think it is a stretch to say that romney will be better, but he cannot be worse than obama. host: ok. we have more on how the president talks about his philosophy of ending the war in iraq. [video clip] >> i pledged to end the war in iraq honorably and that is what we have done. after i took office, we removed nearly 150,000 u.s. troops from

iraq. some said that bring our troops home was a mistake. there would kept tens of thousands of our forces in iraq indefinitely without a clear mission. well, when your commander in chief -- when you are commander in chief, you owe the troops a plan. you of the country a plan. that includes recognizing not just when to begin wars, but when to end them. host: an editorial and "the wallstreet journal" today.

host: we have greg. a republican. good morning. caller: i am for mitt romney. he is the best candidate. he knows what is going on. he does not come out any lies. obama has lied to the american people for over 3.5 years. how can you respect that individual to run our country? i think he needs to, you know, these to tell everybody that george bush was a liar. this guy has lied much more and he continues. let's get him, america. host: lead story. president -- mitt romney calls

for a special counsel on leaks. host: on twitter, somebody writes, somebody tell me how mitt and obama are different on foreign policy? who can tell the difference? later on at 2:00 p.m. eastern, we'll take a look at campaign 2012 on foreign policy. we will hear from martin, the featured speakers at this event. the co-chair of national security adviser committee for obama for america. that is live on c-span 3 at 2:00 today. jeremy, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. please to not let me -- please

do not cut me off. you let the guy go on. were mormons.ts they had numerous marriages. they believe that you baptize people after they are dead. number 3, he wears holley underwear. they believe black people are cursed and cannot get into the kingdom of heaven. these are things you do not want to hear, but you let people go on and on about president obama. host: do you want to talk about foreign policy at all what we have you? i think we lost him. from north carolina, good morning. caller: obama takes credit for ending the war and all of that. with the war going on the way it was, as many years as it has been going on, it was bound to come to an end if he was president or somebody else was present, it would not indifference.

i do not see him getting a second term. if you think bush's second term was bad, you wait for obama's. on the second term they did not have to worry about being reelected. host: we mentioned mitt romney on the leak issue. here's a little bit on that. [video clip] >> the chairman of the senate intelligence committee said, i think the white house has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks. this conduct is contemptible. it betrays our national interests. a copper rises are men and women in the field and it demands a full and prompt investigation by special counsel with explanation and consequence. obama appointees who are accountable to the attorney general should not be

responsible for investigating the leaks coming from the obama white house. whoever provided classified information to the media seeking political advantage for the administration must be exposed, dismissed, and punished. the time for stonewalling is over. host: an independent from oklahoma. go ahead, sir. caller: with regard to the foreign policy, the question i would say that, for me -- and by the way, i am not too crazy about either candidate. it is a matter of practical experience as opposed to hopeful experience. i just cannot see romney having any experience and president obama, he has done a pretty good job. nobody is perfect. but my main question was to ask the people and yourself, straighten out. i have heard all this talk about the olympics and the success.

am i wrong in thinking that there was a scandal regarding bribery in the international olympic committee? if that is the case, i could do that in any back room. but i wish to straighten me out or somebody could call and straighten me out with regard to securing the olympics. is is not that i am megative -- negative with regard to romney. this nagging thing is in my head and i wish you would strip me out. please have a good week and thank you for listening to me. host: one more point on the lead story. this is from "the huffington post."

host: let's hear from south carolina. a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i does want to remind people to bring these children home. now that he has all these secrets, all his money is hidden. people are sitting up there asking him to be president. this man is a correct. i think obama has a good a job. [unintelligible] it sounds sick to me. thank you.

host: jack from illinois. go ahead. good morning. are you there? we do not have jack of there. some other news, though. "the chicago sun times." host: if you go to the chicago tribune, they get a little more specific. host: the other papers out there include the times out of louisiana.

the talk about a pact between the new orleans police department and the justice department. host: we have time for another call or two. i wanted to show you a headline from "the denver post" following the shootings in colorado. host: back here in washington, the democratic congressman who represents aurora.

[video clip] >> there has been a tremendous outpouring of sympathy and condolences and compassion from all of you. and i know i speak on behalf of our entire delegation to thank you for thinking about us and where we live and our community because we are in this together and we thank you very much. i ask that all of you stand with me and our delegation in a moment of silence to honor the memory of those that were killed, the wounded victims, and all americans during this time of healing. as i said once before, and as our governor said, we will remember these people who were hurt and we will help them all along the way.

host: the democrat from colorado represents our raw with a tribute. -- represents aurora with a tribute. a couple of other foreign policy stories we would get to. that's get a call in from indiana first. caller: i think president obama, definitely on the foreign policy. mitt romney, he caters to china. that priest sent him to china, a communist country that has the highest abortion rates. i think president obama is a lot stronger than what people give him credit for and is more

respected in other countries than people give him credit for. the invasion of iraq, the bush administration, and the runs field and dick cheney. after several years, they were known in some military circles as the three stooges. romney is using the same people. and i just think he is not going to be good for our country when you support a communist country like china and by giving them jobs which supports china's believes in abortion and everything else. host: thank you to everyone who

called. but just to another headline. host: "the new york times." host: a story out of cairo there. we will take a brief break and then begin our conversation with a couple of members of the u.s. house. first we will talk with congressman henry cuellar. we will most talked a lot u.s. /mexican relations.

at about 8:30 eastern time it will be scott garrett. he is the vice chairman of the committee, he is a republican. we will be right back. >> if you cannot even disagree on the law without taking it personally and a without hating the person on the other side, you need to find another job. >> the supreme court justice, scalia, reflects on 25 years on the bench and interpreting legal documents. in his latest, "reading law," sunday at 8:00. >> this weekend on american

history tv. >> what exactly is the nature of the clash between macarthur and truman? is this a clash over policy? is this a problem of personalities? >> from lectures in history, truman and a macarthur. on the relationship that led a president to lead a general at the height of the korean war. and on sunday, more from "the contenders," a series of people who ran for president and lost. he once said that he had a bad case of a hereditary politics. his grandfather was a vice president over grover cleveland. his great-grandfather was the first to suggest abraham lincoln as president. he ran twice against eisenhower. american history tv, this weekend, on c-span 3. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: our guess now is henry cuellar. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. good morning. host: u.s./mexican relations. a potential restart. explain to us what happened in recent weeks with the election. who want and what do you think it all means? guest: first, if you do not mind, let me explain the importance. every day there's over $1 billion of trade with the u.s. and mexico. there are 6 million u.s. jobs here in the united states that are here because of the trade and the business we have with mexico. there is a 1,200 mile border with them. there are a lot of things we need to pay attention to in mexico. they had a 62% turnout rate which is pretty good.

a lot of people went into the voting booth and got to see democracy there. of course, the person who came out to win was a governor of a state of mexico, which is the largest state there in mexico. now, there is a contest. of the leftist party is contesting the election like he did six years ago. host: you got to know him because you were with him the night he won. what can you tell us about him? guest: he is a young former governor. he is a new face of a new generation. he is highly educated. one of the things he is interested in. when he was down here, he's been here in united states a couple of times. in washington, d.c., he got different folks from congress and business people. he wants to establish a closer relationship with the united states.

host: of phone numbers are on the bottom of our screen. our guest, serving in his first term -- a fourth term. witness stand, at san antonio, part of laredo, a place called san marcos. he was the texas secretary of state and a customs broker until 2000. you talk about a fresh face in mexico. there is an article recently from the monitor.com. they say it is a return to the party that ruled mexico for a period of time. put that in perspective for us. guest: it actually was the party in power for many years until the last 12 years. a lot of people say, well, now you're going to go back to the old system.

well, the way i see this, this is my analysis. democracy has changed a lot. i do not think they can go back to the way it was because the new society in mexico demands it. you saw a movement. they are demanding changes and because of that, i think the new changes we have in mexico will not allow them to go back to the way it was. they have to pay attention to the new demands in mexico. host: your constituencies are a member of the homeland security committee. guest: when you have 1,200 miles, it is a lot. you have to look at the terrain. it is a very different type of terrain. we have, and now, less people coming in from any other time since 1971, 1972.

there are actually more mexicans going back and coming in. there is a changing along the border that we have. at the same time, we have to understand that there is violence on the northern part that we have to be very aware of to protect that. host: sticking with that point before we get back to calls, back to themonitor.com story. what do you see in terms of those cartels in mexico? guest: two things. i have sat down several times and a vast and that specific question. that is probably the first question i asked them. we will be heading down there soon to meet with them with a group of members of congress. we asked them if they would do any sort of passage, agreements,

or approval with the drug cartels. his answer is that no. he just brought in the colombian retired general who fought escobar and was the head of the national security over there to be his adviser. the second thing, which is very important, we now have an institutionalized relationship with mexico. that is, our law enforcement has a very close working relationship. there is no way we will stand by and allow something like that to happen. host: first call for our guests. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i does want to ask about the specific plan with the violence spilling over the border and the kidnappings. it is not safe to go to mexico any more. it is not safe to go to any of these border cities for americans because you might be

kidnapped. what is this new president and regime plan to do to make it safe for americans to come back to mexico? guest: thank you. let me just describe the state of the conditions on the border. " was it like right now? guest: right. first of all, you have to have a division. let me start on the u.s. side. if you look at the fbi figures, murder rates on the border compared to the national rate, the border crime rate is lower than the national crime rate in the u.s. if you look to the crime rate between laredo compared to washington, d.c., you have more murders here per 100,000 population then on the border. that is the u.s. side. on the mexican side, it is totally different.

you have very violent, brutal, acts of violence. anywhere you can manipulate a human body, cut off heads. that is what they are trying to do. that is what they're doing over there. it is a very difficult place over there. what do we do? i think the president is to get more federal police trained. right now there are about 36,000. i think the need to go up to about 150,000. the u.s. is to get more involved like we did and in colombia. in colombia, it took years and years for anybody to think that this violence was going to stop from one day to another day. all we have to do is look at what happened. it took us years, but we had to do it because we cannot let mexico go into that type of state. if not, we have a border with

them. host: beyond the border itself, what should viewers know about the entire country and what is going on? guest: right. and there are lots of parts of the area. i have gone to places with my family and wife and two kids were it is safe. there are some areas where i would not go there. i was in mexico city during the election. it was safe. there were no problems. there were certain areas you can go in. but some places, like the northern part, there is very difficult right now. extremely difficult. host: chris, an independent. the morning. caller: i just wanted to ask the congressman why doesn't the united states legalize marijuana and tax it? tax and the heck out of it. it will help us get out of our

problems with the deficit and everything. and it will stop the war on drugs. people in mexico can have a jobs. host: i -- congressman? guest: i appreciate that viewpoint. i do not agree with that. 20 two parts. we to make sure our law enforcement are doing what they need to do. the second part, we to make sure we do the rehab and the education on this side to make sure that our kids stay away from drugs and those type of situations. keep in mind, every year we send about 25 to $30 billion to the mexican drug cartels. the large consumption we have here. but lee's -- legalizing marijuana or drugs, personally, i do not agree with.

host: on twitter, they want to know about mexico itself. guest: right. they have done a little bit about that. it is interesting. the president of mexico was concerned about what california was going to do. he was worried it would add more consumption. it is a very difficult, complex issue when we talk about the relationships. again, it is a conversation that americans are having. last time we met, they said we ought to talk about legalizing drugs. most of the of violence are not in the united states. the debts are happening over there. the drug violence is happening over there. they want to have that conversation. host: more of your calls for the

congressman. we have about 30 minutes left in this segment with henry cuellar. he serves the vice chair of the democratic steering and policy committee. to mexico, again, and the new leader. and you have a sense of how your colleagues in congress and how the president at the white house are going to be regarding policy? guest: i think president obama and understands the importance of mexico. mexico for a trading partner is so important to us. as a neighbor, i have to emphasize. they understand the importance of having a good working relationship. a lot of members understand the strategic importance of having a strong mexico. the better it is for us. imagining something were to happen to mexico and we had a neighbor who we have 1,200 miles

with. that would be difficult for the united states. host: we have dallas on the line. a republican. host: what do you have to say to the congressman? i think he is gone. el paso, texas, democrat, good morning. caller:buenos dias, congressman, when you say get involved like colombia, that sounds scary to me. these druglords in mexico and across the border a few minutes from my house here and help pass a, they kill but they don't

bring it over here. you need to leave these people alone and let mexico work that out and worry about the drug consumption problem in the united states, all these people using trillions and dollars of drugs, making these people super-rich and will not go away. they have enough money to carry out wars just like osama bin laden and anyone else. if you try to start a war, they will fight you. guest: i appreciate your comments but i don't think we should stay away from the drug cartels. we need to take them on and we need to make sure we support mexico in doing this. we have a lot of ice agents and law enforcement officials in mexico. mexico needs to take the lead but as good neighbors, we need to do airport. if not, that violence will spill over to the u.s.

the violence has been very high where you are. the violence has gone down. a few blocks away, you can see the big difference. it is to our own self-interest to help mexico when the war against the drug cartels. host: oklahoma, independent caller -- caller: he is a real nice guy. i have seen him before. my mother was a mexican national. she was a survivor of the mexican revolution and participated in the election of camacho in 1940. she was very savvy and politics. we lost her in 1993. she did not live to see the

entry into power of the pri which was her party. she got active during the candace it -- during the candidacy of mr. gutierrez. i got to know mexico fairly well. the one thing that really struck me was the crotchety nature of your mexican internal security operettas. -- apparatus. they have spawned a the police so what you have is sort of a parade ground soldierry.

will't know how mexico draw from its own traditions in order to resolve the commonality problems it has. when mother passed away, i said we better re-patriot. i noticed an upsurge in kidnapping. this was 1990-1994. it was not reported in the american media and kidnapping was happening in mexico city. the ones who have the money were being kidnapped. one particular incident that was a humorous was either the mother or the aunt of the chanteuse and she was kidnapped as she was

forced to appear in a police lineup. the criminal confessed that he had kidnapped this movie star and he was in love with her and was declaring his eternal fealty to her. host: any specific questions or additional comment? guescaller:sure, what is the congressman phil pursuant to the status of your present day mexican internal security of apparatus -- apparatus? the biggest story in mexican political history is only light that failed. the congressman is one helluva nice guy.

i'm a libertarian and texas is fortunate to have someone like him. guest: thank you. you are very well versed in the history of what is happening in mexico and i appreciate your comments. the future of mexico depends on what they do and how they work up their civil institutions and their judiciary and their presence and their educational system and their economy. we can provide some assistance. we're doing that now. we have to make sure that we as neighbors provide assistance. whatever they do in their internal affairs, that is up to them. we have to keep in mind one thing -- we have helped them

build up their police and they are around 36,000. once we go into this state and local levels, at the state level, there police need a lot of assistance and at the local level, the local police in mexico are either on team a or team b. it will take a while before mexico is able to build up their civil institutions. they need to go ahead and fight the drug cartels but we need to stand strong with them. it is to our self-interest to make sure that mexico stays strong and prosperous. host: what can you tell us as far as what congress is doing in terms of budgeting money especially in these tight times to help mexico? guest: there are about five countries in the world that take 25% of all the assistance we

provide to foreign countries -- israel, egypt, pakistan, afghanistan, they take 25%. mexico at one time was getting $36 million per year and now it is more. i am hoping we can straighten that out. in my opinion, when you have a neighbor that is having difficult problems across the river, we have to make sure we are able to help them win the war against the drug cartels. congress has provided the plan which was $1.5 billion over three years. that is the assistance we're doing and not all that has been given to mexico. we're not giving them cash. we buy equipment and provide services. it becomes a win-win situation. host: you mention the police within mexico. we talked about the new president of that country.

what can you tell us about the rest of the government and how it is structured and how strong it is presently? guest: first of all, when we came in to help them, we focused on the federal government. president calderon had done a great job. i will see him again in a couple of weeks in mexico. he has done a great job and i salute him. at the federal level, they have done a good job but going into the state and local basis is where they need the assistance. on local level, a lot of that -- those policemen have been compromised. he did they play ball with one team or the other or they get killed. about five or six years ago across the river from my home town of laredo, there were 54 policeman dead or missing in one year. imagine if that happened here in washington, d.c. or any city in the united states, what sort of

crisis that would create. some of them were saying we don't want to be part of a drug cartel. either they were killed, kidnapped, or whatever the situation was. they are facing a very difficult situation. in mexico, central and south america, the civic institutions have to be built up. this is why the drug cartels come in with a lot of money and they will intimidate those folks. our civil institutions in the united states, the judges, the police, it is very different. we have our own problems but nothing like over there. the commitment will take years to build in mexico. host: laredo, texas, the republican line -- caller: good morning, i would like to ask mr. cuellar since we have fought the war on drugs for decades now, why do you think we should continue?

it has cost us a ton of money and laredo is like looking at a police state. you cannot drive out of laredo without going through checkpoints. i have never in my entire life in other places in the state's pass through checkpoints trying to leave town. how are you going to vote on the bill to audit the fed? guest: let's start off with ron paul. i will be supporting the bill to audit the fed. i have lived in laredo, that is my home town. the checkpoint to are talking about is border patrol. the purpose is to make sure that people without proper documentation are checked. that is why we have the border patrol. laredo is one of the safest towns in the nation if you look

at the fbi statistics. look at any of the border towns and compare them. help the so i think that two murders per 101 year ago and laredo had seven. and washington d.c. had 300. i would rather have more law enforcement. i have three brothers who are peace officers. one is the border sheriff and i appreciate the federal, state, and local law enforcement. i salute the men and women into that or to keep us safe. host: what are your borrower thoughts about border security? guest: we have to be smart on how we provide border security. the old ways of putting a fans like china did, the great wall in berlin, of those are 14th century solutions for 21st century problems. we have to use the right mixture

of personnel. we now of 18,500 border patrol on the southern border, more than at any other time in history. with the right technology, sensors and cameras and making sure that we have the right mixture to protect the border. the border crime rate on the u.s. side is lower. then the national crime rate. the number of people coming across even though we still have to do better is the lowest number of people coming across. a lot of them are mexicans coming in but there are people from the middle east, south america, from other parts of the world coming through the southern border. we have to make sure we continue providing that support for our border patrol and law enforcement at the border. host: we talked about drugs and crime and corruption.

guest: mexico has a lot of resources. it is a beautiful country. what they lack is more technology. pena nieto has talked about modernizing. the oil belongs to the people under their constitution. it was a reaction to foreign companies coming in to get oil. now they have a constitutional protection on the oil. pena nieto wants to modernize pemex where they can use american technology. to modernize that. that becomes a win-win situation for american companies and mexico will be able to produce. in the look -- in the laredo

area, there is the evil force. that is the biggest shelf. mexico will be able to produce more. when you look at the oil from the u.s. and mexico, natural gas also and canada, north america can be the new middle east of america if we are able to work of these three countries together. host: a democrat for the congressman, hi. caller: it is a good conversation this morning. i would like for you to discuss -- the people who have lived in the united states, and you say there are fewer mexicans coming into this country. i live in a small and poor little town and we are bombarded with mexicans

everyday, every place i go into. from restaurants to the post office to the doctors' offices, everywhere i go there are mobs of mexicans lined up for services. they are here now and i have to live with them. i don't know what you can do to change that. i would love to have been sent back home. the fact is, they have moved into my neighborhood. one street i live on now has 20 houses. i have five of those houses that have been bought by those people. to say they are illegal, i'm sure two of them are illegal. it has lowered my property

values. about 35%. as a representative from texas, what are you all doing for the people of this country who have lived here, been here, and now we are being bombarded by these people who have come here illegally, in most cases? what are you doing for me? i hear what you are doing for the mexicans and the politicians and all that. and people in mexico. host: where were you born?

guest: i am a u.s. citizen of my father was born in mexico and became a legal resident and naturalized citizen and my mother was born in the united states so i make u.s. citizen and a member of the u.s. congress. first of all, i can tell you a little bit of what the future of america is. we will have more hispanics. , a lot more hispanics. we need to understand that the population of the hispanics is the fastest growing population in the united states. host: there for many different countries. guest: their people from puerto rico, cuba, south america, spain and other places. i think that was an immigration question. if you look at the issue of immigration, people were first concerned about people moving in -- native americans of people

moving in from england and other places and once the folks who work here were established, the letter word about the chinese and the irish and germans coming in. right now it is the hispanics. it is interesting that we have to have an immigration reform. i don't believe an amnesty like president reagan did in 1986 and a democratic congress did. we need an immigration reform that has strong border security so we can control the border and we have to have a guest worker plant. . it is something similar to what the u.s. did in world war two. our men went to fight in world war two and the u.s. government turned to mexico and said we need a guest worker program. the third part will need to do is to deal with the 11 or 12 million undocumented immigrants.

when the to start some process to get them out of the shadows of bacon pay taxes and make sure they learn english -- shadows so they can pay taxes and make sure they learn english. i would be the first to say that the illegals need to be deported. in the first three years of this administration compared to president bush, we have deported more people with criminal records than we did on the the prior administration. the criminal records should be deported. we should start some sort of process with the other people. keep in mind that we have to look at not only people coming across. 20% of the -- 40% of the illegals came in through a legal permit. then they overstayed their time.

we have to be smart on how we do immigration reform. host: cortes, cholera, and the pan collar, good morning. caller: public like to make one comment -- he was talking about marijuana and he said we have to start them from using and that will help the situation. we can watch a football game without being flooded by alcohol commercials and that kills more people in marijuana. tobacco kills many more people than marijuana. prescription drugs, we cannot watch television without prescription drugs. some lawyer is trying to sue the company because percussion -- prescription drugs are killing people. guest: cars kill people, too,

guns kill people, too, you are making a good point. we have to draw the line somewhere. philosophically, i think we should draw the line when it comes to drugs. host: there were several recent stories about mexico --

in reaction to the senate report? guest: something we have been saying. presidents calderon met the new president-elect. both said they have to use the military now because there is no other resource. it is on a temporary basis. we should do that in full agreement with their centre counterparts. they have to build their federal police and their state police and then figure out what to do with the local police because they are compromised. they are using the military because they have no other choice. they should build their police. there are about 36,000. i talked to the american basilar a couple of weeks ago in mexico

city and we are in agreement that they should go up to 200,000 federal police. they need to do a lot more than what they are doing now. host: back to the election -- what is the process in mexico when an election is contested which has happened in recent history? guest: the same individual protest of the candidate last time and now he protested again. he came in second in the votes. this time he lost by over 3 million votes. it shows you the new democracy in mexico where if people feel they have been hurt one way or another, they will contest it. the mexican tribune will decide the contest by september. we will know what will happen.

i don't see any reason why it would be overturned. enrique pena nieto will be the president on the first of september this year. host: mary, republican, good morning. sure my question applies to mexico relations. i could not sleep one night so i was scanning through the tv and i ran across this young mexican couple living in mexico who had a two-year-old child that they could not afford to take with them to where they had to move several miles away in mexico to make a living. working for an american company. they left their two-year old child with her parents who they got to see -- they saw her very seldom according to this.

the whites husband was making a little more money than she was making but she was making 60 cents for every ten bras she was making. they were being made for victoria's secret. i want to know why the mexican government does not stop this kind of slavery from happening to their own people. guest: i'm not familiar with that story so i cannot comment on that. the mexican economy is growing very fast. they have investments. not only from the united states but other parts of the world. brazil at one time was a powerhouse but you look at mexico, it is now growing very fast. in fact, their percentage of growth is better than the united states. they have a balanced budget and we have not been able to get to

that. in many ways, they are doing well but they do have their challenges. mexico is passing very progressive laws right now. i'm sure they have a lot of labor protections. the focus a lot on that and it is part of their history because of what former did to them. host: you are a member of the agriculture committee. the pending farm bill that is out there, what are your thoughts on the content of the bill and the process in congress? guest: the senate passed a bill so congratulations. i supported the bill and we pass the bill so we could get into a conference committee so we can work of the differences between the house and the senate. i voted for the bill and did not like the cuts they did for the nutrition part. it was a way to move forward but unfortunately, the republican

leadership is saying that they don't know when they will put it up there. nancy pelosi and other democrats and some of the republicans like the chairman who's doing a great job along with the ranking member, we have been asking this to be put on the floor. we're facing the most difficult drought times and we have to do something about the farm bill. host: this is the lead editorial in "the post."

guest: we need to make some reforms so did some in the farm bill. the drought is only one part but keep in mind, 75% of the farm bill has to do with food banks. the food banks in washington, d.c. and the ones we have in the midwest and all across the united states. that is only one part. if we don't pass this bill by september 30 or get an extension, it is not only the drought by more about the nutrition part of it. it is about the farmers and ranchers and people in different parts of the united states and urban america. no farms, no food. host: what about the extension? >> it depends on the republican leadership. i hope they do it in a bipartisan approach host:

congressman henry cuellar, we appreciate your time this morning. we have about 90 minutes left on this wednesday edition of " "washington journal,." we will talk to another member of the house and the opposite side, congressman scott garrett, republican from new jersey. later on, nick gillespie who is editor over at reason.com and co-author of a piece titled " generational warfare." it is about entitlements verses the safety net for other folks. in the meantime, some news from cspan radio. >> an update on the situation in syria this hour -- russian foreign minister spoke earlier today and is accused united states of justifying terrorism against the syrian government. he berated western nations he

said had not condemned the attacks that killed top members of the syrian president's inner circle. he referred to comments by the state department spokesperson indicating such attacks were not surprising given the government's conduct, the minister said this is a direct justification of terrorism. the syrian army turned its forces on the second largest city in syria as hostilities intensified near the turkish border. turkey says it is closing its crossing post but united states as refugees fleeing syria would be allowed through. at the same time, "a top syrian diplomats, one in the united arab emirates and the other in cyprus, have deserted their posts, becoming the list of officials to abandon the damascus government. those are some of the latest headlines on cspan radio. >> if you can't disagree

vehemently on block without taking it personally and without hitting the person on the other side, you should find another job. >> sentimentally reflects an over 25 years on the bench -- supreme court justice antonin scalia and reflects on over 25 years on the bench on "q &a" sunday night. >> "washington journal" continues. host: scott garrett is with us, he is chairman of the budget committee in the house and on the financial services committee. there is lots of headlines about the tax fight, the budget battles, including this one on the hill -- we know the senate is working on taxes and the house probably next week. can you draw the battle lines as you see them? guest: there is a couple of different tax issues that will

be coming down. should you raise taxes or not? that ties into a number of issues with the sequester and how to deal with that. the right would say we're in a recession and it is not the proper time to raise taxes. senator obama said that. the other side is that we should be raising taxes. there are other tax issues like what we should do with the expired tax cuts. there is the payroll attack saughs and a whole litany of tax issues. host: we know house republicans want to renew the bush-year tax cuts for one year. guest: we want to keep the tax rate the same. we don't want to raise taxes.

host: this will be playing out in the weeks and months ahead before the election. guest: we have a deadline coming up at the end of the year. some think we have to do this before the deadline expires. i would suggest that if we try to do before the deadline expires, before the november election, the republicans think we should keep the car tax rates in place and would be at a disadvantage. with a democratic senate and white house. my suggestion would be to make a firm statement to the market's who are looking for certainty that come november, if republicans are successful in the house and the senate that we are committed to doing the right thing when it comes to tax reform and to maintain the tax rate. host: the president put that

$250,000 figure out there. guest: i would disagree with the president. it is different from his position before. it is never a good time to raise taxes on any sector during a recessionary period. we should not be raising taxes on the job create tourist, those small businesses out there. we should maintain the status quo. host: the phone numbers are on the bottom of your screen. you have an interesting shaped district, the top crescent of new jersey. our things up there? guest: new jersey went through the economic morass after the crisis of 2008. we have a lot of people in our district related to the financial services sector and there were hit significantly. some of that is coming back but not as well as it should.

the pharmaceutical sector has suffered as well as small business but we have a new governor, not some new any more, who is trying to turn the state around economically with a pro- growth policy. that is all good. host: you are a member of the financial services committee. today.overing a hearing it is at 9:30 eastern time, the treasury secretary will testify. what is the purpose of today's hearing? what are you looking to hear from him? guest: we will be looking at what has happened after dodd- frank and the designation of systemically important financial industries -- companies. there's the whole situation with libor that has been in the

press and we will talk about the who, what, when and specifically when secretary perry nor was at the new york fed. -- when secretary of the treasury tim geithner was at the new york fed. how come he did not do anything about it? how come when dodd-frank came along and the secretary was giving his recommendations, nothing was suggested that there was a problem of libor. the white house and secretary of the treasury tim geithner can now with their recommendations for the tax program and the aig belt out and they used libor which is a rate besetting standard as the methodology to set the rates on those programs. why didn't they do anything? host: our first call is a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, we have

had almost 12 years of bush tax cuts. we have 8.2% unemployment. why do we need to give them tax cuts of they are not giving us jobs? enough is enough. the deficit is too high and the rich have not paid their fair share. my husband is barely middle- class and we're getting taxed left and right. it is just not fair and i am sick to death of everyone saying it is obama's fault. the bush tax cuts have been in place for almost 12 years and they have not worked. jobs are still leaving this country and they are getting tax breaks for doing so. when we concentrate on bringing down the deficit and saving jobs. enough with the tax breaks for the bridge. they have not pay their fair share during the war. it is not right. guest: she raises a couple of different questions. i think everybody wants to see

tax fairness. it is a question of how you define tax fairness. should you take the money from people who earn it and give it to other people who don't earn it. i would say that is not fair. a fair system would be we should have a system where one segment of the economy should not be paying proportionally more than another sector. we need to do something about the deficit. she probably knows the deficit ballooned since president obama came into office with the spending programs, the failed stimulus policies which were supposed to bring down the unemployment rate. present obama said to bar a hundred billion dollars from the chinese or elsewhere and he said to put that into economy and we will get the unemployment rate back down to where it was. that did not happen. we did borrow money and we did

spend the money and we're now in the largest deficit we have ever seen before in this country. we have increased the debt more in his administration and all the times in the presence leading up to president obama. we have had a failed policy of borrowing and spending since he came into office. i agree with the caller, we need to get spending under control and that is what republicans are trying to do. host: he spent over a decade in the new jersey general assembly. you have a degree from rutgers. the republican line from georgia. caller: i keep hearing democrats say things like you would not have that small business it wasn't for government infrastructure. like your kind of parents saying that you would not have grown up on less i fed you. isn't that kind of the same

thing? i don't know. it seems it is wrong for people to point out things like that. guest: i think most small businesses or anybody who started a business think what the president said on this issue that they do not create the business that the rest of the community did, that the president had long. i don't care whether you're talking about the bill. people greeted their businesses and their roads around and schools around. new jersey is famous for one of the greatest inventors, thomas edison. he greeted the light bulb and something that became general electric. thomas edison created those jobs. you go down to your local bagel shop and you have a husband and wife who get up every morning at

4:00 or 5:00 and get to the shop and open up and do all this work and they take their life savings and investment and put the time and sweat and energy six or seven days a week. they created that business. they hire six or seven different people and they create the jobs, not everyone else who happens to look around there. i think the president has a totally wrong as to where job creation comes from. host: this is from twitter -- guest: we like to work with the president when we agree on topics. it is unfortunate he usually does not extend that and to us. if you only do a piece of the puzzle and a ton, you know that you never get a complete puzzle at the end of the day. if you only do one half of this

segment, you never get to the other half. he has never said he is going to be with us. he gets his agenda which means perpetuating the almost 9% unemployment and you never get to the point where we want to get to. we want to get unemployment back down again to 5% or less and get spending back down again. we have to come to grips with that. host: in the area of taxes -- they want to put tax overhaul on a fast track. when you think about the tax code, what does that mean to you? guest: we want to get a fair tax system to do away with a lot of

the tax expenditures but they are corporate loopholes. if you can do a fair system and cut them out of the tax code and lower the rates across the board for everybody. bring the rates over all down. you then want to have the amount of money coming into washington out of the gdp the about the same, maybe even a little less. do away with the extra expenditures, corporate expenditures, and that makes it fairer. on glad they want to do it in an expedited manner which is important. what companies and businesses and investors are looking for is certainty and the marketplace.

they want to know what the rules of the road order that want to know the tax law is, they want to know what the health care rules will become of want to know their environmental and health laws before they hire somebody else. they want to until they have certainty. the tax code is essential that we get it done and get it done right and fairly and quickly to weaken and the vacillation in the marketplace. host: about 30 minutes left in the segment -- this is from twitter -- guest: those are two different things entirely. the food stamp program has been seen on by people on both sides of the aisle as having fraud and inefficiency and it needs to be

reformed. yes, it is necessary that you have reform and we are doing that. food stamps were established to have certain criteria from people who qualify. what has happened over time is that it has broadened in the terminology and expansion goes to people who really don't qualify. we want to make sure that it is efficient. when it comes to the tax cuts, keeping the tax rates where they are, that is necessary as well. raising taxes is not necessary. that would put the burden on the taxpayers and that is not necessary. it is counterproductive and can hurt the economy and more people end up on food stamps. host: an independent from oregon -- caller: i want to know what you

guys plan on doing with social security. what do you plan on doing with the oil pipeline they want to build? what will you do about the mexican border? host: three different topics. guest: social security -- there is no one in congress who wants to do away with social security. there is no one in congress who want to change it in a way that if you are a current recipient or about to get on social security that use your benefits change. republicans and democrats agree on that. we know from the experts, the actuaries, it is not a sustaining system. eventually, fairly soon, a couple of decades actually, you will find there is not enough

money coming into social security from your payroll tax deduction to pay all the benefits to retirees that needs to go out. we need to do some sort of reform. unfortunately, i look at the capitol behind you and the senate is over there. harry reid, the head of the senate, so as to what comes to social security and medicare, he does not want to do anything for about 20 years. we need to get together. this is one area where we have commonality to make sure this is a sustained program. the republicans on the pipeline have been pushing for this pipeline. it is essential that americans become more energy independent in this country so we do not send money overseas to countries that are not our friend and also that we don't become captive to

these countries that are not our friends and could have an effect on our economy. republicans have done everything we possibly could as far as amendments in the bills and the house to have this on to legislation and get the pipeline done. let's make ourselves more energy independent but with some those bills to the senate or the white house and the president said no. we will continue to push everything is good for the country and the economy. you had an expert in the previous segment on the mexican border. i am all about making sure we have security along the mexican border. i was listening to his comments as far as the number of border guards on security there. i'm not sure that everything possible is being done. the head of a homeland security,

janet napolitano, was speaking and i was taken aback by some of her comments. there is a situation where this administration allowed guns to go from this country into mexico and it killed one of our citizens and over 200 mexicans. she says we have not recovered any of those guns coming back across the border. on the one hand she says we have the most secure border than ever before in history but on the other hand, she says we have not seen any of these guns. that tells me that that does not jibe. it is not as secure as this administration tells us. host: let's go to the line for democrat from michigan rick are you there? caller: i'm here. my first comment is -- as far as creating jobs and the tax code -- and afford told us h --enry

ford told us if we build a good product and pay employees a fair wage, he could build his company. i think if we stop having legislation that supports taking good union jobs to china and india and these different countries like mexico, we would be doing okay. we need to stop shipping our jobs away. the poor people need to do something but there is no room. i live in flint, mich., there is no jobs here. out of high school, two-years of high school, you will not work in michigan. guest: whenever i visit a business in my district or around the state, i asked them

why you are here. why aren't you someplace else? you always get fairly interesting answers to that. the reverse side of this question is you have to ask the question to employers why are only some of your manufacturing here and the rest of is that overseas? they have a variety of answers because of the first point -- is there anything the government does that encourages them to shift those jobs overseas? part of the answer is yes. our regulatory and tax system encourages this. it is cheaper and the tax rates are lower in china and what have you. the environmental regulations and all those areas, that makes it easier to ship the judge over there. way to ask those seminal basic

questions of why you are shipping jobs over there. it is washington's fault that we are creating disincentives to stay in the united states. we should take away the red tape and the onerous tax codes. we should make more certainty in the marketplace. that would encourage the manufacturers to keep as many jobs as possible in the united states. host: the republicans want and would its tax bill provision. this would include a two-year pact. they want to keep the estate tax at 2012 levels here's an

interesting e-mail -- guest: i guess we should shut everything down and not do the texas. -- the taxes. everyone should be paying their fair share of taxes. everyone has a benefit a living in this great country. everybody should be paying something as far as a contribution for the services they receive. everybody should be paying, from rich to poor. we will be doing that in an expedited manager to lower the

existing rate to make it fairer across the board and do away with loopholes. corporations will still be paying corporate taxes and hopefully our taxes will go down lower. the corporate tax rate in the united states is one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. if you are a corporation, where you want to set up business? if if we lower the corporate tax rates on the oil industry and other manufacturers, maybe they will stay here. you are right, the high income earners -- there are so many tax loopholes they can hire expense of accountants to figure out how to get out of it. we need to get rid of all those loopholes so that they are paying their fair share and bring down the marginal rate at host: the same: florida is on the line, republican. are you there? caller: i'm here.

thank you for cspan. i have a quick commen in response to the first lady who called in this morning. i hear this all the time. people talk about the rich and not paying their fair share. i think that is a bunch of bunk. here is a bunch of real numbers. the top 1% pay 38% of the income-tax. the top 5% pay 58%. the top 10% pay 68.9%. the top 25% pay 86% of the income-tax. the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of the income tax. where is the fair share? thank you very much. guest: i appreciate the comments.

they are good numbers to remember when you talk about fairness. the issue is everybody should pay their fair share. when you do a survey of this -- that's the general public about a year or go as to what th percentage of the budget should the rich preparing for the average number was around 20%. they thought that was more than they were paying now. the top 1% is quite high. the public got what they wanted. host: the front page of "the washington journal" --

what else can the fed do? guest: we had ben bernanke before the committee this past weekend. i said to him going back to 2008, you said all your bullets have been shot. as far as the different mechanisms they used. to get us out of the recession. after that, they constantly come up with different programs and different mechanisms to try to get us out and we're still at 8.5% unemployment. maybe with the fed needs to do is sit back and reevaluate and do a benefit analysis. they do these programs but what is the cost to the economy? you keep the inflation rate down generally in one area or you have inflation in commodities.

you see energy costs going up and that may be good if you're an oil company but if you're someone who is buying the commodity like an airline or driving a car, that is not so good. the fed has to reevaluate the cost of the mechanism, maybe not pull the trigger so many times. a lot of the problem is created here in washington with regard to our spending and fiscal policy. washington continues to spend out of control with a deficit levels over $1 trillion. we have to rain that in and do something about entitlements and monetary policy. washington has to get their house in order. host: this is from twitter -- connect what is happening in

europe with over here. guest: austerity has not really been tried over there yet. you have pronouncements that an order to get more bailout from the imf and around the world, they will implement austerity programs. that's lots of hoopla these things will go into effect and the markets in europe and our markets will go up on that fact that austerity will go into place but at the end of the day, those programs don't really get implemented. you need fat sound fiscal policy and sound monetary policy. you cannot kick the can down the road.

the taxpayers cannot build them out. we have our own problems at home. they need to be living in their means. we all live under a budget of some sort. europe needs to do the same thing, whether you want to call living within your means austerity -- i don't know. i think it is practical fiscal policy. host: the cdo report that came out about health care yesterday. what did you make of it? guest: it came in light of the supreme court's decision in regard to how the whole system is going to work. at the end of the day, we know this about obamacare. it is not affordable. it is adding well over a trillion dollars in expenditures and perpetuate the system that we have right now

which is a failed system. entitlements will continue to go on the trajectory they are on right now. medicare and medicaid will be broke in a couple of decades. it does not do anything to lower health care costs and then i was riding in a taxicab today when t. "i will now have health insurance." now he will be forced to buy health insurance. there is nothing in obamacare that brings down the cost of health insurance and then on businesses, you will see a 3% increase in the cost of the tax for families. you will see about $5,000 increase as one of the projections for the cost. host: frank is an independent for the congressman.

are you there? caller: how are you guys doing today? i have two quick comments. on the unemployment, how much does that do to factory automation? how come nobody is talking about the venus project and the proposals of the venus project? that is all i have to say. guest: i think it is an interesting question as far as what automation does. automation has the effect in the short term of bringing in more efficiency and allow and for businesses to be able to create more products at a lower cost. those are the upsides. consumers are able to buy a computer at a lower cost than we were years ago and th.

that is what automation provide you with. the downside is if people get laid off. the theory of the economy is the deficiencies in that market -- the employee will hopefully go through a training program so they will be able to find themselves in a better position. host: milwaukee, dennis is a democrat. caller: i would like to say that he keeps on talking about $250,000 taxing the job creators, which it is not. people that get paid $250,000 are not creating any jobs.

the jobs are created by small businesses. the small businesses that keep on growing into the mix of the multimillionaire's. obama is trying to tax multimillionaires. not small businesses. guest: go back to that example i gave earlier today with regard to the bagel shop owner. he wants to grow his business. he is probably filed as a subchapter s corporation which means all of the income goes to his personal tax return. he may be making $250,000. the caller says president obama i just want to tax the guy making millions of dollars. that bagel shop owner who is

making $250,000 would be classified as the rich according to president obama and he would be asked to pay a larger percentage of his in come to washington so we can spend it on whatever we want to spend it on. what i think he wants to do it is hire more employees to be able to grow his business. host: i wanted to inject some politics into this. the democratic congressional campaign committee is prepping its plans to attack folks like you and other republicans. a two-page memo instructing candidates on how to frame their message on taxes.

some of the talking points there. any thoughts? guest: those are the same arguments that the democrat leadership engage in. it is a class warfare line of attack. . think the american public is looking to say why can we not stop doing the class warfare attacks and find the area that we can agree on. if we do not agree, we need to come out and say here is my solution to the problem. instead of attacking republicans, let us come out and say this is our solution to lowering unemployment or fixing obamacare so it brings down costs. host: here is another viewer on twitter.

guest: i would do it right now. this argument has been tried in the past. we will give you your tax cuts tomorrow for your spending increases today. i think ronald reagan fell for that, and we saw what happened. he did not get the tax cuts. the first to george bush famously fell into that argument. he never got the tax cuts. foamy ones come awful me twice, do not fool me three times. the answer is not raising taxes on any segment of the economy when you are in a recession. i am not sure why president obama has taint his philosophy now. guest: what do you think of mitt

romney? guest: i think he has a great chance of winning the election down the road. his plan is more in line with those small business owners who create jobs in the economy than bank i think we will be able to see success in november and success at next year. for all of these people looking to see more job creation and unemployment going down, i think you will see we will get some of these changes. host: sue is a republican. good morning. caller: one in seven people are that the.amps and th then the we have one in seven americans getting a food stamp card.

then they are running commercials on how you can get on disability. they go from medicaid to medicare in two years and then last week there was a report done that a working single mother had to earn $70,000 to have an income of a welfare mother. we are destroying the initiative of the american people. it is time for everyone to give up. the congress gives no oversight. we know it is full of fraud and abuse. congress needs to start holding hearings about kathleen sibelius and what she is doing to the american of economy with all of this welfare and disability and food stamps. why would she be running a spot in mexico for them to sign up for food stamps? guest: i have absolutely no idea

why she would be running spots in mexico. it is counter intuitive because we are short of funds already here. clearly, it is not my intention or republicans intention to go along the roads where washington has been going for a long time. to be able to bail you out at any point in your life like we did the big banks. if you go back in the history of your family, your genealogy, why people came over to the united states in the first place, they came over here for a new opportunity to create a new life for themselves, to try to establish farms and manufacturing, businesses, starting them and working for them, growing their families, and showing their ship that they could

not create elsewhere. we need to instill that in this generation and the next so we can have people to be able to say that is how i got here and that is how my kids are going to bring up their families as well. host: reminder to the viewers. you can watch c-span to this afternoon for a look at the senate. they will have a vote on whether to extend the bush-era tax cuts this and afternoon. good morning. caller: can i ask my question? host: yes, ma'am. caller: one, you talk about social security and medicare reform, and it is going to go bust and so forth. why was the president able to

take $500 billion out of it and put it toward the affordable health care act? people on medicare will receive no benefit whatsoever. my next is on you talked about mexico and the problems down there with drug cartels, so on and so forth. why is it that after all these years through the association with mexico that the american government and the mexican government have made no agreement to work together to get rid of these drug cartels in mexico? host: final thoughts from you? guest: i think there have been cooperative agreements to try to work cooperatively with the mexican government in these areas along with other south american governments as well. on your first point, you are

absolutely right. president obama took $500 billion out of medicare and used it for expensive programs in the affordable health care. it was wrong to do. medicare is not sustainable as is. if you are a senior citizen, you have to be scratching your head and saying i thought he'd just guaranteed us that he was going to be taking care of this program. that was the wrong thing to do. host: congressman scott garrett, vice chairman of the budget committee. we will hear from tim geithner today. thank you always for your time. coming up, we will talk with nick gillespie who is with reason.com. it is our "spotlight on magazine." he is a co-author of a new piece.

first, more news from c-span radio. >> mitt romney begins his six- day overseas tour today. he will also hold fund-raisers with voters living abroad. president obama travels to new orleans for campaign event. you can hear live coverage of his remarks at about 6:45 p.m. eastern time here on c-span radio. michelle obama is launching a new program to train thoands of social workers on how to aid troops coming home from iraq and afghanistan. the training will help workers spot problems such as post- traumatic stress disorder and bstance abuse and the danger signs for homelessness and suicide. the senate votes today on a democratic bill that would extend the expiring tax cuts for everyone but the wealthiest

americans. they do not have 60 votes, and the move is largely a symbolic one. you can watch live senate coverage in 15 minutes on c- span2. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend -- >> let me begin to open up the discussion by asking what is the nature of the clash? is this a clash over policy? is this a problem of personalities? >> truman and mcarthur. a johns hopkins professor on the relationship that led a president to relieve a general at the height of the korean war. sunday come up more from "the

contenders." -- sunday, more from "the contenders." he ran twice against eisenhower. 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our "spotlight on magazine" series continues, looking at the gap between younger and older americans when it comes to income of programs like medicare and social security. joining us is nick gillespie, editor in chief of reason.com. here is the cover once again. premise?e

guest: the basic premise is that we can either have what it myself and my co-author at george mason university -- we read together quite a bit. basically, our premise is it we can either have a safety net with the government looks out for people who are too poor or incapacitated, or we can have an entitlement state where the government is the wellspring of all sorts of basic services or subsidies for middle-class people. what we are looking at is the two main impediment programs are at the very definition of the unsustainable. they are unfair to current an retirees. host: you go as far as saying

those two programs should be ended. a piecei just wrote about this during a time that we need to start looking at the future when the population of the united states is aging. the baby boomers are starting to retire. it is not simply these programs are bad. for instance, social security is a terrible return on investment but it is also unfair. they should be abolished. if you care about your kids, or your grandkids, you should want to get rid of these programs. host: the phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen. calls in ayour phone minute. if social security and medicare are done away with, what might

replace them, if anything? guest: we favor a government- provided safety net. things like welfare payments. this is not a focus of the story, but we would prefer cash payments to people who need them to reach certain levels of income to avoid absolute poverty or the way that it is defined by the government. the same thing with health care. this goes to the logic of the program's. medicare and medicaid are always talked about in the same breath. the more important thing to think about is in come. medicare generally goes to people regardless of their income level or whether or not they are wealthy or not. medicated goes to the poor. if you allow wealthy seniors to do that, you would roll people who cannot do that into

medicaid. host: some interesting numbers to support your point. in 1984, households 65 years or older had it 10 times the walls of those headed by people under 35. by 2005, the gap had increased 22 times. by 2009, 47 times. guest: if you look at the language that was used around the time of social security created during the great depression, medicaid in the mid 1960's went on-line in 1967 in terms of giving out money. these were programs that were designed to deal with the great depression and an economy where people worked until they died. retirement was a rare and wonderful thing.

that is absolutely not the case. part of that is because they have been making tremendous returns on things like social security, and medicaid takes a fair amount of onus off of them. older americans are doing quite well as they should pay bank this is the way that the world works. what we are doing now is what we are saying to young people as taxes go up and as the possibility that they are going to retire and get social security that is worth a damn or medicare is less and less than that we are taking the money they would be using to save and build capital and paying a two relatively well off seniors today. host: what do you hearing from the presidential candidates? guest: one of the real problems is cells of security has been

called the third rail of american politics. even worse than that is medicare. mitt romney, one of his basic attacks against the obamacare program which is the republicans' main way of demagoguing health care reform is to say he is going to destroy medicare. barack obama is constantly in the democrats and joe biden has a huge speech. this is not your grandfather's republican party. they want you to eat dry cat food. it is very hard. rick perry got bashed by mitt romney in the republican debate when he called social security which is absolutely a ponzi scheme and mitt romney went as ballistic as he can get over rick perry. what we are hearing from most

candidates is absolutely nothing other than promises to maintain the status quo and do what it takes to maintain the status quo which is screwing younger people. host: nick gillespie, what do you think of the health care law? guest: i think it was unfortunate. it is meaningful that the supreme court refused to say the commerce clause powers in the constitution to allow the government to compel economic activity. by the same token, saying that we can call it a tax and everything is good. more to the point. the problem with health care is almost 50% of every dollar is spent by the government. also blaring a huge amount of bureaucracy, regulation, and oversight by the government.

health care can only get worse and more expensive under obama's plan. when you look past the kind of press release saying it shaves a little bit of money off of this, what you see is an expansion of government-funded health care. one of the problems with the republicans and i think why the bill ended up passing was they did not offer a real alternative. what they offered was the status quo which is terrible in america. we mayswaste a lot of money in america. we could be doing so much better if we allow the free market to function in the health care center. host: our first call. barry, good morning. caller: i do not know what planet you live on. you sound like you are speaking for the ultra crazies who want

to get rid of social security which continues to be in surplus. yes, it is true. the problem is every politician on both sides of the aisle have used the social security to pay for everything in every department. that is the reason why social security is supposedly in distress which it is not. people who i know who are really middle-class and all retired get anywhere from $800 to $1,000 a month, and the younger generation cannot find jobs. what is going to happen to social security? guest: i do not mean to make light of -- i get that a lot. for the record, and i think i have a password on my computer.

social security, there are a couple of ways to look at it. the last great adjustment of the tax system and the payout system came in the 1980's. ronald reagan said social security should not be mandatory. we should have opt-out provisions. the one thing every american believes and is social security is a covenant among generations, and we have to do what we can to preserve it. the increased payroll taxes which are regressive that hurt poor people and young people the most. they ever so slightly created a system where at the retirement age creeps up over time somewhere around 67.5. if there is a chart on page 34 -- if we can show a chart on

page 34, this is based on work that came out of the urban institute. a couple of economists do not want to get rid of the program but when they looked at what people paid in payroll taxes, the worker and their employer. the program over time if he retired when you were 65 or at the retirement age. this chart is for a single man earning an average wage in 1960. the lifetime social security benefits comes to $113,000. the lifetime taxes came to $18,000. for that retiree, that is a great deal. you come down to 2010. $294,000 over the course of your lifetime that you have to pay, and you are going to get

$265,000 in lifetime social security benefits. then it gets worse for those of us who will be working well into the 20's and 30's. you are going to give me a lot more money now or over the course of your career then you would ever get back, he would laugh at that person. it will get worse. host: north carolina, a republican. hello. caller: i am an old people. when republicans say they want to let a portion -- let young people, a portion of their money into a private plan, then, you know, the democrats come back with their 12 stop the old people.

i don't believe that. guest: he is talking about the galveston plan where certain workers were able to go around social security and enter into other programs. in lieu of making social security contributions, they pay into state pension funds which are very much in trouble. what they did was say you are a public sector employees and you do not have to pay anything out of your pocket for retirement because we are going to guarantee you 8% five-year. california is a great example when you allow the government to set terms for the retirement. the cost come out of existing tax payers. we all know this from any kind of basic investment manual.

if you can park $500 a month into a retirement accounts through your 20's, that is worth some much more than doing triple that when you are 40 or 50. it becomes such a large part of our compensation packages. all benefits are pegged to social security. it mucks up a more individualized version of retirement by putting us into this pool. seniors will not start. seniors are doing well independent of social security and medicare. those who have needs should have those needs met, but it should be based on the need and not age. host: mississippi, billy is an

independent. thank you for waiting. caller: i wanted to discuss the current and future health care laws. i just purchased a business with eight employees. part of that purchase, i offer a 100 percent reimbursement for health insurance costs for managers and 70% 4 employees. i have to follow some of the already implemented laws and offer 100% to all employees. that has forced me to lay off that eighth person to absorb the extra $2,000 a month cost. guest: that is a living, breathing and echoed that illustrates a cutback in principle.

it was just kind of spanked away. when you mandate certain kinds they arets are man di, not just going to pull them out of thin air to cover those costs. as a result, if you jack up costs, the only way you can do that is by cutting costs. yous ee that. as well, and this is something that we write a lot about on reason.com, the level of uncertainty, regulatory and economic, which started under george bush. we co-wrote the declaration of independence and talked about how he did government by crisis. starting with his election which was contested, 9/11, the iraq

war. obama has been doing the same thing. crises are good for politicians because they get to command more control and respect and more obedience. we have some much uncertainty in the system about what obamacare is going to cost. what our tax rates going to be january 1? it makes it hard to make any decisions. host: this is your on twitter wants to know -- ts towitter wans know -- guest: we do not have any certainty that the government will be able to pay claims on social security or medicare. the major trust funds and funding social security -- in 2011, it is paying out more in

benefits than it is taking in in revenue. that system is not going to change ever. in 2033, all of the savings in payments will be gone. by then, current law says social security benefits have to equal only the revenue coming in to pay for the program. basically what it is saying is social security is already drawing down its savings. medicare will be out of money in 2020 for. we know in a relatively short time these programs will go bust. we have gotten a lot of people saying one of the reasons why entitlements have to go to everybody is because americans are stingy bastards. we have to include the middle class of. that is why it really only makes sense to give to people who are struggling.

even if our total tax breaks to stay the same, i would be a lot more comfortable sitting here are some good programs we know will help the poor. that is the last thing we are going to cut. before that, we will cut home interest mortgage rate deductions which help the middle class and the upper middle class and the wealthy. we can get rid of farm subsidies that go to ag businesses. it is not clear to me they should be getting subsidies. there is a lot of fat to cut. americans are a strong enough people that we will always help those who are struggling. host: this viewer writes -- we have mike on the line from seattle. good morning. caller: good morning.

a very interesting concept about social security. the potential of its going bust. i think you said 2033. and a real world scenario, we know the democrats and republicans are not going to touch the social security topic with a 20-foot pole. but i think you have a really good point. i think that you should possibly write to mitt romney's campaign and ask them to spearhead this. his mantra should be i am for cutting social security and medicare. guest: the only thing that gives me pause is because you said that was a democrat calling in.

mitt romney is floundering with younger voters then been part of this conversation -- the origins of the story come from two places. looking at the occupy movment, always the 99% versus the 1%. we should be occupying aarp. really bad is a lot of that money is going to people who really do not need it to get by. that is what these programs should be focused on. the government should be helping you get by and then get on your own feet even if you are old. a fantastic conversation i had about a year ago when i interviewed david stockton who

was a congressman from michigan and a budget director under ronald reagan who got sacked because he took budget cutting ethos to heart. he was getting in the way because he wanted to cut spending. he said the federal government borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that it spends, it is morally wrong to push that caused by borrowing down onto kids, granted, and great grandkids. -- grandkids, and great grandkids. he says we should either cut or spending to the level of taxes we are willing to extract in any given year, or we should raise taxes. i think he is right about that. if you care about your kids -- for a second, i started to sound like alan simpson who said the

your kids, youre about need to lobby to change the system because you are bilking them their ability to work hard, gain their benefit, and retire. host: a republican from kentucky, you are up now. caller: hello? i am a registered republican but i vote for the person in the big elections in november. my subject mainly is for social security and medicare. when i was a young man, i could remember people being on a pension before that. i feel certain social security was one of the best things that ever happened to america. one of the reasons is if you

noticed, it is pretty easy to say i can save 10% and retired very easily bending it is not in the sand. it is in the doi;ng. a lot of times, people are just going to spend that money and not create a safety net. guest: this is the ants and the grasshopper fable. asop could foresee the demise of that country which has terrible fiscal policy. this is one of the project this is horrible, horrible freedom. we should not be forced to do things in a free country bring bank that is why things are good. people should save for their retirements. some people will not save for their retirement. the overwhelming majority of

seniors have amassed a huge wealth over the course of their life. from working, savings, and other things and then they can afford to take a cut in what they are getting if they do not actually need it. the the side of this -- the problem with social security going forward, people putting in will get increasingly less. everybody who participate in medicare who benefit from the program gets far more than they put in. that is a problem. when you add these things together, the only people getting screwed are people who are younger, poorer, or less politically powerful. host: here is a question via twitter.

guest: i think it might be 160. host: they are saying -- guest: some people say that would extend the window of viability for another 70 years or 75 years which is it typical projection that you use for this type of stuff. that may or may not be true. that does not change the fundamental issue that the program is going to be paying out less and less to the people who put in. it confounds and confuses economic market. if you take 12.4% which has been reduced because one of the ways that barack obama has bought votes, he has cut a couple percentage points off of the employee contribution. he did not say we are also going

to reduce benefits. i think raising the cap on wages that are covered by social security would extend the current system. it is important to understand the current system is the problem. it is unfair and unjust. it does not pay out well. if you have 12.4% of your compensation to invest in savings, he would be doing that in ways that would be much more productive than the government. al gore was mocked calling it a lock box way back in 2000. it actually gets leveraged into more debt. if that was going into the private sector, we would have a better economy because there would be more money around to invest. host: another viewer sees it this way.

we have miles on the line from arlington, virginia. caller: good morning. i really enjoyed the article and i agree with what you have to ay they've been guest: sir, what planet are you on? caller: as a member of earth who is 30 years old and somebody who is getting screwed by the system, my question was actually about education and how your point relates to it. i know public education does not make up the budget entitlement programs, but do you also think that families who are wealthier and able to pay for their child's education should not be using the public education

system and that should be reserved for the poor? guest: it is an interesting question and it goes to a larger point. the federal portion of k-12 education is small but growing band of conservative republicans need to understand that this was george bush's doing. overwhelmingly, state and local money. what we have seen in public schools since the early 1970's is a doubling or tripling of per pupil cost with a 0% improvement in outcomes. we are spending about two and a half times per pupil for exactly the same outcome at best. this gets to the point -- wealthy people are going to pay more in taxes and no matter what because it is a percentage

of income. they already do pay more taxes than other people. it does not mean you should never go to a public park. the question with education, and this goes back to the declaration of independence, the new book that i wrote. it is also about choice and then governments should not be there to support every desire and need that you think you have. government should be there to provide certain basic goods. i am not sure if education fits into that. the one thing that is clear is whether we are talking about retirement, health care, or education, we should have a much more viable set of choices available to us whether we are

poor or very wealthy. the wealthy have many choices. arguably the worst dimension is poor people pay in and then get benefits. on like an actual retirement plan like a 401k or an ira, that benefit dies with them. they cannot pass on whatever is left over after savings to their generation. as somebody who grew up in lower middle class circumstances, when my parents passed away, i received a modest pay out. we sell their house, but about $30,000. that was a huge boom for me at that time when it came. even the port worker who is making almost poverty wages and you have a retirement account that is yours that pays interest, that can be passed on to your younger generation.

social security obliterate that in the name of -- it is a generational compact that is holy and it all goes one way. host: from twitter, here is another viewpoint. we have a couple of the e-mails this morning. when there is no money left over to pay the bills, all our people who even save for their own retirement? libertarians say all people should fend for themselves. what about low-wage earners? guest: ron paul famously discusses during an earlier republican debate. i think it is ok and it makes sense and it is going to happen for the government to provide a

social safety net. when you call out the fact that government is ripping off people, if you are young, you are getting screwed. i and the bad guy for saying that. what i am saying and what this article is saying is simply that people should pay as much as the freight for their lives as they can. we have an entitlement system that benefits the middle class and the upper middle class and the wealthy far more than it does the truly needy. we should get rid of entitlements that go broadly to people regardless of income, and government would be much better off paying out less to fewer people that they can identify and take care of in a meaningful way. instead of saying you are going to get a couple thousand dollars a month in social security. we are going to cover most of

york -- we are going to shovel reduced price prescription drugs to seniors regardless of need or income. that is wrong. host: let me get in a couple more calls. pat, a democrat. caller: i think the federal sales tax, maybe not spending so much on military, and even raising the minimum wage for people would probably solve our social security problem. you are not mentioning the pump and dump stock market than they don't you think that is a little bit of a ponzi scheme? i know a lot of people who were considered wealthy just seven or eight years ago who are struggling right now and are extremely grateful for their social security. what about these corporations

that file bankruptcy so they do not have to pay people's pensions? host: let's hear from steve from san diego, california. caller: could you please explain and give a brief synopsis on the cloud and pivot strategy and the objectives and goals? guest: i really cannot, but to go back to the question of the stock market or in vesting, and believe me i am no financial analyst or stockbroker. let me put it this way. the government balance sheet may be doing slightly better than where i parked my retirement funds in the last 20 years. the stock market over time along with bond markets and real estate and with savings and a variety of the instrument does

well for people. every state pension plan invests in the stock market and then there are ups and downs and then will come back from this recession. it is taking longer than the. great the same reason the depression got stretched out by experimentation, which was fdr's phrase. that creates a lot of uncertainty and th. whether or not young people can get jobs, it is a terrible job market right now. whether it is a war or an economy or government planning,

young people always get the short end of the stake. over time, people are doing better than t. kids today are doing better and have more money in terms of real purchasing power than their parents than wealth creation will continue to exist especially if we get back to less government intervention and control of the choices that you make your life not just about who you get to marry -- make in your life. not just about who you get to marry cannot but about spending and retirement. that is the road to better paying jobs and a future in wealth. host: one viewer on twitter says --

guest: we know that pensions are not sure things either. look at that chart in the reason.com story. if you are relying on social security and you retired in 2010 or any time after, you are going to get less and less dollar for dollar over whfor what you havet in over your lifetime. if you are putting money aside -- i hate to sound like charles schwab, but in broad based mutual funds and things like that over time, it is far more importance that you invest rather than what you invest in. you build wealth overtime. this is why older people are far wealthier. they have more amassed assets

because you save as you go. the problem with social security and retirement is it is making it harder and harder, if not impossible, for younger workers to save as they go. host: judy is an independent caller from gillespie. caller: i happen to be 73 years old next month and then i worked until i was 70. when i was younger, i did not work for any big corporations or anything like that and then i was a single woman for most of my life bandin. when i saw older people, i never resented any money that i had to put into social security or medicare, etc. i want you to explain to me why you think it is fair for young people to all of a sudden think

that they should not support order people who can no longer work. guest: there are a lot of question there, and this is one of the narrative is that get told. the old people are frail and weak and poor and friend-less. this is not the reality when you look at the consumption patterns of older people and the amassed wealth of these people. as a group, they are among the very wealthiest people in america. we need to understand just as there are poor people, those despite playing by the rules and those who do not, some old people are frail and sick and need a lot of help, and others do not been been the people who do not should not be getting it.

it is wrong to make young people pay for old people regardless of their needs because young people have needs, too. in one moresqueeze caller. caller: good morning. i want to go back to an earlier thing that mr. gillespie had to say about our medicare problems -- medical problems. i have had experience with my parents. they met in the army in korea. my mother stayed on the va system and my father got a job with transamerica. he paid his health insurance premiums to bluecross for 30 years. he never got sick and was very health.

then he came down with lymphoma. his oncologist submitted to bluecross for his chemotherapy and they denied it. my dad had to hire an attorney to get approved. if he would not have been approved, it would have been six months. because of the attorney, he got eight more years. with my mom and the va, maybe it is because i live in southern california, but they have given her excellent health. type ii diabetes, took care of her. guest: there are real questions with insurance companies as well as the va does not have a particularly strong