[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> aside from the olympics, economic news dominates the news this morning. the economy has only grown 7% since the recession and it in 2009. "the washington post" as a story this morning on the current economy and a debate on whether there should be more federal spending. in new poll last american about what role washington should play in the recovering economy. if uncle sam is helping or hurting.

if you want to join us on social media, you can send us a tweet. you can also send us an e-mail. a poll about the said of the economy and one of the questions asked was the role washington should play. here is the right appeared this is from "the miami herald."

>> again, the headlines, taking a role -- taking a look at what role government should take, whether robocalls and is helping or hurting the economy when it comes to helping it grow. that is what we will ask you this morning. if you want to mention the question, but then, you can give a call in one of three lines/party.

is uncle sam helping or hurting the economy? this is from "the baltimore sun." the headline is "the american economy stuck in low gear."

again, and uncle sam, helping or hurting the economy? here's the headline one more time. one of the take away from this is that 22% of democrats say that the government -- is that 72% of democrats say that the government should solve the economic problem. again, of sam, helping or hurting the economy? caller: the gop house is hurting the economy. the stimulus did not work. it ran out and vote was too small. -- it ran out and it was too small. we need to have a stimulus that does address the issue. the biggest government spending program was during world war ii.

economy recovered after that come even though it took a more taxes to do that. we need action from our government, not just republican suggestions for more drilling. we need direct action to create jobs from the government and that is the only way we will get back on track. host: a new debate about stimulus saying that the obama administration -- waco, texas, uncle sam helping or hurting the economy? the republican line. caller: this government and this president is killing jobs.

obamacare, at the very beginning, there is a 3.8% surcharge. for people like me who have our own businesses with a great number of employees, there is a medicare tax that goes up to 3.8% in addition to the first 3.8%. you had that up and -- you add that up and you look at local government or you have 8% or 9% right there. so you have a 60% marginal tax bracket. government is sucking the money out of us so fast it is unbelievable. and what we do? there's $60 billion in waste in medicare. $40 billion in fraud in medicaid. and look at the energies with solyndra and things like that. host: hold on, what is your line of business?

what do you do? caller: i ran a production unit, produced a low molecular mass saw. host: how many people did you employed? caller: in 1991, i have around 700 workers. -- i had about 700 workers. with the boom, i had about a thousand. and then obama came in and we are threatened with tax increases every three months. now you can tell me we cannot -- we can make it out here? we cannot do it. host: this is florida. caller: thank you. host: is uncle sam helping or hurting the economy? caller: i disagree with the last caller that obama is doing anything to harm the economy. i think it's mcconnell and the congress have done everything to failing to pass the highway bill

to not passing the jobs bill or even boating on jobs bills. we certainly have an infrastructure problem in this country that is epic. treasurys are at an all-time low. we could be borrowing money profitably, actually making money on their treasuries, adjusted for inflation and rebuilding our infrastructure. while showing the numbers on the treasury bills, it is an all time cheapest -- it is the cheapest time ever to invest in our country as my parents did. we could be rebuilding our grid. we obviously have a major carbon sequestration project and is to take place. we need to be building large lg forms that sequestering the algae in the ground.

so people can burn carbon fossil fuels if they wish. host: so everything we have talked about, as a result, it centers on congress? caller: yes. the president cannot do anything without the congress approving the funds. and any of the bills that the democrats or obama have tried to get through congress in order to try to help the economy have been jammed because they don't want him to have a second term appeared they had a secret meeting on the day of his inauguration. they want the economy to fail. it is that simple. host: "u.s. hit by weak is postwar rebound."

that is in the first column. we go to the last column and it adds that -- a bit less severe than the estimated 5.1%. cleveland, ohio is next. what you think about the question of uncle sam, helping or hurting economy? caller: i think it depends what

were you live. i am in cleveland, ohio. obviously, the auto bailout was a big help to people lost jobs year. so i think it has definitely helped. i think it definitely help our local economy here. and it will help president obama come november. host: edgewater park, carroll, republican line. caller: i am a business owner. i've bought it closed bank close to my house. it cost me thousand dollars to get into an existing building that was already commercial and i did not do a thing, i did not move a wall or change the carpet during a thing -- or do a thing and i cannot hire anybody because i don't know what will come down the line next.

it is killing me, the regulations to start a small business is horrible. host: what kind of regulation are we talking about? caller: i have an architect and an engineer and in them -- and an environmental planner. i had to pay some dude to stay in the parking lot in the middle of the night to make sure i had enough lumes. america was built on small business and the mom-and-pop shops where mom in the family lived upstairs or behind the store in we could be an entrepreneur. what we need to do now is give the american people the opportunity to open any legal business they want in their home and not have to go through these ridiculous hoops you have

to jump through to get open. and let the american ingenuity, which is what our country was made upon, let it go and get the government out of our business. host: prosperity, south carolina, independent line. caller: i am saying that i think the government needs to have a stimulus program for the infrastructure of this country. corporations and businesses need roads and bridges to be able to deliver their goods once they start producing them. i also believe that congress should pass the tax deductions and credits -- tax credits instead of tax reductions. we need to pay off the debt that we created in the past eight years or nine years, rather. we need to continue helping the

american worker out by keeping regulations the way they are, especially the workers' rights regulations and worker safety. every time i hear somebody talk about deregulation, i think about working with asbestos and things like that and the companies that had their employes work around. host: of the three things you listed, why do you think they will work? caller: for one thing, we need bridges. we need roads that are not hazardous. you ride around and you hit a pothole or you're always hearing about bridges that have collapsed and people are dying from them, we need that. but also, the tax deductions and the tax credits, they help businesses. anybody.uts don't help

we need funds to help pay for everything that we use in this country. i want to elect politicians who will spend our money correctly and go back to the tax rate that we have under bill clinton. host: of assam, helping or hurting the economy? -- the uncle sam, helping or hurting the economy?

some of those sentiments addressed in this morning. here is atlanta, georgia. good morning. caller: i would like to give a chance for these gentlemen in.ling an host: but before that, helping a hurting the economy? caller: helping the president pass a jobs bill, but because the republican corporate wealth the club gatherers, they prevent any type of help

stimulating the economy because they want the economy tuesday that for this president so he can be blamed for the failing of the economy. they're putting a stop to any type of progress in congress in spending money that they know tax dollars would help not just fixing bridges, but building yours schools where populations in certain communities have expanded, police officers and firemen were more communities have expanded. and they know that is what tax dollars go for. if we did not have tax dollars, you would be sitting in euros your water and letting your house with candles because you don't have -- in your own store water and letting your house -- and lighting your house with candles because you don't have cables. and this lady talking about not

-- you cannot blame that on the president. host: this is "the new york times" about the deficit and the projections for the rest of the decade. louisiana, when it comes to an uncle sam helping or hurting the

economy? caller: local sam has a lot to do with causing this financial crisis. take a look at all the democrats and republicans who helped fannie mae and freddie mac. you think you want the same people to cure our problems? they will never get this solved. all the people who think the government comes up with money out of thin air, they have salaries that you can get talks dollars on of them. we have a spending problem. i am an independent registered voter. i am a what -- i am a mother, wife, grandmother. this is ridiculous. all of these people think that keynesian politics will work. this is hopeless, you guys. you have to get it right where we will go over the clip altogether anyway. host: tony, good morning.

caller: i am a registered democratic voter. the problem i have is that, if the democrats win the house and the senate, what will be -- it will be more difficult for president obama then it was in the first four years. unless he can get this thing passed through the house and senate, it may be a wasted vote for me. host: as far as a way to solve a, a resolution, what do you think? caller: put the american people first instead of partisan politics. put the american people first. the american jobs that was a great plan to get people back to work. it was a great way to get teachers back to work.

it would stimulate the economy and improved unemployment. but until we get some people who really have the american interest in heart instead of defeating president obama, we will continue having these problems for the next four years. host: if you are saying that uncle sam is hurting the economy, you're saying it is congress. caller: the house of representatives in particular. host: john in north carolina says -- next up is brooklyn, new york, independent line. think it isn't really the government that is hurting the economy at this point -- the economy. at this point, they are.

we know what really happened. i think a lot of your callers are ill informed. it was the banking system that extract all the money from our economy and let it crash. i lost my train of thought. host: helping or hurting? what you think? he is gone. if you go to investors but, there is a story of general motors. he writes this morning, apologies for the small print thing, the general motors is a sex symbol -- a successful example.

and again tomorrow to this story and. hicke you want to go to investors.com and read the rest for yourself, you can do that. while you do that, baton rouge, louisiana, republican line. caller: if anybody cannot see or -- that the government is definitely hurting our economy, they cannot read or they cannot hear or they cannot see. one or the other. host: what would you give as a prime example of that?

caller: just look at it. [laughter] what do you mean? i cannot understand you people. it is as plain as the nose on your face and you sit there and try to make the economy could. -- economy good. i don't know. the media, they will not say anything against obama. we got all kinds of evidence on obama and not one peep out of you people. it is the media that is causing a lot of this problem. if this was president nixon, obama would have been out of their months ago host:. "the wall street journal has

mitt romney traveling to israel. that says that romney and netanyahu have been correlated relationship. he said he took an implicit did get the obama administration, saying --

in the states, people are looking at who will become the romney vice presidential nomination. rudy giuliani is working voters. also, when it comes to presidential politics, "the wall street journal" has a story

taking a look at president obama's reach for younger voters through social media. reconnecting with 2008 upporters, the campaign may have lost track. again, uncle sam, if he is helping or hurting the economy?

that is the question for the next 10-15 minutes or so. indiana, robert, in the pan and line. i don't understand why the government cannot take care of its own business. obama is supposed to have bodyguards and everything and they go over there and they spend money that most taxpayers have to pay back so they can go over there and have a party and get drunk and have women in their motel rooms and stuff. keep our supposed to mouths shut and not say anything about it. host: philadelphia, pennsylvania. caller: i think local sam is definitely heard in this country. the reason is that uncle sam does not work for the people. it is for private organizations and the secret companies and the

oil companies. that is who is truly running this country. the government is not for the people. it is for the highest bidder, the oil companies, all of these wars for oil and pipelines and certain contracts pared it has nothing to do with freedom or keeping america saved. there are no tourists anywhere. the only terrorist is israel appeared someone has to say it. israel is ruining america and the rest of the world. host: -- silver spring, md., good morning, michael, republican line. caller: i went to history class. i love history. and we have to wonder history.

if it happened once before, we got to do the same thing. when we were in a depression -- this will sting my comrades, republicans -- we didn't go history class and read history where fdr taxed anyone that made over $100,000 -- $1 over $100,000 and above. for every dollar, he taxed 90%. okay? now, $100,000 then would probably be $1 million or two million dollars. so it would be $1,000,000.10, i don't know for sure tax it 90%,

but it should be more than a 15%, 25% -- it should be damn near 75% to we get of this mess. we need to respect history. most of your callers went to public school and they learn the same thing in public's -- in private school. and respect history. this is a serious issue and a serious problem. i am not a fascist pig i am not a communist, but i am certainly not a fascist. of they are allowing america to go down. and the wealthy top 12%, 7000 families, i don't make that kind of money. i don't make that kind of money to have my interest, where mine

candidate can chuckle around the table and say he is unemployed and he spends nearly half a billion dollars. host: north carolina, democrats line. caller: the problem that i see is the lack of respect that facilitated the u.s.. we seem to be so focused on creating groups and creating dividing lines that we have lost focus on the big picture. i do feel like government is hurting simply because, when you can -- i have never seen someone that has been able to make a career politicking. is only thing you're doing side talking for 20 something years cared that is all you're doing. when there is opportunity to make change, they sit on their

thumbs. i guess i cannot understand exactly how this president is really supposed to come into office and be able to help and make change if all you want to do is stop everything he does. if the entire focus is to stop what one person is doing, how helpful can you be? it is like a husband and wife and the what this tried to do things better for the family and the only thing the husband wants to do is sit around and drink. host: when you're talking about politics, who are we talking about on covell hill? caller: anyone who is not willing to sit down and talk and not willing to give something in order to make things better. as a marriage, has been and wife has to give and take in order to make things work. but no one seems to want to give good the only thing they want to do is take. that is a recipe for

destruction, not only in government, but in any type of relationship. we have to understand that, it the u.s. wants to look at itself one of the elite companies and one of the greatest powers in the world, we have to do things differently. host: a couple of international stories. when it comes to iraq and afghanistan and the leftover

military, a story of what happens with the leftover gear, talking about the army's plans to relocate here. .- relocate gear new york city, good morning, ralph, independent line.

caller: i listened to this program in the beginning. i enjoy hearing the frustration in other people's voices. our government can help us. take a snapshot of where we were before clinton and before bush was in the white house. we had a surplus. we were well respected in the world. and then what happened? you fast forward to bush's tax cuts. companies are draining our resources and selling them to the highest bidder. then they give the oil companies tax breaks. and you get total chaos. host: what lessons do you see in the clinton era that can help

here? raising taxes that caller: -- raising taxes? caller: it gave revenue to the government to do what it needed to do. when the tax expired, we had to make up that money. we have a surplus. let's give the surplus back to the people. who got the surplus? the rich people got the surplus. host: if you're just joining us, we are asking this morning a poll -- is uncle sam helping or hurting the economy? alice is on the republican line. caller: as a small-business man who has been in business 43

years -- i am talking about a small business with less than five employees -- if you don't think this government is hurting know.en you really don't what has happened to the american people? we have all become america's a become democrats and republicans. i have not seen so much hate president has brought on the spirit -- on us. as a small businessman, the best years i had were years 2007, 2006, 05. they were the best business i had in 43 years. host: what kind of business to you do? caller: automotive repair. host: how many people view employed? caller: 5. host: how does uncle sam hurt

your business? caller: with all the regulations that put on all the businesses that we do business with. the high price of gas has almost destroyed our business in the past two years. it is horrible what has been going on. and everybody wants to blame the republicans. the democrats on the hop -- owned the house and the senate for quite some time and they did not pass those regulations because the democrats didn't want to do it because they wanted republicans to blame and they knew the republicans would not pay for that. and the tax cuts were not just for the wealthy. they were for everyone. i did my payroll on my employees who do not make hundreds of thousands of dollars. when the bush tax cuts came into effect, they were taking an extra $20 to $25 a week. whenever they said the renewed the tax cuts, they didn't take

quite as much home because they didn't get all the tax cuts back. host: when it comes to regulation, how much regulation that affected your business, how much of it was federal and how much of it was state and local tax caller: -- state and local? caller: it was mostly federal. host: like what? caller: my wife and i had to spend a whole week going to river chemical that we had and docket -- go through every chemical that we had and document that and list the companies that we do the business with. host: samantha is honor democrats line. caller: my answer to your

question is this -- the government is definitely hurting because the congress, everything that the president has come forth with that could possibly give us a little breathing room is sidebar, sidetracked. i a agree that it is done to make this president look incompetent if barack is selected for a second term or mitt romney comes in and is elected, it will take at least another two terms, a the third romney or another presidential candidate, before this economy can never recover. host: johnsonville, virginia, republican line, floyd. caller: i was wanting to express my views about president obama. i think the government is the problem.

i wish c-span would take more conservative christian calls. anyway, getting back to the subject, the president, the first thing he did was go to a foreign country. he supports homosexuality. he supports abortion did the democrats support that. and then they wonder why god don't + this country. -- don't bless this country. host: let me ask you about the role the government plays in helping or hurting the economy. caller: when you stand up for premeditated murder, when you stand up for things like that, god blesses people that pleased him. everything will fall in place. host: tacoma, washington, your

the last call. caller: i just wanted to speak about the original rule that the founders had for the federal government and why it was created and why the checks and balances were established as such. the two regional rules for the chairman, i would like to remind your buddy, were for, one, merely to protect the state's and, two, to tax the states. i am of the opinion that we are taxed already give all of these comments that the government needs to do this or that, health care, and being on food stampsstuff, it is far beyond we congress intended. i am only 28 years old, but i am wise enough to understand and recognize what is going on here in this country.

and people are sacrificing their liberty for security. if you look at the ben franklin, those who do that will get neither. i wanted to keep it simple and remind people that the government is too big and too large and is far overreaching in everything that it does. host: here is what is coming up in the next portions of the show. we will have a roundtable discussion looking at the topic of gun control laws in the united states. president obama and governor romney weighing in on the issue this week on the topic. later on in the program, we will discuss sequester due to the planned budget cuts that will take place to, but particularly how it could affect programs in the education department. you will get a chance to look at the programs that will be affected if those go into place. we will do that right after this break as oakwood washington

journal" continues on a saturday. we will be right back. >> it was clear that, when that eighth amendment was ratified, the death penalty was not considered to be prohibited. indeed, the death penalty existed in all the states and was the only penalty for a felony. so, for somebody today to say that somehow the american people prohibited the states from applying the death penalty, i don't know where this comes from. the american people never voted for any such thing. >> supreme court associate justice antonin scalia sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span the "q&a."

>> we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there was only a vague native american region and later a county and another state called kentucky. but we began in 17 to meet -- but we began in 1778. >> next week, from louisville ky. sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, three weeks of forming 10 plantation. and the heyday of the steamboat on the ohio river could take a look back -- on the ohio river.

take a look back. next week, from louisville, on c-span to and c-span 3. >> the political parties are holding their platform hearings in advance of the democratic convention. in mid-august, republicans start their platform process at the convention site in florida. c-span coverage continues august 10 in philadelphia followed by the republican national convention with live coverage beginning monday august 27 from tampa. and the democratic national convention live from charlotte, north carolina. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we will take a look at the issue of gun controls and the laws that affect them controls

with two guests. we have the leo shapiro -- ilya shapiro and mark blaze -- glaze. to both of you, gentlemen, thank you for joining us. >> good morning. >> good morning. host: i wanted to start off by reading a statement that was in the "washington post" yesterday. i wanted to get your perspective and take. he wrote this. given the existence of mental illness and criminal gangs, what is the rational design for our gun laws? how do we preserve the right of self-defense and respect the rights of sportsmen's while complicating the plans of the violent? how would you respond to that?

guest: that is the way he frames it and many conservative authors have framed it more or less exactly the same way since the shooting in aurora. we have several mayors against guns. you can do much more to keep guns out of the wrong hands while strongly supporting the second amendment and the rights of law-abiding gun owners. what we focus on our common sense solutions that are overwhelmingly supported. everybody ought to get a background check and be able to pass on when they want to get a gun, not just at a licensed dealer, but at a gun show aired when people lie to a gun dealer whether they are a legitimate purchaser of that gun, they should be subject to strict penalties. we believe that if a person is on a terror watch lists, they

should not be given access to guns. there is a wide range of things that one can do to make sure that people who are law butters are able to do what they want and people who are not for people who are likely to use again to hurt themselves and others do not have access. host: how would you respond to the question? guest: the devil is in the details. i did not hear anything that i disagree with. i think all purchasers should go through a background check and i agree, depending on how you manage this terror watch list -- you know, the no-fly watch list is over broad and under-broad -- but i believe the people should be able to protect themselves with guns that are in common use and not with machine guns. unless we live in a police state, we will never be able to prevent all of these meticulously planned attacks that we see every now and again, unfortunately. host: if there is commonality

between both of you on this issue, where do the typical issues of disagreement come into play? guest: organizations like mayors against illegal guns try to ban assault weapons. the way they discipline -- the way they define those is where they disagree. 70% of handguns, including a revolver, is a semi-automatic. it involves how many bullets, and a clip. we want to ban something more than 10 rounds. that is not how we want to go. the 100-round magazines, 10 rounds or even 20 is not the

proper cut off point. host: how would you respond? guest: just a correction, i do think that there are organizations out there and members of congress that do want to ban -- different mayors believe different things, but we believe that, if you give your body in the country background check, you would screen out a lot of people who want to do the wrong thing with their guns. you can have a legitimate debate and there is one not just about assault weapons, but also about high-capacity magazines. try spoke with some sportsmen and in colorado -- i spoke with some sportsmen in colorado where i come from about gun a purge -- gun ownership.

colorado is a concealed-carry state. if more people in the theater in aurora, colorado had a gun, maybe they would have stopped the shooter before he committed the atrocity that he committed. you can have a good debate about that. i think most police officers would tell you that more guns in the hands of untrained people in a situation like that will not make you safer. in if jamestown's had come and rather than having a semiautomatic rifle that could shoot 100 rounds in short order and had something that had a lower capacity weapon, they could have stopped him because he would have to stop to reload. violate the second

amendment or in a british rights, but it would have -- or anybody's rights, but it would have screamed at him out. -- screened him out. host: mr. glaze, let me follow up with you. guest: the national rifle association has limited the kind of research that the government can do after what we call in washington appropriations pair did put a block on fun andding -- on funding.

we do know that there are a lot of assault weapons out there and a lot of high capacity clips. and if you cut them off, presumably, the older ones would be grandfathered in. you have some many of them out there that it would take a while before they flushed out of the secondary market. if you cut off the supply of something that is highly dangerous, eventually, you to shut it off. our collection does not take a position on the assault weapons ban. but when you block something that is problematic, it will take a while, but even she, you can get there. guest: i want to focus on one thing that he said. the so-called -- the a r-15 is the best-selling rifle in the country. this is a rifle that is in common use for hunting, for shooting.

it is not some exotic thing and courted from china or russia or something that -- it is not some exotic thing imported from china or russia. that doesn't matter. it doesn't shoot faster or more powerful bullets than other types of hunting rifles. it is a canard to say that, if he had been limited to handguns or something like that, short of banning all long guns, there's nothing that could have been done in that case in choice -- in his pictures of weapons. guest: that is not quite true. this is not something that our coalition takes a position on, but, for example, one of the folks who survived the tucson shooting, she is actually here in new york talking about her experiences in this weekend.

her experience was that she helped russell the second click away from the gentleman -- helped wrestle the set and took away from the gentlemen who shot giffords and those people. they stopped him from shooting 100 rounds. the idea that you can -- guest: that is why i said you should not have a 100-clipped magazine. host: democrats, you're on first. caller: i want to say thank you for c-span.

i believe that this shooting is another staged falsified event by the u.s. government. you have the human gun-control treaty coming up for a vote. this is exactly the kind of thing that the government does. these oral falsified events pushing a government agenda pushing this country into a fascist nation. guest: this is a treaty that is trying -- i don't think it will get anywhere in this senate certainly -- to try to force an international elite consensus on things on to the united states. i think this is a debate for the federal government, for each state to decide their own laws. host: do you have any thoughts jury perspective on that?

guest: the arms treaty is about conventional arms being trafficked in two nations, including in to many nations where those weapons go into the hands of private armies and fuel an enormous amount of mayhem that the government cannot stop. we're not talking about any of the kinds of weapons that might dad or a gun dealer or i or you would want to buy. this is one of those things that the national rifle association resists a lot of money -- raises a lot of money. will it be approved before the elections? i would not be surprised if it did not. members of congress and the administration are notissues du. host: denny on the republican

line. caller: there seems to be a stigma that people with mental bonuses should not buy guns. here in the state of pennsylvania, a person with a mental illness who has been hospitalized many times, i have a concealed weapon permit and i also own a ruger 22 semi- automatic and a shotgun for self-defense. there are basically seven criteria in order to get a concealed weapon permit. have you ever committed a crime? have you ever been declared mentally incompetent? the last one is -- host: we will leave your thoughts there. mental health as part of the

process, should it be toughened? guest: that is a huge issue. i think that is one area that needs to be looked at. the institutionalization of mental health people decade ago started a trend in this direction. the tuscon shooter, if you are so violent that you get kicked out of community college, i think there are steps that can be taken and is the experts should look at it and recommend things there. that is definitely an area of policy that needs re- examination. host: is there a way to go beyond background checks? guest: pickup all of things you can and should do. one is very straightforward. the background check system

which is supposed to contain all of the records and also people who are seriously mentally ill or drug abuse, all of those records are supposed to be in that do not sell database. if you have one of those prohibiting factors, you are not allowed to buy a gun. states are not doing a good job at sending mental health records into that national database. the federal government cannot compel them to do so. 23 states have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the national system. gov. bob macdonald of virginia has said that we have to do much more to get those records in so the next deadly shooter who

bought guns and ammunition because his record or not there -- we have to do much better to make sure the states get the records. we do not want people who are simply depressed or under treatment for anxiety to not be able to exercise their constitutional right. on the other hand, you do not want people who are not in possession of their faculties and are going to do other people harm by walking into a store and buying a gun. host: tennessee, good morning. caller: i have two points i wanted to make. the second amendment was not written for hunting. they just came out of a tyrannical government and they wanted to make sure there were people who could armed

themselves and defend themselves. in the state of colorado, the -- the theater had a policy that they could not carry weapons with them which prevented a lot of law-abiding citizens from being able to carry the weapons. if they relaxed those types of laws for people to carry their weapons with them, these types of incidents would be stop. host: as far as this discussion and intent of the second amendment, what would you add? guest: there are two issues here. whether a more guns make people safer in public places.

who ought to decide the eligibility requirements for concealing weapons? let me take the second one first. top priority has been in national reciprocity which would require a new york to recognize concealed carry permits from anywhere else. we strongly oppose that because here in new york mayor bloomberg and others think it is a good idea that we have very tight restrictions on concealed loaded weapons. that works for us. if this bill were to pass, new york would have to allow anybody from a permit from anywhere else in the country -- new york would have to allow anybody with a permit from anywhere else in the country to allow to carry a gun

here. more hands in the guns of people not necessarily trained do not help. guest: i am a fan of federalism. i do not think the federal government should be able to put in a one size fits all regime on the states. i do not know what his position on the other things are, but i agree that the second amendment was put in their primarily for self-defense and otherwise as far as the right to carry, to bear arms. 41 states currently have an issue regime, which if you pass a background check, you should be able to get it.

is there is always an exemption. even the nra agrees with this. someone who does not have any red flags in the background but a naked man muttering wild things in their yard, sheriff's can prevent that person from carrying a gun. the caller is absolutely right. if all you do is prevent guns in your establishment by putting up a sign, the only people who are going to have guns are the criminals. they are not going to follow your rules against guns. i think colorado got it right. public establishments who want to enforce gun-free zones have to make sure that each entrance as a guard and a metal detector so making sure the gun-free zones are in forced against everyone. host: we are talking about gun

control laws in the united states with two guest. ilya shapiro, senior fellow at the cato institute, and mark glaze. our conversation goes for about another 20 minutes. albuquerque, new mexico, good morning. caller: i have two quick questions. i would like both gentlemen to attorney on the general problem. the gun walking was completely legal. i wanted both gentlemen to weigh in on that quickly. thank you very much. guest: there are t do issues. the program itself and then more legal issues. the program seems bizarre to me. it just seems like a bizarre

premise. it makes gun dealers uncomfortable when it encouraged to sell to all the rest. on the legal side, this is a battle between the congress and the executive about releasing documents. i think the justice department are not being completely forthright. executive privilege from the white house is a little odd. they said they were not involved in decision making, and then when you invoke executive privilege, that means the president receives advice from his advisers. there is a lot of legal strange things going on. ultimately this is a political battle. guest: let me place aside for the second because he did a good

job discussing the executive privilege piece of that and focus on the underlying problem underneath fast and furious which is that over the past six years or so, more than 50,000 mexican citizens have been slaughtered in gang wars. more than often, those wars have been perpetrated by guns from the united states. you cannot buy an assault weapon. there is a ban there. here in the united states, we have not had that ban since 2004. someone will go into the store and buy it assault weapons and pass them back down to the drug gangs who use them to facilitate shipping narcotics into american

communities. that is the underlying policy problem. the reason it is difficult to prosecute those crimes which is arguably what we got into the situation that we got in with the fast and furious operation, there is no federal fire arms trafficking statute in the united states. the penalties are not very large. these crimes are not particularly jury-friendly. without a federal trafficking statute which is something many people had said they think we need, that purchasing and shipping guns out to mexico is going to continue to be a problem. host: the law covered such things as possession by prohibited persons, selling or giving to a prohibited person,

use of fire arms in a drug felony or crime of violence. should there be an expansion above where we are as far as the number of federal gun laws? what would you add? guest: i think i would start with the premise that there is some agreement between the gun lobby and folks who think we need to get some illegal guns of the street. we do not enforce the laws that we have right now. as we discussed, if you are a felon or seriously mentally ill, you are not allowed to have a gun. people slip through. a glaring loophole in those laws and contrary to the intent of the law, the only way in which i can get a background check is if i go to a federally licensed gun dealer.

if i go to a gun show and buy it from a private seller, there is no background check. criminals know this and private sales at these gun shows become a source of crime guns. an undercover sting operation of gun sales online found you can buy anything you want on the internet. very often, you can do it very often with no background check they've been in 62% of cases, the private seller would sell it anyway. that is a felony. the internet and gun shows are great things, but you need to tighten up current law by requiring background checks. do we need some new laws? you vermay well have to close te loophole.

we believe the letter of the law that was passed back in 1968 forbidding people who are in those categories needs to be filled. guest: i agree with the previous point, that a lot of things should be left to the state's. -- states. i do not believe it is something that the federal government should be getting into. if there are enforcement problems, that is an enforcement problem. i want to clarify one other thing. i am not part of the gun lobby. i am part of the constitution lobby. i want to help people protect their rights. i have never owned a gun myself. i grew up in canada. this is not a matter of being a shell for the nra or another

type of group. i think citizens should be able to defend themselves the. hostguest: it is very unusual to find yourself in these debates. host: pittsburgh, pa.,. on the republican line. caller: number two, 40 murders .lack on black a month i rahm emanuel seems to be more concerned about other things. anybody notice this guy was a

-- every time something happens, people go and the. msnbc was planning newt gingrich in 1994. they blame the tea party. host: both president obama and mitt romney weighing in on the situation as far as gun control. we are going to get both of your thoughts on it as well. >> i believe the second amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. i think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. i also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that ak-47's belong in the hands of soldiers and not criminal been betting >> i do not support new gun laws in

our country. we have background checks and other restrictions. we have 300 million guns in america. we have a second amendment that protects the right of people to bear arms. i think the effort to continue to look for some law to make violence go away is missing the point. the real point has to deal with individuals and keep them from carrying out a terrible acts. guest: it does not sound like there is any policy daylight between those two statements. president obama has not come out with new legislation. i do not think there is going to be any gun laws. most states are coming up with things like the colorado consensus, to have reasonable

regulations like background checks and eliminating straw purchasers. guest: there is not much daylight between them in the way that they talk about these laws. there is less daylight than one might think given the fact when governor romney was in massachusetts, he actually supported an assault weapon ban in that state. there is also an enormous consensus among people in the country about what you ought to do -- for example, a poll was taken recently that found 74% of nra members to think there ought to be a criminal background check for everyone. it is very hard to get that done

in congress and state legislatures because you have a gun lobby that raises a lot of money. as long as that is the case and they are willing to spend a lot of money on the elections, it is hard to get stuff done. host: a new gallup poll says gun laws should be made more strict. that was 2011, down from 78% back in 1992. a couple of thoughts off twitter. waynesboro, pa., hello to our ne.ependenct li caller: the right to bear arms

has nothing to do with hunting or feeding your family. it has everything to do as a last ditch effort to protect yourself, your family, and your community from a tyrannical government. that right to protect ourselves, a last ditch effort, has to be protected. that being said, i also feel there should be background checks so these crazy people do not do crazy things. how do you do that and balance that out and realize the larger issue with the second amendment has to do with the protection of the freedoms of the people in this country? guest: i am all about protecting freedoms. that is why perhaps to tease out one point of disagreement is the carry laws. nine states in the country do

not have the issue. as long as you pass these checks and you are not the naked man on the lawn, you are going to get your permit to conceal carry. there are other states that range from discretion to deny where it once or you are not going to get it unless you are a celebrity or a mayor like in new jersey or new york. february khmer bloomberg goes, he has bodyguards with weapons who he would deny all of his fellow citizens. -- wherever mayor bloomberg goes, he has bodyguards with weapons who he would deny all of his fellow citizens. we are going to see future

litigation in that area. host: in response? guest: i am not sure how much we disagree even three. ere. states ought to make these decisions. the mayor of new york has security because public officials can be target. that is why the president has security, too. 85% of the guns found at crime scenes come from somewhere else because we have some of the toughest gun laws in the country. what works in montana might be something different, but respecting federalism is important. because gun traffickers do not respect boundaries or borders, there are some problems that we have to have a unified solution. so i cannot just go across the border to another state and get

a gun and bring it back in. that is a problem that we have in the district of columbia for example. host: this is new york. line.our democrats' caller: first of all, in this day and age, the government has tanks, missiles, cruise missiles. also, the nra is definitely a third rail bending they have their hands in all of the people's pockets. it is never going to pass. i am from new york. i think it is a good thing to limit the amount of guns around ". yes, a lot of people have them.

if you have 20 guns in your house and 1000 rounds of ammunition, you cannot stop that. i think you are preparing for some kind of revolution. this ongoing thing organizations that are preparing to protect the government. host: should gun laws consider the amount of guns owned? guest: some states have done that. virginia for example. they recognized the fact that virginia is still the largest exporter of crime guns.

in new york, they decided that they would limit gun purchases to one a month. we will see if those laws make a difference sometimes soon. host: i expect limitation is not a concern of yours? guest: gun collection is as legitimate as car collection or anything else. we are talking about a doomsday apocalyptic scenario where there is effectively civil war. even given the gun ships and tanks and so forth versus rifles, if you have an armed citizenry, that might be something that is important in that apocalyptic scenario. i did want to mention one thing

about going across state lines. you have to distinguish between fire arms -- the legal fire arms dealers and those who would import guns into new york to do in the sand law- abiding citizens who are tied up either because they are stopped for speeding or an even more innocent thing. you hear these stories about a little old lady giving the guard at the smithsonian her handgun to hold onto washy checks out the theater -- onto while she's checks out the theater.

host: here is charlestown, west virginia. caller: thank you for having me on today. i am a first-time caller. i have a couple of points to make. i will try to keep it brief. as far as the magazines go, how many rounds should be in i am a firearms instructor and i shoot a lot. there is no particular reason for somebody to have a 100-round drum magazine. there is no other purpose than for warfare. the type of weapon systems such ak-47's -- those were platforms for warfare and military use. it is not something an untrained

civilian should had. have. i would like to see both gentlemen weigh in on that as far as basic laws and new regulations on gun control and as far as explanting the semi automatic -- there has to be more on the lines of -- host: let's leave it there. another call from new york. caller: the gentle man spoke about a police state and property rights. it appears to me that guns are of value. the ownership class, those who exploit professional labor,

blue-collar labor, and the poor, the state ensures the ownership class is able to exploit blue- collar labor and the poor. the individual takes on an exaggerated sense of individualism because of real freedom and power. i would add that guns because people know this is intrinsically, guns are there to protect ownership. the guns take on the exaggerated value for people. that is a very unfortunate term. i am taking myself out of context. property rights are an extremely valuable. the individual who is left out of this to a great degree no longer has meaning. guest: it is entirely too early

in the morning to have that conversation. guest: i can take something off of what the caller said. must violence in this country is in poor communities and in d.c. as well of course. it is unfortunate that a lot of people benefit from more gun rights. i think that is something that even as our national homicide rate was cut in half in the last 30 years, there are still problems in urban communities. if individuals who are underprivileged and have less economic power, if they are at least able to defend themselves, we would be better off. host: how could we see a major

shift as far as gun control laws are concerned? guest: if the federal government -- if a high-profile politicians started talking about disarming people or putting in much harsher laws -- we have had massacres of various kinds and they do not seem to shift it. if we had complete prosperity and everything was going great with the economy and health care and other issues, guns and social issues and things like that would take more prominent. guest: yeah, i think that's right. the public attention wanes. 34 people are murdered every day in this country. if you did the simple things like make sure they have a background checks or if they are

mentally ill, you could stop a lot of them. some of that you could do without new laws. eventually, whether it is a president, senator, they will take some parade steps to implement some common-sense reforms. .he gun lobbthen things will che host: mark glaze is joining us from new york, and ilya shapiro, a senior fellow at the cato institute. thank you for the conversation. we are going to take a look at education issues coming up after our next break especially when it comes to budget cuts and what might happen with education- based programs. later, peter delany from the substance abuse and mental health services administration will join us.

this week, at the top democrat on the ways and means committee. a congressman talks about next week's debate when it comes to tax and budget policy. we are going to take a look at him talking about how some americans -- whether some americans might have to sacrifice their tax cut in order to strengthen the economy. >> when you talk to these middle income voters, do you say to them you may have to sacrifice in order to make this fiscal system work? do you say that? if so, what do you say to them what they might have to sacrifice? >> i do say that. i think there are some items we need to trim. what i do not say is we will privatize social security. i do not say to them that we will privatize medicare.

i do not say to them that we ock grant medicaid and ship it to the state's. here is a republican bill that would come up next week that would eliminate education opportunities, these education opportunity credits. when i ran for governor long ago, 10% of the kids of college age were in high gear education. it is now 50%. it is a wonderful development. it has happened in part by the support from the government and community colleges. as i go door to door, what i am told is our kids are in college

now but are having trouble making it. they are having trouble paying for it. our families are under pressure then they do not eliminate all of the state and federal support for higher education. >> what should they sacrifice? >> it is hard to tell them to sacrifice when they have worked hard and have had stagnant income on average. i think they are willing to participate if they feel that everybody else is participating. i think, for example, i am willing to take a look at the mortgage interest rate deduction but not top it off in terms of 25%. no way. i would not be willing to do that. host: that is our program on sundays right after this program. you can see it at 10:00 in the

morning. you can also catch it on c- span.org. for our next 45 minutes, the topic is education and what might happen with budget cuts. joining us for that, alyson klein, a staff writer for "education week." always seemsals to deal with defense issues. guest: even though the defense has gotten a lot of the air time, education advocate are really worried about the impact of those trigger cuts that i am sure a lot of viewers know about. as a lot of people probably remember, last summer congress was struggling to reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling. as part of that deal, they wanted to hold themselves to a long-term plan to get the

nation's fiscal house in order. in order to force themselves to come up with a compromise, we are going to have the across- the-board cuts if we cannot come up with a compromise for discretionary programs like education and military programs next january in 2013, right around the corner. the deal has been elusive so far. also, folks in school districts who represent health programs and environmental programs are getting increasingly worried about these across-the-board cuts which the congressional budget office has estimated could be about 7.8%. host: what is their main concern? guest: that they would lose -- they would see a cut to programs like title one which helps

school districts educate disadvantaged kids, headstart which is a program that helps low income children attend early childhood programs, grants for special education. that would take a significant hair cut. host: one of the things that senator harkin talked about this week, when it comes to the 2012 appropriations, about $14 billion -- there is a cut of an estimated $1.1 billion. children may get affected as well. guest: those numbers are in billions. yes, those are just projections

of the number of kids who would no longer be served if this cut or to come through. republicans, including senator richard shelby, who is senator harkin's counterpart, they have argued it is going to be up to the school districts and up to states to implement these cuts. we cannot say for sure until they work with the numbers themselves, whether any children will lose services. he thinks is too early to draw those conclusions. host: when will they actually know? guest: when it comes to the main programs that would be affected by the sequester, title 1, grant, special education, money for teacher quality -- those programs are in a more fortunate position because they are not

going to be cut right in the middle of the school year right in january. those programs are forward- funded. school districts would have until the next school year to plan for those cuts. host: our guest with us to talk about education and what might happen as far as budget cuts for some of the programs. if you would like to ask some questions -- we saw the education secretary come out and talk about these cuts. what was the message? guest: please deal with the sequestered and deal with these automatic cuts. his overall message was that this could be very dire for education even those cuts --

even though those cut would not come into play until fall of 2013. they feel they do not have the breathing room to make up for theseuts. host: how are educators preparing for these potential cuts? guest: the education department just announced i think last week that these cut would not hit until fall of 2013. until that, folks were bracing for a cut right in the middle of the school year. according to a new survey, more than half of school districts have started -- have built that 10% cut into their budget. the state of texas sent out a memo saying we would hold back 10% of your funding because of the sequester. other states have suggested that

they build in that 10% cut. host: senator harkin put out a lengthy document. one of the things he talked about was the department of education and what might happen. he said the potential report analyzes the impact of sequestration on programs. the total impact on each state would be much larger when all of the programs are taken into account. as far as cuts on the federal level, they will seep down as well. guest: exactly. that would also go into school districts. host: you are the first call for our guest. good morning. caller: what i want to know is when did it become such a bad thing to invest in education?

to think abou tthe future? right now, given all these tax breaks to oil companies. basically doing everything you can to make sure this president fails -- i just don't understand it. it seems like our country is has completely lost its mind. infrastructure and education, these are things that help is civilization thrived. - a civilization thrive. why even fight if you are not going to do the things to help a civilization thrived? guest: a lot of that was echoed by eight democrats up on capitol hill last week including senator

harkin, congressman george miller on the house education committee. those folks participated in a rally here on capitol hill with a number of education advocates for programs like science and environment. obviously, some of those folks share a lot of concerns. they feel like education is the key. host: for republicans, what is the general consensus? guest: representative paul ryan's spending plan replaces the sequester with what education advocates argue would be deeper cuts to education programs. some republicans have expressed real concern about the impact of defense cuts. there has not been quite as much talk about cuts to discretionary

programs. host: the next call is from kentucky. charlie on our republican line. caller: good morning. it is nice to have a station that does not have a spin or a twist. i taught for 35 years in a private school. we are totally funded by tuition. we getmoney and the state of kentucky. we get very little money from the federal government. my question is what is the average per pupil expenditure for public schools? it seems to be very inflated and bloated. by the way, there is this idea that private schools only deal with those who are gifted intellectually.

that is by far not the case. it is also an understanding that private schools only deal with the affluent. 73% of our students are on full tuition or partial tuition relief. i think public schools -- i am a product of public schools by the way back in the 1960's. i am a product of a public- school. we did not have all of these programs. i am a republican, but i see signs of my public school setting we are going to feed you not only through the school year but also through the summer. guest: that is a great question about the average per pupil expenditure. it really varies across the country.

also, students who are in special education -- arguably, students who are in poverty need extra help that a student whose family is in better circumstances may not need them been a lot of folks say adding money to education does not necessarily improve student outcomes. that is an argument you hear over and over again. host: the harvard report says there are about 11,000 educators who would not be supported by federal funds particularly those who a special educators. guest: i should probably reiterate what senator shelby said. "mr. chairman, you do not know for sure because these cuts are going to be implemented at the local level."

those are the estimates that the democrats are going to be using. host: mike on our independent line. caller: good morning. i am astounded with this sequestration problem. congress voted for it. they had over three years to come up with $1.20 trillion in deficit cuts, none of which were to include revenue increases. they could not do it said they passed the law that was created. they were given a hammer to help them with sequestration. i do not know if anybody thought they were going to do it. sequestration now comes into effect then bank of a sudden, everybody in congress and the administration says, "oh my god. who created this sequestration

thing?" all these people. they voted for it. apparently they did not read it or do not understand the consequences of sequestration. i feel sorry for them. we ought to start educating the people in congress and the government so they know what they are reading and what the consequences are. guest: that was a great summary of how sequestration came to be. folks thought it was set up to be so bad that it would not happen. here we are just a few months away from january 2, 2013, when sequestration is about to go down.

we may relate not know what is going to happen with these cuts until after we know who will be in congress next year and who will be and the white house. host: alabama, clinton on a republican line. cutsr: i don't understand in the education programs. where are they doing the cuts? there are some things that are non-essentials in education, like football. that is a high-cost area in education. it cost a lot of money to run a football program. insurance, injuries that you have. they cut that program out and instead remove -- can

you educate me on that thought process? host: extracurriculars in education. guest: i am not sure of that federal spending stream for football in sharon's. most federal programs go directly into classrooms. they find teachers and curricular materials and assessments. when it comes to the federal money, i do not think cutting the football program is going to get us to that bottom line. host: which area might see the most cuts? guest: special education and there are other smaller programs. the 21st century learning community program which pays for after-school programs. there is a program that helps prepare low-income students for higher education. the federal government has a bunch of education priorities

and those would end up facing be ofuestere including some president obama's priorities. host: title won grants could be affected. -- title 1 grants could be affected. a wide base of cuts that are planned. guest: absolutely. there are a number of programs that school districts depend on. host: cleveland, ohio, good morning. are you there? go ahead. caller: i would like to know if the recent executive excellence for education initiative that president obama recently signed next week -- will that be affected by this problem? guest: i am not sure what the

funding mechanism is going to be for that so it is tough to say because it is a very new initiative. it will be harder for president obama to push forward his priorities for education and for state officials to do that as well. the initiative is improving education for african american students. host: our independent line in maryland. caller: i wanted to find out if the subsidy program statewide will be affected by these cuts. host: subsidies for what? caller: child care subsidies, subsidies for low-income parents who need assistance paying for child care. guest: it depends on what subsidy the caller receives. some programs such as assistance

for needy families are exempt from the sequester. some chatted nutrition programs are also exempt such as the head start program which pays for early childhood. host: state grants for career and technical education, a program that could be affected. 1 million fewer students served. that is the program that provides students with academic and employable skills as well as job-specific technical training. guest: that is a program that is the lifeblood of a lot of school district budgets. something that they watch closely in negotiations. there is more and more emphasis on the education role in the overall economy. that is a program i expect democrats will continue to 0.2.

host: book raton, fla., good morning. caller: i have a couple of comments. the recent statement said all budgets have at least 10% weight within them. -- waste within them. let's do away with all the waste and bureaucracy in the budget. i have two friends who are school teachers who will consistently lament about the administration at the county level and the anger that these

executives teach no one but anything. it is nonsense. we need to start educating people with the dollars that we have. that is my comment. guest: i think the caller did a good job crystallizing the arguments that republicans on capitol hill will be making. they feel like there is a lot of fat in the budget. some people think there should not be a department of education. host: there is a story that talks about what could happen at the education department itself if these cuts take place. if we are faced with tough calls, we have a responsibility to be fiscally responsible.

possibly having furloughs at the education department. a statement followed by a finding by the aerospace industry association says $500 billion in cuts could result to a direct loss of jobs and civilian agencies, about 229,000. guest: the administration has not done a great job of spelling out exactly what would be cut and what would happen at the federal level if sequestration goes through. they are putting most of their energy into a arguing do not do this and come up with a longer term spending plan. if i was an employee at the department of education, i would be looking at this sequestration train coming down the tracks and i might be worried. host: the department could have to slash spending on contracts

and student loans. guest: under the health care law, the department changed the student lending program said those loans originate with the department of education rather than subsidize lenders which has placed a new administrative burden on folks at the department of education. that would be another area that could feel the squeeze. stood loans are mandatory spending -- student loans are mandatory spending. host: jacksonville, florida, thank you for waiting. caller: republicans have been doing this for years. the weakening of the public- school system so you can gradually replace public schools with private schools. here in florida, we have many charterecharter schools that do

not have to meet the federal standard. gov. rick scott now wants to extend them to high income families, so we taxpayers will be paying for the rich kids' education. guest: i am not familiar with the situation down in florida. i do not think anybody is making the argument that these cuts should go through because private schools can pick up the slack. i would be really surprised to hear folks in washington even those who are supportive of cuts of education make that argument. it will be interesting to watch and see. host: mark from iowa, good morning. caller: i just have three quick comments. why is the federal government the middle man? why do we send our money to be

sent back in iowa? the gentleman said that education is the future in our country. national debt will destroy a country. how many countries have failed due to indebtedness? secondly, the fact is not everybody is going to get a ph.d. or be a ceo. if you listen to democrats, they think everybody will go to college and get a ph.d. if you listen to the other side of the argument, they think everybody has to be super educated for the country to survive.

guest: as i said before, a lot of arguments were crystallized. a lot of people believe that more money and federal involvement does not necessarily translate into better student outcomes and that has been a perennial debate in education policy and we hear it bubble again as lawmakers discuss what to do in the sequestered. host: including that twister -- williamstown, delaware, republican line -- caller: i want to make a comment about the sports that are in the government schools. i am a republican now but i was a democrat for most of my life. in fact, i was an independent in

between. however, i want to say that i was active in an organization, a private organization, in which it was called citizens for saving school taxes. a lot of money goes to teacher pensions and salaries and their perks and benefits. it is unbelievable. getting back to sports, may i just say that i saw a list of sports and our government schools that was unbelievable every single sport that you can think of was on those lists and the teachers get paid for them. being that it is government, teachers get paid very, very well. i am not saying i don't want sports in public schools. it could be baseball and football. but they've got like 25 in every

school or district now. and the lower part of delaware, i understand that we are trying to get parents -- i don't mean parents of low-income children -- i mean people who could afford it, to put money towards the sports. i don't know what became of this but the school district that i live in which is in the north of delaware -- host: i think we get the thought. here's the actual number that senator harkin agrees with. those are the students that will receive less aid from the federal work program. that provides funding for colleges and university for low- income students.

guest: anybody who has been following the debate now is that higher education has been a major campaign issue. i would expect to hear democrats and other folks to hit that number hard. host: what is the union response to the spot -- to the possible sequestration cuts. s? guest: they have been the most vociferous voice is lobbying against of these cuts. the national education association before senator harkin came out with his report did their own analysis on how education jobs would be effect -- would be affected. school staff could end up losing their jobs.

host: minneapolis, democrats line -- caller: good morning, i will bring it back to the colorado shooting. from what i understand, this student that was on a grand that i believe my taxes paid for, his guns, his car, his apartment and i think it really upsets me. i'm a democrat and i am for kids going to school. i worked in a school system and everything. for higher education, i think there should be some kind of checks and balance on what grants or monies that are given to the government that the young adults going to school should have to pay for the school with the money that is given to them. host: waco, texas, good morning,

independent line -- caller: i would like to address the bilingual program. we are not allowed to ask anything of the families or child that is illegal. i feel that is so much money that can go towards educating the poorer americans. don't get me wrong, these are excellent children and they get what education is about and their parents may not speak english but they know education and the opportunity that is available to them. that is a lot of funding to work the bilingual program. guest: english language acquisition grants would be affected by sequestration. some folks will probably make the argument that maybe this is

going not only to children who are your legally. host: senator harkin wants to fight against these issues. what is he doing as far as legislative action? guest: he had a big hearing last week and started drawing attention to the issue. he has put out a report said that is his opening salvo on this. i would expect that in negotiations, he will be fighting very hard to protect education programs. he has said that if he thinks the sequester have to go through, there should not be any shared defense. the case should be here -- shared evenly among domestic and military programs. host: we're talking about cuts that could possibly happen to the education program should the planned budget cuts take place. the numbers are on your screen

if you want to call us. harrisburg, ky -- caller: hello, yes, the teachers are allowed to retire after 20 years' service and go back to work. i call the double dipping. why don't they stop that? i think they would have more money in the school system that they would not allow the present that they would allow teachers to retire early. i had to work many years, for years, before it could retire. then i guess jack welch got an aarp card. why don't they put a stop to that nonsense? host: democrats line -- caller: i want to make a comment that there is 3 million

jobs available right now in the united states that cannot be filled because people are not educated to fill these jobs. education is one of the most important things in our country that is needed and that's all they want to cut. guest: the caller said simply named arne duncan's argument before he became the committee earlier this week. he said there are lots of jobs out there. some of the employees don't have the skills to fill them. if they could, he was advocating for this -- for the nation's long-term economic help. i would agree with the caller there. host: i what is next, republican line. caller: thanks for taking the call. this whole issue of sequestration and all these cuts, the whole thing could be

avoided quite simply if the senate and mr. reed would actually bring it to the floor and vote on it. host: what is the point for education? caller: if they brought about to vote on it, this question would not happen. host: north bergen, new jersey, democrats line -- go ahead. the caller has left us. north bergen, new jersey, go ahead. caller: many people are talking about the money. my question is -- how come we have stopped vocational training in the high-school for plumbers,

electricians, carpenters that we don't have? this lady who you are talking to, who paid for her education ta? guest: we were talking earlier about the career and technical program mentioned. that is the main funding source for additional education programs. host: these are given to states -- state public schools? guest: yes, it is another word for vocational education. host: if i got the numbers right, 1.1 billion currently right now in 25 -- 2012 numbers and then that would be 30 billion. as far as cuts are concerned. when you look at the issues of the day today goings on, with

general consensus -- you address this earlier -- what is the consensus that some type of results happen in education? guest: any education advocate you talk to is working on a message and holding rallies and getting district folks interested in talking about this but they are not expected anything to be decided. that is the lame duck session and i think they are hoping to turn some question and immigration as more an issue. last call from edgewood, maryland. single mom of four kids. one caller said we don't need higher education. we need people to work the lower end jobs. i may server and i work two jobs. i have one job in middle school

and two children are in high school. the only way my kids will make it in college is by scholarship. but not billed to afford it. if you look at the kids who are involved in sports in school and the dropout rate of kid that irvin feld in sports there is a higher dropout rate on those kids. -- and the higher dropout rate. there is a higher dropout rate on those kids. you pay $1,000 per month to rent an apartment. if they don't go to college and getting higher education, they're not be able to afford to be able to live. they are already sharing books in school. they already don't have enough school books and school. the education of your kids will

go by the wayside because our children will have to have higher education when you have other countries that are paying for this. definitely anat's argument. the democratic lawmakers are really worried about sequestration because if you have education, you are working against the future. kids will be less prepared for college without the student aid. host: is it a wait and see when it comes to those who are advocating against these cuts? that theyan't imagine are going to rest. i'm sure they will go back to the state and make -- and meet with these education associations. i think we will see some

vigorous campaigning all through the fall and in the summer. the showdown will happen after that. if you want to read her writings --www.edweek.org. next up will take a look at prescription drugs in the united states. before we go to that segment, want to give you another sense of what is happening on "newsmakers." our guest of the top democrat on the ways and means committee. he talked about next week's debate over tax and budget policy and has talked about whether continuing the payroll tax cut would undermine the social security system. [video clip] >> what you say to people as i am not going to privatize social security said don't worry.

the payroll tax cut is taking a big chunk of money out of the social security system. isn't that undermining social security? it is going to be very hard to get rid of that. >> i don't that it will be hard to end it provided it is necessary for economic growth. we were on a pattern of increased economic growth in part because of the payroll tax cut. the last month, we had a rejection of growth. we'll see what happens the next six months. if we can return to a grove of last year, i would be in favor. another thing i would say to the people go door-to-door is that

you might have to give up that payroll tax cut provided it is unnecessary to continue economic growth that worked to the advantage of everyone in this country. >> are you confident he has not already done this? >> i am confident of that. that part will be repaid. i don't think we can keep going and doing that. remember, the president proposed payroll tax cuts and i supported is remembered. you cannot just have austerity. you have to have economic growth. to the credit of this administration, we inherited a deep hole as europe now has that we tried to make a balance between austerity and economic growth. we have done better than many,

many european countries. host: we are here to talk about prescription drug abuse in the united states. joining us for this conversation is our guest. can you give us a sense where you look of the united states and many people are abusing prescription drugs? >> overall, probably about 22 million people -- 1.7 million are abusing prescription drugs. host: when you say abusing, what is the definition? guest: we often use the term ms. using. that means they are using it for something other than they are prescribed for. some people may have using that prescription for legitimate patent or other treatment and that they're using it for of the other than that.

whenever you're using it for non, that is misuse or abuse. host: are their commonalities of people misusing these benefits and think this is common for folks? this is every age group. my agency tracks 12 and up but really across age groups, is across gender, is across socio- economic status. it really kind of across-the- board. host: when does it start? guest: these surveys are 12 years and older. some other studies may do something lower. host: we are looking at a number as far as those who abuse treatment. of those 12, talk about what we are seeing here. guest: that is the chart of a

number of people who got into treatment identify prescription drug use as their primary drug issue. looking at 1999-2009 and what you see is not just an increase of somewhere from 1.2 to 6.8 million. people are identifying the unknown status of their primary problem. if you look at over the last 10 years, prescription drug used in the united states has stayed very stable, somewhere between 1.9-2.1%. it has not changed much. we're saying that people are ending up in treatment more quickly. the average length of time before someone gets into treatment is about 15 years and 20 years for alcohol. with prescription drug use,

they're coming in to the system in seven or eight years. host: if you want to ask questions about prescription drug misuse in the united states, the lines will be on your screen why is this something the federal government observes? guest: the track alcohol and drug use across the united states. this has been happening for a long time. as we paid attention in the last few years, before 2002, we saw a rise in prescription drug use and that staple of. with a prescription drugs, we have found that because of the kind of access that people have

had there are adverse consequences. the difference between seeing somebody to come into average is 15 years. we are seeing some significant differences in what is happening with drug abuse in the population. > host: what types of drugs are being abused? guest: we have looked at a priest -- pretty significant increase in people coming into the er for pain relievers. people 11 travis -- have been having trouble. mucks -- muscle relaxants and stimulus have not been real act of the last few years. the one that seems to have gone up so quickly in terms of

quality problems are the narcotic and opiate pearlie. opiate. guest: they normally get the drugs from a friend or relative. about 55% or getting them for free from a friend or relative. another 11% or getting them for a friend or relative in pain. about most cases, the prescription comes from a single doctor. much smaller instances were coming from separate doctors. young kids are basically taking them from their parents medicine cabinet. and using them. host: talk about what this chart

tells us. guest: that is the chart from the cdc mortality report. i think that was based on some of the data from the drug abuse wanting that mortality numbers. you can see that in that area that is a combination of the illegal drugs which is kind of orange and death from illegal drugs in the blue bar. i think that is the number per hundred thousand population. the people who are showing the largest number of deaths of population are the 45-54 age group. if you look at the number of people who are using pain

relievers primarily, there's a large number of 18-20 years old s. younger people may be using them at a higher rate, as you get older, you are seeing that they are dying at a higher rate per 100,000 people. that might be due to -- i don't know that chart shows that many of those people probably have education on board at some of them may be taking the medication correctly but when they have other medications that are going on for even regular medical care, it can have a deadly effect. the first call for our guests as alexandria, virginia, go ahead. caller: host: go ahead. caller:i am trey, i'm 30 years

old. i never used drugs. the doctors are prescribing very heart medication for pain. host: go ahead. guest: [unintelligible] guest: did you say incentive for prescribing the drugs? no, i think most physicians in practice are describing. relievers specifically to deal with pain. which is inappropriate use. if you have a back injury or you have a bone injury or something that will cause a significant amount of pain, we have learned over the years that managing pain is an important part of the recovery process.

there is no incentive although from the terms of it, different physicians may use different types of pain relievers in response based on the of the work for a hospital or your insurance is under a certain area. there are formularies where they can inform people to address paying. -- we hope that physicians should be screening for substance abuse or mental illness as well as looking at the kind of paint, the need for pain relief and maybe add lectures are using a narcotic pain reliever. all this might not be affected. people should not be thinking that i should not have a narcotic pain reliever if they

have severe pain because that could hinder recovery. we need to be thinking about when we use drugs and educating the patients if their finished using it to get rid of it properly and for the position, is to be monitoring that person making sure he's does not already have problems. they track and see to make sure that that person is not shopping around for doctors for pain relief. host: what is a doctor required to tell about a madisons addictive quality? guest: in general, most doctors will sit down and talk with the patient. do not operate heavy machinery is one phrase you always see.

the pharmacist will follow up and say when you use this, you -- these other things to pay attention to. there probably needs to be more education. it is not necessarily getting out the message. host: ohio, good morning. caller: i see you are more focused on narcotics prescription drug abuse. my concern is the abuse of about six and blood pressure medications. because sunnyside a fax that keep the -- society -- because so many side effects that they keep the drug companies rich. it is my understanding that if you are set -- selfish or dead, then there is a problem to be

made only keep one to be currently held. i worked in an emergency room for quite awhile and i would see doctors over prescribing antibiotics and inhibitors and we had people who were affected by a disease that destroys their:. it is highly infectious and the doctor will continue to prescribe the approach done in a bitter or the pen -- those things that contribute to a large epidemic. my concern is more that i feel this is crimes against humanity to prescribe drugs that destroy people's bodies. guest: i'm not an expert other than the drugs of abuse so i really cannot address that. host: columbus, ohio -- caller: i have noticed a lot of

the people that have prescriptions for these pain pills are on medical burst. i wondered what type of reform in the works regarded not. . people were using and selling them to make a profit. they stay in the system longer, making money off of the pills, and seeing abuse with the them. guest: that is something the federal government has been paying a lot of attention to and partnering with states. one strategy is the prescription drug monitoring program for doctors in states can track people who are using medications and sometimes shopping for medications. in this way, we pay particular attention to the office of

national drug control policy. our opiate treatment is a division of pharmacotherapy. they do a lot of work with the department of justice to push out the positions of the prescription drug monitoring program. as part of it. there's a lot that has to be done with physician's part and with us to make sure that they're looking for with doctors and not prescribing more than what the patient needs. host: the center for substitutes -- substance abuse treatment, what do you do? guest: our primary job is to reduce the impact of behavioral health disorders on the individual families and communities. we have four centers. one is the center for substance abuse treatment and the center for substance abuse intention which focuses on these issues.

the final center is the center for behavioral statistics. that is how the numbers come to us. host: the university of michigan put out a percentage of 12th graders and the use of pharmaceuticals. what can you add as far as the types? guest: the one thing that is missing is alcohol and that is the most dangerous drug in most age groups. marijuana is still a huge proportion of that.

you will see a higher percentage for prescription drug use, around 3.2%. that has been about 3.2% in 2002 and that comes down to 2.5 percentage. it turns out we have also seen -- that is usually a bellwether and we are also seeing there has been a marked increase in the numbers of convention message is that people are seeing a marked increase in this sense that marijuana could puzzle across problems for them in their life. those are usually indicated that things might be going up later. when we see that, we start paying attention to things we can target. host: iron mountain, mich. -- good morning. caller: with all the drug abuse

in america and all the problems of drug abuse, what is the government continue to allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television or magazines? host: does advertising play a role? guest: i'm sure it does. people see it and doctors see people coming in their offices asking for a specific drug. it is an interesting idea. we have not been tracking that is heavily. when i go back to my office on monday, and is open to a colleague who s had a deal with that. host: seattle, washington. caller: i have a question about

the involvement of the dea and limiting yearly production of certain prescriptions. for example, and extend the last year but there's a shortage of certain milligrams of averell. -- aderall. i understand this year the yearly production was increased. is there going to be continued va involvement of setting limits on these tax that could be a way of controlling the abuse of blood -- of drugs. these are more about stimulants. >> right, thank you for your call. by vic that we will -- we see continued involvement.

the department of justice addresses the control a different kind of drugs the special ones have the that have potential abuse, but also in working with concert with other parts of department of justice and national drug control policy and the department of heat and human services it as part of overall policy to look at this and address supply issues. host: there's a chart that talks about the number of stimulants as far as prescription returns. starting back in 1991, it was a greater figure as far as compared to 2010. talk about the role of stimulus and what it plays in this picture? guest: in terms of some of the stimulants, central nervous

stimulants' have been a little flat. there has been a lot of attention to especially among the college population rather use it for getting through the week. that is something we continue to work on. we look at campus use of that. in any market, there is diversion and concerns about people using. it is part of the overall environment where we have drug use. one of the reasons i think we are seeing prescription drugs, the cdc recent report showed there is a marked increase over 2002 of prescription drugs overdose deaths. in some cases, in combination of other drugs or in combination of drugs and alcohol -- drugs and

alcohol. there are people ending up in the er and also dead. there are people that need treatment of multiple drug problems. remember that 20 years ago, we did not have much to manage pain. there was a clear understanding bend that pays with repayments causing problems in recovery. we have had enormous expansion of the number of medications that are available for pain management. we also have enormous expansion in the numbers. most of these have significant abuse potential. host: does your agency have a role on advising on policy? guest: yes, in partnership with

our other colleagues at the department of justice and the n cdc, we help identify where the problems of our and help the remaining -- recommending strategies and that is very policy of aggressive. host: is their strategy for treatment? guest: we have seen this tremendous growth. we have a number of opportunities for treatment with people on opiate. one of the better strategies we do know is that we put them on medication and put them in a situation where they are much more controlled. they give we given counseling and support. inappropriate, we talk to them over a period time. when people have severe old addictions whether it is to a prescription drug or a non

description like heroin or other drugs of that type, it often takes a longer time to get people off of medication. it can take 6.8 years. it usually takes a while for people to get to the point where they have a realization that needs treatment. it is happen quicker for prescription drug use but part of it is you get into the independence and drug use in lifestyle, you lose your friends tell your family, your job, you lose your shows -- social support structure. it takes a while to build that up. we often use replacement therapy. methadone is one of the primary drugs. when that the tone was used miss appropriately they are really helpful in substance abuse treatment. it can be used for pain treatment although not necessarily as effective as some

of the other medicines. host: new mexico, go ahead. caller: yes, my husband and i both have that conditions that cannot be remitted by surgery. we both are medically dependent on narcotics. our doctor is fearful of adequately treating our pain because it is like the fed is dictating our medical care long distance. it seems that my doctor should be allowed to treat me without fear of the government interfering. since they are not my doctor, how can they determined what i do or don't need to? guest: thanks for your call.

the patient and doctor really need to be paying attention and talking with each other. i think the general strength of looking at this is the doctrine is to work closely as to what the appropriate medication is. in this to pay attention to that for the patient, making sure if the person becomes dependent that they're paying attention to how they manage that issue. as doctors, we also need to pay attention that that medication does not have other problems that were it -- will interfere with their treatment. it really is a patient/doctor relationship of critical importance. as a public health approach, we're trying to create an environment where doctors and patients are being responsible together to make sure they're getting appropriate treatment.

host: waco, texas, you are next, good morning. caller: i'm from cranston, rhode island. as the family member of someone who was a drug addict, you get an education. i'm glad you mentioned methadone because we had an addict in the methadone program. unfortunately, not a lot of them are. in the state of rhode island, this is subject to political appointees and friends of relatives of those who are high- powered. it is a madhouse. you have people who go on the method on program as a vacation from using the worst drug or to sell it.

there are many people who migrate from using the elyssa drugs to prescription drugs. they do it as complementary. i think that is a great deal of the problem not so much that is springing forward on its own. unfortunately, too many doctors who are willing to do this whether they are lax or don't care or they are corrupt. this is a problem that needs to be looked into. i think there needs to be an investigation into methadone programs to insure that they are being properly run especially when people on medicaid or drug abusers get easy access when these drugs are high price. ofst: i'm sorry for loss your loved one. and glad they're able to get

into some form of treatment. there is only about 1200 methadone treatment programs and you s those are state regulated. there are some standards that are set. i agree that things are not being run well, they should step in and look at this. behavior and practice and we should bring people up to standards host:. 55% get prescription drugs for free from a friend or relative and 11% bought from a friend or relative and 70% cut from their doctor guest: guest:. that includes some of the people got a from a friend or relative.

another i think a 11%, another 2% would get drugs from different doctors where they are dr. shopping. that is really where the prescription drug monitoring program is -- why it is important. host:.4% from the internet, will the peace of the pie grow? guest: it is pretty stable. the report thought that was the big thing that that is not a big part of the whole picture. host: waco, texas, good morning. caller: i have two questions and then address something. first of all, why are you wearing a military uniform and

why are you not a doctor and had to get into this position? guest: i am a uniformed service member. i make of -- a commissioned officer in the united states public service which is the uniform of the service under the department of health and human services. i may ph.d.-trained social worker. i practice as a clinician in the field of substance abuse and mental health and i am trained as a researcher. i have worked at the center for behavioral health where i managed the national surveys on drug use and help and treatment and now i am on a six-month detail with the center for substance abuse treatment where i run the programs on substance abuse treatment. caller: ok, i am in total

agreement with what the other woman was saying who had a back problem. you are making -- people doing this kind of studies based on -- is partially incorrect. it is difficult to separate out crews to. w --ho's who. you're making it incredibly difficult for people who have legitimate pain problems to get pain medication and the first place without asking for something in of that work and being looked like a drug user. the orthopedist will dump you immediately into a pan control clinic where you have to sign a humiliating contract but you are a child. allow ticket drugs and i won't use multiple doctors.

as far as the pharmacies are concerned, that is a statewide pharmacy problem. i wanted to know that is making it hard on us. guest: this is part of the national dialogue of how we make sure that people who have real chronic pain and never meets for taking relief are treated as well as insuring that medications are not diverted or we can manage people with to become addicted to pain relievers and other substances. host: what do think when you hear you are making it harder. ? guest: i am part of a larger discussion. having been i clinician for 30 years now, i understand risch is coming from.

i hope that what i am doing by providing a strong data and this does not tell the whole story. this is the dried-up. i hope by providing this, also provided an important part of the story. you hear is an epidemic. it is in one sense but is an epidemicf people having problems with it more quickly than we are seeing in other drugs. we also know that prescription drug use has not change in the past couple of years. all this taken together with trying to work through these positions -- there are organizations working together to find good protocols and procedures on working with people with pay and working with

people with dependants and people who could be dependent to come up with a different way of dealing with this. host: is this a city issue or a rural issues? where is the divide? guest: everywhere. it is different in different settings. in rural settings, there is less treatment. the risk is greater because it is a widespread that population. it changes across the country. is a problem a matter what section of the country you are in. in some places like in the midwestwe see methamphetamines in the northeast. we see of all is a bigger problem in other parts of the country than florida.

it varies. the overall issue is that drug abuse is a continuous public health problem. it is an issue that addresses primary care, but it is an issue that cuts across socio-economic situations. it is something we need to be thinking about as part of our overall health. host: just a few more minutes with our guest. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am not a drug user and i am not familiar with protocol but i have a friend who was formerly a nurse and somehow got into heroin use. she quit and is attending a clinic.

i'm imagine it would be some with federal refunded. the case -- they keep these people on the same dose of methadone. what is the standard. i would think they would want to cut these people down. their dosage every day. is there a federal guideline on getting people off of this stuff? guest: that's a good question. i think it is dependent on the individual's needs. we are still working on moving people towards standards especially what the appropriate dose is when people get into people's clinics of a stabilize. that is the process of moving from active dependents and

active addition to a point where you'd be in recovery. there are people will be on it for quite a long time. they have been involved in the addiction for so long and have so many problems that will take a long time for them to get off. if your friend feels she is ready to go off, i am glad she was working with the clinic to try to reduce it. sometimes as the best indicated that a person is ready to start moving on is that they have to start reducing the dose also we were forming a strong social support network. we help her monitor herself and return to her profession so she can do that in a safe way for her and her family. host: richmond, va., deborah.

caller: why are you giving methadone to the elderly in nursing homes? put the ingredients on the side of these prescription drugs because you don't want us to know what's in them. i had to have an emergency operation on my spine. i am in pain and it was over 10 years ago. prescription drugs make me sick. i live in the state of virginia were legalized medical marijuana camera back in 1975. medical marijuana has never killed nobody. it is not a drug, it is an herb. stop putting these chemicals in people's lives. guest: i'm sorry that you have

had so many problems with your back. methadone is one of the types of drugs, narcotic pain reliever, that can be used if you are in pain. it is often a purge or preferred jug. report content and suggested that that might be the first drug in the formulary and insurers need to look at other potential drugs that could be more effective and long lasting. it is a legitimate use of methadone for pain relief. it may not be the best given that we also have a large array of different drugs. as for medical marijuana, there is still a lot of national dialogue on that. the federal government in terms of department of justice and others have determined that

marijuana is still an illegal drug. all the states have medical marijuana laws. that is still part of the national dialogue that is going on. my agency is not in that discussion right now i will tell you that this is one of the largest drugs of people going into treatment. i would also offer that we see people in treatment to have problems with marijuana and the working to go in to recover where they are not using marijuana. it is not just one drug. people coming into treatment are using more than one drug including alcohol. host: what is the amount of people using prescription drugs per year? guest: it is not stable. it has been stable for 10 years.

that is about 2% across the population. the number of people who have gone into treatment has risen from about 1.2% sun to 6.8% in eight years. that is a very quick rise. the number of people in the emergency room with narcotics paying relievers has gone on for one as a $44,000 in 2004 over for his 47. that is low over troubled host:. what does that mean for your organization? guest: the center for substance abuse treatment, that means we're heavily involved, specifically the division of pharmacotherapy. we are very involved in working with their colleagues atdoj and cdc and our colleagues across a number