medical benefits and health-care law. max fisher of the atlantic talks about the japanese restrictive firearms law. we will also look at today's news including last night's texas-u.s. senate runoff. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." congressional leaders have agreed to keep the government funded through the spring. there are only a few days left until members leave for the august recess. there is still legislation on the table, including a cyber security bill and a drought relief. the u.s. postal service could default. the financing may get -- agency

says that fannie mae and freddie mac cannot bail out underwater home owners. should underwater home owners be forgiven? here are the numbers to call. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. if you have an underwater mortgage, you can also give us a call at 202-628-0184. for underwater mortgage holder. you can also join us on line. send us say tweet. join the conversation on facebook. or you can e-mail us. here is about "the new york times" coverage of the underwater situation.

host: other news agencies are

also covering the story. we would like to hear from you. is it best for the homeowners? is it good for the economy overall? does it gauge for some risky gambling? some homeowners might stop paying their mortgages to get underwater to be able to get out of dealing with their debt. on tuesday, the treasury department immediately called for the agency to reconsider, says "the new york times." host: the importance and has been a contentious issue since six years ago.

\ host: looking at housing prices, here is what "the washington post" says.

caller: good morning. i do agree with the director of a fannie mae and freddie mac. i feel there are too many avenues for the homeowners could absolutely canid the system and take advantage of getting -- gain the system and take advantage. there are better avenues to take. with interest rates down, a lot of these people got into this situation in the last four to eight years. a lot of these people have an opportunity to get a lower interest rate. for that matter, there is other ideas floating out there. i feel like they should bypass this idea and may be consider other ideas.

host: joseph tweets it in. let's go to an independent caller. caller: i think it is unfair from two perspectives. many of us have rest in other ways. wheat lost our money and nobody is subsidizing us. from the perspective of a renter, we look at some homeowners. they sure would not have been sharing the profits with us. why do we have to subsidize their loss. the last point i have is that many people have the mortgages they have by taking out a second mortgage. a consolidation mortgage. taking equity out of their home for luxuries. a new car. pool. their children's tuition. if we forgive the debt, with pay for their car, their pool, and

their children's tuition. i am against it. host: do you know anyone who has an underwater mortgage? caller: i have a relative who has an underwater mortgage. he took an equity loan out about eight years ago to buy a bigger boat. why did i by his code if we forgive his mortgage? host: comments coming in on facebook. host: you can join that conversation on facebook. we do have a line for people with other water mortgages. 202-628-0824. caller: my son is in south carolina. he is under water. he went through bank of america.

he told me that people who go through freddie or fannie, since they did not choose to go through freddie or fannie because he wasn't a subprime person, he does not qualify for this. i think it is outrageous you have to be a subprime person to get the relief from your house under water when everybody's house is under water. i think it is really unfair that just because you're a poor person, and you have to get the reduction. they do not get the value of their house. i think it is totally wrong. thank you. host: coming in.

let's look of a statement by the financial services committee chairman, a republican. he said this about the decision. host: that is from the chairman of the financial services committee. let's take a look today tweet that was put out the yesterday. here is what she had to say. she is against both the man and the decision, the acting director of the fsha. may is a democratic caller.

should mortgages be forgiven? caller: yes, i do. i am under water ever since 2006. host: how'd that happen to you? caller: [unintelligible] what sounded like a good bill was a very bad bill. our house kept going up and up and up. and finally, through some programs, we got some relief. with these underwater mortgages, i wonder if i qualify. i do not know. host: how are you dealing with your underwater mortgage now? caller: it helps.

host: you have been able to negotiate that a mix of payments? caller: right. yes. i did not get the number for people who are under water. host: that is for our call-in show up for folks to listen like you. the decision that came out yesterday, though, was the people of loans of fannie mae and freddie mac will not get help dealing with their underwater loans. here is what "the wallstreet journal" has to say.

host: kristen joins us, the holder of an underwater mortgage. caller: good morning. i don't think my loan ought to be given for any means. when i refinance in june of this year, i could not refinance the value of the house. add to pay $50,000, $60,000 more on a refinance loan because that is what was remaining on the original loan and bought the house into a dozen 6 based on an artificial price that was up

there because you had unscrupulous lenders up their lending money to anybody who did not qualify. the price was too high. why should i be responsible for those lenders giving money to people who cannot afford to pay? and i continue to pay for my loan. the have to pay $50,000-$60,000 more than the value that is right now. host: home prices are rising across the country. how are prices for your and do you have any thoughts but tried to sell to get out of your mortgage? caller: they are below. they're probably the lowest have been. i do nothing they could go much lower. there are lower than there were five years ago. i cannot see them going back up. there's not a lot of demand in this area. host: tony is the democratic line, calvin.

caller: you are rights. i believe the market should beat for given, of course. do i believe that fannie mae and freddie mac -- or that the realtors to have represented them have been accommodating or dealt with us fairly? i do not. of course, i think when your swindled, you need, as a result, some relief. host: how would you go by doing that? caller: i have no idea. that is why we elect congress. unfortunately, what we have done this time is like a dysfunctional congress. hear from donna, f oridian.

caller: we have 11% unemployment in my county. there is not a lot of big businesses. everybody around here does most lawns. there's not any big business in this area. my thought about the underwater mortgage being forgiven, again, we talk about fairness. one of those people who bought houses at inflated prices? not necessarily seniors, but people who worked all their life. that is what this whole thing is about. and they took out a mortgage for $30,000 because there were short that much. now their house is worth $90,000. they have paid off at $30,000.

they're getting nothing for their inflated price of that house. but because people hold the mortgage, they're thought about as being forgiven. there's a double standard. once again, those people who abide by the rules, bought a house with the least amount of mortgage they could get by with, they're going to get nothing out of this. i have a problem with how government and politicians draw a line. and that is what i have. george,t's hear from also a republican calling from grand prairie, texas. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. thank you for taking my call. on the matter of underwater mortgages, yes. they should be about valued at the value of their house, the property.

reciting the mortgage when you buy the property of a certain volume of no control over moving up or down. the value of the markets should match the value of the property. it also should be matched by the value of the property taxes. property taxes go up and down very slowly compared to the value of the property. the local tax people are very eager to watch and monitor the upward movement of property values to keep the tax rolls high. they should be matched with the value of the property and the value of the mortgage. thank you for letting me say my piece. thank you it for c-span. host: let me ask you this. did you vote in the race yesterday for the u.s. and in the primary? caller: yes, i did. host: what do you think about

the outcome? caller: i am slightly disappointed. the tea party people backed ted cruz. i thought these two groups were conservative people. they ignored the allegations about mr. cruz working for china. over 1000 votes went to mr. cruse initiative gone to mr. dewhurst. that is the democratic process and i have to live with the outcome. host: here is the headline from "the new york times." talking with our caller about this race. we will talk a little bit more about that as the show goes on this morning. right now, we're focused on

underwater mortgages. we're joined from chesapeake, virginia. good morning. caller: hi, how are you? i live in a thriving neighborhood where we have people who have bought their houses and the economy wound up going bad. we were caught up in a bubble. we have a lot of people who want to contribute to the economy. but we are winding up not able to get loans because of our house being under. i think there should be some relief. it is not that i wind up going out and getting loans, not been able to afford my mortgage. it is just the fact we're caught up in this bubble. our house has gone under and now we cannot get any relief. i do not think that is fair to people who really, actually,

bought their home thinking the value would go up. host: what can you do about it? caller: what i want to do is be able to get loans in the future so that we can contribute to the economy. we cannot get loans because of the house being under. host: have you been able to refinance? caller: we cannot refinance because of our house being under. this is where our neighborhood is stuck. people want to get loans, maybe build a pool, we cannot. simply because our house is under. it is not that we cannot afford it. we're just back. host: thank you. let's go to john on our independent line. caller: yes.

these underwater mortgages the to go back to the paper work and find out who mr. as the jets who misrepresented themselves. if it was the buyer who mr. said -- misrepresented his ability to pay or his wages and did job, then he should lose. but if it was the mortgage company, the bank, are the realtor who lied, then they should lose. that woman who is just on who said that people who paid their way and paid the price, those people are not getting any benefit of this. so, you have to be fair to everybody. you have to find out who misrepresented the loan. that should be the one who can be made to pay. host: thank you. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think they should do is make

it a lot easier to refinance in $40,000 under water. -- easier to refinance. i am a $40,000 under water. i think, if they would just reduce everybody's interest rate down to 3.5% or whenever this, i think that would help the economy tremendously. i do not think people -- if you have a to a thousand dollar loan and you take -- a $200,000 loan, that is a lot of money you could put into the economy. i mean, it has the ripple affect. i do not agree with the forgiveness because a lot of

people abuse it. before i bought my house for $100,000. that is the way it goes. you know? i think, what they should do, is allow us to reduce the rate down to the current rate. the banks are only paying 0.25% interest that they barred from the government. what's fair is fair. i think that would be a more fair way. that is not the american way. i am sorry. i do not believe that. host: let's look at what a tweet says. here is "the wallstreet journal" reading.

host: if you have an underwater markets, you can give us a call at 202-628-0124. -- 0184. john, a republican.

good morning. caller: i do not think the banks can just forgive some people are some others. that other call made a lot of sense to me. if they would just tell people refinance. they have to help everybody. the thing is, what is infuriating for me is that i have been current on my payments. i have done everything i am supposed to do. yet, i do not give any help. they already hold the note. they're already accepted that. they've already agreed. they already went into this agreement with me. yet, there will not do it again. it just does not make sense that they will not allow me to refinance.

they cannot just for give everybody the amount they are under water. they would be losing too much money. host: do you think there should be a way to help people with underwater mortgages but with a caveat? some sort of iou for later? make sense. does in a friend whose mortgages not forgiven -- he did a short sale. the short sale, as the bank basically forgives $30,000 are $40,000, but then he has to pay taxes on that. at least there is something that was done. he is paying something. it is a sticky situation. they cannot to help everybody. it would have negative effects

beyond that. host: a tweet. a democratic collar line weighing in. what you have to say? caller: good morning, first of all. i think more of a modification. my wife and die at home, we lost in the last two years $130,000. we are upside-down. we lived -- we tried to live with. the not the type of people who went out. to buy something we cannot afford. we are trying, and now. i think some relief.

everyone should get some relief. especially if they did not do anything like a second mortgage corporate money of their homes. or what ever. the economy. at the banks, they have been real tight about -- i went to get the things the three-time i could not get anything done. people need help. the banks are ok. you know? they are ok. it is the people.

the citizens of the nine states who actually need help these days. thank you. -- of the united states who actually need help of these days. thank you. host: one of the headlines from "the houston chronicle." host: the start talks about how

ted cruz defeated david dewhurst. also, sara palin made a massive and roads, came from behind, and one in the texas primary. another story from texas. a major tapped to deliver the dnc keynote. piquancy the san antonio mayor during the 2012 texas democratic party state convention. we will read more about that in a moment.

host: we will look at another story here about the convention that will be taking place in just a few weeks times. this is from "the washington times."

host: let's take a look at some those numbers deeper in the story. host: we see the breakdown of what the have favorable opinions of the candidates.

host: we will look at some other stores in the news in a few moments. let's get back to the topic at hand this morning. what do you think about the decision to prevent fannie mae and freddie mac to help mortgage owners who are under water. let's go to massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for keeping this topic of life. i am afraid after five years your approach is a little bit incorrect in that it is not so

much as what we think about helping the struggling homeowner. you know. it is flipped. we save the banks five years ago. no one really talks too much about that. now, i am so glad that you guys are talking about saving the homeowner. of course he should save the homeowner. it is couched in the wrong phrase. we cannot want to talk about underwater homes. we're talking about saving the homeowner. when bank of america purchased countrywide at 30 cents on the dollar, they cut a deal with the treasury that said -- if me, bank of america, loses any money in conjunction with my purchase of countrywide, then 80% of my

losses are covered by the treasury. please, please, please, let's stay focused on the struggling homeowner. host: by understand that you help people of underwater mortgages. is that correct? how'd you do that? caller: that is absolutely correct. through the modification process. we modified the loans. when i say we modify the loans, that is nothing more than simply restructuring that happens every single day. all day long. on wall street, every day of the year. it is simply a restructuring debt. but, i really wanted to make a couple of points. number one, it is the homeowner. it is the strong going single-

point -- it is the struggling single-parent mother. it is the children who were losing their home. for whatever reason, care about that. the point is this. when bank of america purchase country right, you will probably show me off because bank of america is one of your sponsors. host: we do not have sponsors. caller: of ok, great. they cut a deal that 80% of any of the losses with that purchase would be covered by treasury. that means this. i am sorry i get passionate about this. what that means is this. if i had a $1 million loan with countrywide, bacon america purchased that loan for $300,000. if if i fell behind on it, and it defaults. it is under water because it is only worth six $7,000, if you

will. if i was foreclosed -- $600,000, if you will. if i was foreclosed on, bank of america bought it for a printer thousand dollars. if they sold it for $300,000, they would recognize a $700,000 loss, at which point treasury would cover 80% of that, which is $560,000, plus the three have a dozen dollars -- plus the three and a thousand dollars that this of the 4 pin = $860,000. not only that, if bank of america gave the house away, treasury would recognize and a say that it was a $1 million loss and pay the made hundred thousand dollars on an investment of three and a thousand dollars. -- pay them $300,000 on an investment.

you're coming at it from the wrong angle. from let's go to a tweet charles. florida, our next caller. good morning. caller: i am listening to what the caller said. this is one of the main issues. you have people of color being charged higher interest, even though i am black and she is white. are we part of the same package were we got a letter? charging black people of cover. -- people of color. then there was a letter saying you'd get $300 off of our loan, which is stupid.

my wife and i made over $400,000. i still pay the higher interest. we were not given an additional loan. we were given one of those predator loans. this is what is going along that they did not want to talk about. you need to see people going out and buying homes. these are being charged to hide the interests. part of the same pay a line and everything. people of color in this country hide the interest. host: we read stories in "the washington post" and other

places that talk about predatory lending, particularly to african-americans. what are you in your wife doing about it now? caller: the first time was the bad loan and we short sold it. we're still living in it. what happened was, my wife, she is a genius. i love her. she did all that. now we pay $272 a month in our loan. we pay 2.2% interest. the high school got to is 4%. i do not have a problem with that. i believe what they need to do is go back to people's credit scores. not now, but when they first bought their homes. elected to the credit score and the pay that they made. ok, then.

you were ripped off. we're going to cut that because not giving you some little book of three entered thousand dollars -- no. we're going to cut it on the interest that you paid -- $300,000 -- to know. we're going to cut the interest so that you get paid. [unintelligible] that is not fair. host: we will leave it there and go to our next caller. good morning. caller: thank you for the gentleman from new york and especially the gentleman from massachusetts. the day actually had some facts. this is a complex question. we're not doing the things we need to do. host: what are those things? remind us what those callers had to say.

caller: the gentleman was saying that we should forensic legal back and see what kind of fraud was committed. does a mortgage broker commit fraud? does the bank to do it? who is at fault? you do not need to forgive the loans, but you can restructure them. you can lower the interest rates. i hate a fraud. if fraud is tearing this country apart. we are going to have to wake up. here is what is funny. the federal reserve loaned out $7.70 trillion. that is enough money, right there, that you could taking loans. 77 million people, $100,000 a

piece. why are we learning that much money to the banks at 1.5% interest? why not to slow its rate to the people? yet to go through a nonprofit credit union, which would mean you would probably have to charter some credit unions. why do we do that instead of loading it to the banks? it is just insane. and then the people who do defaults, which kick congress to pass legislation that there will not give another market for life 20 years. there should be some stick in there. host: let's look a couple stories in the news.

host: here is "time" magazine looking at this. host: mitt romney wrote his own review. culture does matter, he says.

host: mitt romney defended himself and "national review" after receiving criticism for remarks he made in israel. five years since the bridge collapse in minnesota. we see a story here coming to us about this. host: we are talking about

underwater mortgages and whether or not homeowners should get some help. jim tweets in. john in illinois is an independent scholar. -- caller. caller: i think they should reduce interest rates to the lowest available rate. anybody who is been current on their home, whether they're underwater or not, no preconditions. it would help immensely. host: how to think that could be done? who would be irresponsible? caller: the banks would have to send a letter to all homeowners that their interest rates are done automatically.

host: here is what buzz has to say on facebook. host: thank you for all of your calls. coming up, we would hear from michael warren. and later on, judy waxman. she looks over new rules and opportunities for women's health from the federal government. we will be right back.

>> at the foot of that bridge, i was beaten. i thought i was going to die. i thought i saw death. >> in 1965, and john lewis took part in a voting rights march from selma to alabama off on a route that would take them across the bridge. >> we came within distance of state troopers. a man identified himself and said, i m major john macleod. this is an unlawful march and will not be allowed to continue. one of the young people walking beside me said, a major, give us a moment to kneel and pray. and the major said, troops, and events. >> sunday at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> we did not begin as a city in kentucky.

there is only a big native american -- and later a county in another state called ky. but we began in 1778 as of virginians. >> this weekend, a joint book tv, american history tv, and c- span's local content vehicles. the be shot -- the biographer on mitch mcconnell and the author on rebooting american politics -- the internet revolution. sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv, three months on a plantation in 1841 would be key in shaping abraham lincoln's views on slavery. take a look back. once a month, c-span's local content of vehicles to explore the history and the literary

life across america. on c-span 2 and 3. "washington journal" continues. host: michael warren is a reporter with "weekly standard." we are seeing mixed reviews. rodney's overseas trip with hits and misses. what you think the impressions are with the voters here at home? guest: i know what the impressions are with reporters and the press. he succeeded in some areas then drastically failed in some other areas. i think the voters are seeing what he did in poland and israel, and even in the u.k. he got a lot from the british media about what he said about the olympics. if anybody has been following the olympics, the concern about security and ticketing, they're

pretty well founded. i think that's is last week's news, so to speak. i'll still a line from my editor at "weekly standard." he said that mitt romney's peach -- speech in poland made him not summit this citizen of the world, but a citizen of the free world. i did it was here about america's leading role. the freedom-loving west. saying, that is what we want to hear in a president. mitt romney and seeming like a president. that is something we have not seen for him in this campaign so far. i think it is a win with voters. look withs take a mitt romney is speaking in poland. [video clip] is ais nation's rise shining example of the prosperity that opportunity can

bring. your nation has moved from a state-monopoly to a culture and of all entrepreneurship. greater fiscal responsibility and international trade. as a result, your economy has experienced positive growth in each of the last 20 years. in that time, you have doubled the size of your economy. the private sector has gone from a mere 15% of the economy to 65%. while other nations fell into recession, you have weathered the storm and continue to grow and flourish. when economists think of poland today, it is not about chronic problems, but to describe how this nation in power the individual, lifted the heavy hand of government, and became the fastest-growing economy in

europe. host: michael warren, why choose poland as a destination? guest: it is interesting. four years ago, and then at senator obama went to germany. i think it is interesting that romney went to poland. in many ways, it represents the future. poland, and a lot of the nation's, hungary, they are adopting a lot of the policies that romney stands for. free markets, lower taxes. there is certainly a different view of the role of government in the economy and then has been classically accepted in europe. it was a smart choice and politically smart because a lot of polish americans in places like the midwest, states like wisconsin, maybe illinois,

michigan, they actually pay attention to what happens in poland. the solidarity leader kim not endorsed mitt romney. that is something that americans -- came out and endorsed mitt romney. that is something americans pay attention to. host host: ashley parker posey take reflected european as well. -- ashley parker's take reflected in your opinion as

well. what is the takeaway in terms of europe's view of mitt romney? doesn't really matter? guest: i would say the kurds awful with the press aides enamored mitt romney. there's nothing more that conservatives like more than for their candidates and their champions to knock the press a little bit. i certainly think that was a boon for him. the questions, everyone is focused on with the press aide said. maybe was a little harsh to the press. i think the romney campaign ought to consider talking with the press a little bit more. i do not think they're out to completely sink romney's campaign. goodre not particularly questions. asking about his gaffes. they might want to know more about what he said in poland or

israel. maybe the conversation he had. i think that is also a point for mitt romney in his foreign trip, certainly back here. host: let's go to the phones. you can talk to michael warren by calling these numbers. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. don leads us off, a democrat. caller: good morning. it appears that mr. romney is getting a lot of his foreign- policy advisers from the bush should ministration. do you think that is a good idea? so we go back to the good -- so we go back to the bush policy of carrying a sharp stick and poking people in the eye? guest: i do think the nature of

politics is that members of the party will often take aides and advisers from the previous party because there's only a finite number of experts on foreign policy or economics. it should be noted that the bush and ministers and did not have a consensus across the border when it came to foreign policy. there was a lot of discussion and debate within the administration. but you do see from mitt romney, looking back, almost a retro look at what happened during the early years of the budget ministration. the freedom agenda. the ideology, what have you, that president bush's adopted in the months and years after 9/11. mitt romney has not strayed from that, which i think is significant, given the push back from the republican party of some of those views.

mitt romney is squarely in the freedom camp. i do nothing that will change and i think it is a good thing for the country. as you look to the world that is just as dangerous really, as it was, after 9/11. host: jason, go ahead, you're on with michael warren. caller: good morning. i was curious to find out why mitt romney has not come out and explained that he is an actual liberal. host: how do you see that? what makes you call him a liberal? caller: these are not my words, these are his. if you go back to 1983, he comes out as a liberal. guest: i think he did describe himself, at one point, as a moderate republican.

i'm sure you're probably right. i think mitt romney has certainly changed over the last 30 years, just as the republican party and the conservative movement have changed. the party has moved to the right. many members of the party have done so accordingly. i certainly think that romney has a bit of a problem, still come with conservatives, getting conservatives excited. but i think it was said that mitt romney speaks conservatism as a second language. it is clear he's becoming a lot more affluent in that language. he is becoming more conservative. which think the conservative movement and the tea party movement as well have been encouraging republicans to do. there are still a lot of problems with his record in massachusetts as well. it is interesting. in the last 30 or 40 years arcella, we've only had one

republican president less than a true blue conservative. that is ronald reagan. the others had to have the party move towards of them. this is the first time we've seen a republican candidates, in a long time, move towards a more conservative republican party. that is probably good for the party and mitt romney's chances in november. host: this story this week -- what do you think canada and

mitt romney needs to do to secure conservative support as he heads into the november election? guest: he has done that in a lot of ways with the foreign policy trip, and not just with republican jews, which is a small number, but with conservatives as well. to see mitt romney embrace israel and the ideals israel and bodies, it has done him -- embodies, it has done him. -- it has done him a lot of good. that could really take all of these concerns about whether or not mitt romney is conservative enough, if he could convince conservative voters in the party to support him. if there is a vice presidential

candidate that gets everyone excited in the base, that could be a in game changer, to use a cliche. it will really depend on that choice. i think mitt romney has decided, but nobody else knows. host: would you have anyone he would like to see if it? guest: i think paul ryan, the house budget chair would be one of the more invigorating picks for the candidate and for the country. there was a poll that showed that wisconsin, one of the state's mitt romney would like to win from the democrats, would become even play if mitt romney picks paul ryan, who is from wisconsin's first district. also, he is younger.

he is in his 40's. he is a young leader that would interest young people that might be disenchanted with president obama and they have gotten into politics and see democratic politics and not up to what they were expecting, so it would be a good choice and a signal that the republican party is interested in reform, and test the gentleman said, is not necessarily looking back toward policies of the past. certainly, the entitlement reform, social security reform, paul ryan has been a leader in that and mitt romney has embraced those changes. it would be good for him to select paul ryan. host: nicholas. bloomington, indiana. good morning. caller: you spoke earlier about

mitt romney and conservatives embrace in the eastern european free market model that we have seen recently. i was wondering why we do not see an increase of the northern european model like finland, norway, sweden, denmark and germany. they have had economic success despite the sovereign debt crisis and things like that. why is that not something we have seen, if not the obama campaign, at least the media on the left embraced over the years? guest: that is a great question. there is no doubt there has been economic success in northern europe, but you have to look at the makeup. they are much more homogenous populations. small, some of that social

welfare might, in fact, worked fairly well. part of the reason the democrats have not embraced that economic and government system is it just does not sell well with voters in the united states. voters like the idea of a social safety net. boaters in the united states -- voters in the united states might like the social welfare tools that you see in those countries, but at the same time they like taxes low. they are entrepreneurs in the united states. the model that seems to be working in northern europe just does not apply in the same way that it does here for a lot of the population reasons and the culture in the united states.

that could be changing. in a lot of ways 2012 could be seen as a choice election -- do we choose the eastern european model were the northern european model, an american version of both. many conservatives, myself included, see that a decision of what is ahead. host: from twitter, should governor romney release his tax returns? end i think he should. it is a silly the -- guest: i think he should. i think it is a severe distraction. the story has died down. it was raging a few weeks ago. he did not have tax returns and said he was not going to release any more. i understand why mitt romney does not want to release them. there is probably somewhere where he did not pay taxes one

year, or something like that, took a loss, and that could be blown up by the media. i understand that. at the same time, it looks like he is hiding something, so it would be better to release them. host: kathleen, democratic caller from chicago, illinois. good morning. you are on with michael warren. caller: good morning. i would like this gentleman to sell michael warren to me. he goes to foreign countries and praises socialized health care in other countries, but in his country he tries to demonize a healthcare plan that he modeled in massachusetts. he wants to be president of the united states. if he could give massachusetts good insurance and it is good for that one state, he has 49

other states. why is it so wrong i am a potential voter. you say mitt romney should pick paul ryan. anyone with a brain sees what paul ryan's budget is, hurt seniors with a meals on wheels, mess with social security and make it a block grant. why would someone with a brain in their head, other than the super rich, what mitt romney -- want mitt romney to be president or a dog catcher? guest: on your first point about health care, this is a problem for mitt romney. he advocated for the individual

mandate in massachusetts. this is something he felt strongly about. conservatives and republicans moved to the right on this issue. it is worth noting the idea of the individual mandate was developed as an alternative to what was called hillary care from 1993, which was closer to a single-payer health care system. with regard to his praising the system in israel, i would say that it was faint praise. he was not saying this was a model for the united states specifically, since israel is a smaller country and a little more socialistic than the united states, so i think the gist of what mitt romney was saying in israel is that our systems of

free enterprise and democracy are similar and ought to be praised. to the second point about paul ryan's budget, i think your characterization is certainly a bit not fair. the question here it is -- i saw a headline in "usa today" and i thought it was interesting but the story was not as interesting. it said 2012, the millennial against the senior citizen. this is the question that republicans are trying to ask voters about, which is young people, saddled with more debt for the future to pay for extensions of the welfare state to a senior citizens that the economy and the country cannot sustain. it turned out the tunnel -- the article was more about the fact the millennial supported obama

and the senior citizen supported mitt romney, but the point i took away it is i think young people have an interest in the republican party talking about deficits, and national debt, and reforming the spending drivers of that debt, which are medicare and medicaid. any actuary will tell you those are exploding the cost and crowding out all of the other items that you mentioned for everyone else. this is a problem, and it seems republicans are at least willing to address it and we will see the democrats are after the election. host: "washington times" look said a poll by george washington university -- when asked who would be mitt romney's best "

running mate. host: mitt romney plans to announce his vice-president pak with a smartphone app. do you think this is an effective way to appeal to youth? you graduated from college a few years ago. is this an effective technique? guest: i am they soccer. i downloaded the app yesterday. i signed up for it.

i think the social media aspect of these elections can always be over-stated. i think there is a sense that these campaigns invest a lot in trying to get the use the road. call me an optimist, but i think more importantly it is the message, the issues that young people care about. if it is a terrible message you get on your iphone, i do not see what that is good. if paul ryan shows up, that is a good message and maybe it was worth it. it is certainly different than four years ago, and certainly eight years ago with the presidential campaign investing these kind of resources and money into social media. i do not know if that will make anyone change their vote.

host: michael warren is a reporter for the conservative publication "weekly standard." he has been doing that since 2010. his work has been published "washington times" and "the washington examiner." here is a question from the shop on twitter -- how does mitt romney plan to gain the confidence of citizens when he will not open up and take questions from reporters? seems secretive. guest: as a reporter myself, i say yes, give us more access. reporters also have an obligation to ask good questions. i think we head as maybe not the best questions we could -- we have asked maybe not the best questions we could have asked. i do think mitt romney needs to open himself up for discussion,

but i understand why he is a little wary of doing so, and that is because of questions like he was being shouted in poland, where he was asked about his gas, the fact that palestinians were upset over his promise in israel. the fact that palestinians were upset over a pro-israel candidate is not really surprising. it does not seem like something they should have been asking him. those are the things that mitt romney should open himself up to, but the press has a responsibility to ask better questions. host: april, republican in coral springs, florida. caller: the main thing that is upside down this here are these

polls. i live in southeast florida, which is normally a democratic stronghold, and i go to the local home depot, schools, sporting events, and they will tell you that they -- tell you about how the media handles obama in contrast to mitt romney. it is not fair, blatantly obvious. everyone i know is voting for mitt romney. there is a very small amount of people that will tell you they are voting for barack obama. the polls are not reflective of what is really going on on the streets, middle income america. i think the media should admit they are cheerleaders for barack obama. i mean, it is just so obvious.

it is in every single article you read on the web. it is almost like an obama lot of -- lovefest, and there is a silent majority out there working, doing the right things, paying our taxes, and we are angry. guest: i think there is some truth to that. with the first point on the pollsters, maybe people are not telling people what they will do, or the pollsters are calling the wrong people. obama seems to be doing pretty well in states like florida, virginia, north carolina. i think what the caller is

noticing, maybe people just are not picked up by pollsters. it is very difficult. it is difficult to find a perfect cross section of people. as far as a silent majority angry over the media bias, that is there as well. there was a sense that obama did not get the vetting by the media that is usually awarded to candidates, back in 2008. i think obama is pretty much a known quantity at this point. everybody could see who he is and what he has done. that statement in roanoke, virginia, where he let loose and said to small businesses, "you did not build that." that harsh tone towards small businesses was revealing, and

that is breaking through the media bias, the wall. those things always break through the wall because they become obvious to voters that are paying attention. we might see voters start to pay attention as the vice- presidential ticket is made and the conventions get rolling. people will tune, and that might change things and might reflect what you see at home depot in southeast florida. host: independent line. arlington, virginia. hello? last try. i think we lost him. star. democratic caller. ohio. caller: concerning mitt romney

in europe, i think he was a complete failure because he did not portray the country very well in the eyes of the other countries. he criticized london for not having enough security, but in israel, i think he put fuel on the fire. i think he made it less safe than it was before his trip. he embarrassed the palestinians, which effect all of the other countries around israel by his remarks, and i think everyone should see that his foreign policy will the be effective. -- will not be effective. he is not a figure people will look up to like hillary clinton. she has power. people look up to her.

mitt romney stumbles over his words and heat -- has to make up for them. guest: i will disagree. in poland, i think mitt romney rose to the occasion, talking about freedom, liberty, the ideals americans hold and things citizens in these other countries hold dearly as well. regarding what he said about the olympics in london, it was certainly not a great moment for him. he should not have come out and said that, but he was actually answering the question honestly. he ran the olympics in salt lake city in 2002. he was asked about what he had heard going on in london this year and he offered his honest opinion, and in a lot of ways

that gets politicians in trouble. the u.k. is one of our oldest allies. they were probably upset. it is beneficial for the media and politicians in the u.k. to take advantage of an american republican politicians gaffes and use it as -- to their own advantage. that is probably what you saw happening in london. i do not think overall this will damage mitt romney in the united states, but if you look at poland and what happened with benjamin netanyahu and his acceptance in israel, i think mitt romney 1. host: let's talk about -- let's show a recent ad . [video clip]

>> mitt romney's plan -- a new cut for millionaires, increasing military spending, adding trillions to the deficit, or president obama's plan -- a balanced approach. millionaires pay a little more. >> i am barack obama and i approved this message because to cut the deficit we need everyone to pay their fair share. host: do you think mitt romney is fighting back aggressively enough? guest: i did not think he is fighting back aggressively, and i do not know that he has to. we saw the bain capital ads generally fall flat. i think barack obama is presenting this election as a choice. i think mitt romney once this to be a referendum on barack obama.

in many ways that is the safe route for him. if the economy continues to be as bad as it has been, it could be a winning strategy, but it is a marginal winning strategy in my opinion. if barack obama is going to make this a choice election -- this is what i am offering, this is what mitt romney is offering, it seems to me mitt romney would benefit from that conversation and say what you are offering is higher deficits, as we have had the last four years. you are offering noaa entitlement reform or interest in the entitlement reform -- no intent of the reform or interest in the entitlement reform, and on foreign policy, which is a strength for barack obama in this election, making the case that fog states like iran are

not to be -- thug states like iran are not to be accommodative. i think mitt romney needs to be a little more forthright about what the argument is. host: steve. new orleans. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is what is mitt 'smney's stance on paul ryan changes to railroad retirement. guest: i am not sure what mitt romney's opinions are -- what paul ryan's changes are, but i know mitt romney endorses the path to prosperity.

he has embraced that. he hasn't raised reforms to medicare, social security -- he has embraced reforms to medicare, social security, but has not offered a lot of specifics yet. i think that might be a good thing and something if paul ryan is the nominee we could hear more about. host: g.o. on twitter says obama unsalted the british -- in salted the british -- in salted the british when he trashed the church held statue they gave us. virginia. you are on with michael warren. caller: my question is first, be less lengthy in his replies.

the point he raised about ron paul and paul ryan, he saw him as being a running mate, and looking at the big picture, which i think most candidates should do to get into places they should be attacking or directing their attention to -- it could be that if he is picked as a running mate it could confuse a lot of people that were actually for ron paul rather than paul ryan. with let's end there harvey. what do you think the influence of ron paul, congressman of texas, will be at the convention. he will have a lot of supporters that want to see him involved. guest: i think it is interesting that four years ago in saint paul, the ron paul grass roots

movement was having a shadow convention, and now they will be participating in the republican national convention. this is a huge coup for the re- -- ron paul crowd and the libertarian strain. i'm interested to see what happens. the effect of the matter is while mrs. ron paul's last term in congress but while this is ron paul's last term in the congress, his legacy will live on. rand paul, his son, and other candidates that are leading that libertarian movement has become more mainstream than they were four years ago, six, eight years ago. we will see if they cause disruptions, try to make changes in the platform. have a few victories. auditing the fed they expect to be in the republican platform.

i will stop there and keep my answer short. host: doris, democratic caller in abilene, texas. we like the fact that we could have full answers here in -- on "washington journal." caller: yes, americans are angry. i want to respond to the woman in florida. they are angry because mitt romney will say whatever it takes to win this election. there are three polls the show mitt romney is under 50 points. do you think this reflects his inability to read -- relate to the american people by not releasing tax returns or the way he flubbed his overseas trip? it's called before you answer the question, let's look at a recent poll from the new york times on likability. barack obama is pulling ahead in

florida, ohio and pennsylvania, all swing states even though those voters say they find mitt romney of killing and the economy. guest:-9 -- appealing on the economy. guest: i think that is interesting. they show that mitt romney is in real trouble and will need to make a serious effort in states that are reflective of a couple of good weeks for obama, with some push back for the tax return question. again, i think after the vice- presidential pick, the conventions, that will recharge the campaign and it could go a number of ways. i am almost a little too cautious when it comes to looking at those polls because things will change almost certainly in a couple of weeks.

i will say mitt romney does have a problem looking like he will do anything to win an election. that is an image problem he will have to deal with. maybe voters will ultimately reject that. if this is a choice election, it becomes something more than mitt romney, two passes, two views of the economy, and that could wipe away concerns about whether mitt romney will do anything to win an election. host: michael warren is a reporter for "weekly standard" with recent pieces on the george allen. one last question, i cannot tell if this is a reporter or an opinion writer. guest: opinion journalism is my

trade. i am a reporter at "weekly standard." you could read those pieces were subscribed. i call up people. i go on the trail. i have interviews. reporting is central to what i do, but i am also conservatives. i have high -- i have a take and i express opinions. i think ultimately that makes for interesting product. i hope that is a good product, asking questions that may be liberal journalists or straight down the line journalist would not ask and maybe stories they would not write about. i think it is a combination. host: michael warren, from "weekly standard" thank you for

talking with us. guest: thank you. host: next, we will talk with judy waxman about the affordable care act act and impact on women's health, and then we will talk about gun laws in industrialized nations, but first an update from c-span radio. >> violence continues in syria. united nations spokeswoman said they had used tanks, helicopters and machine gun artillery. rebels now have heavy weapons of their own, including tanks. the fighting in syria and israel's threat to attack iran are at the top of the agenda for defense secretary leon panetta as he gets ready to meet with israeli leaders after

meeting in cairo yesterday with the new egyptian president. the fbi has a new computer system to track cases. the system is abandoning paper- based case management. the new system was originally expected to cost $425 million and be completed by december, 2009, and it ended up costing $451 million and was two and a half years late. the system went on line july 1. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> we have to be very clear about the very many ways that we own ourselves and our history, and we make decisions in our history that are phenomenal, and beneficial. >> the former president of bennett college writes about african-american history, and

your questions for the author of "surviving and thriving -- 365 fact in african-american history." live, noon eastern on booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: judy waxman, good morning to you new rules go into effect today from the affordable care act. what do they mean? guest: it is a wonderful step forward for all women in this country, and what it means is all insurance plans overtime, and i can explain that if you want, but ultimately all insurance plans will be required to cover different preventive health care services for women at no extra cost to the woman.

host: you mentioned that it is phased in. essentially, it depends on the insurance company and when a new policy begins. tell us if anything changes today, where will it come in the next couple of months? guest: it will come in the next couple of months, and even the next couple of years. the way it works is, you might recall in your audience might recall that when the law was debated that proponents said you could keep the health care that you have and most employers are keeping the health plan they have, but if they change it in a significant way, new rules apply. by january 1 of this year, about half of the plan will change, and this will apply to those plans, and over time it is expected all plans will change. so, ultimately these rules will apply to all health care plans.

host: let's look get some of the details of the health care law and women's preventative health. they include while women's distance, screening for gestational diabetes, counseling for sexually transmitted infections, and hiv counseling, including counseling for contraception, breast-feeding support and domestic violence screening. what stands out to you, judy waxman, as the most significant? guest: is significant overall that the affordable care act did have a provision that says look at women's preventive health. i should also say many other preventive health services for every one was included in the law. as the plan becomes new overtime everybody will be able to get with no extra cost blood

pressure screening, nutrition counseling, cholesterol screening. all of those were included, but the significant thing about this is what was required was that some experts looked at what women need, so what is very popular already is certainly the well-within's -- well-winds visits, which means if you go into your doctor, for a yearly check, the visit will be covered. also popular is contraception and counseling, and also breast feeding supplies and equipment and counseling. so, those are some of the highlights, but as you mentioned, the list is very good. host: there is an op-ed piece in "usa today" by kathleen

sebelius and congresswoman nancy pelosi, the democratic leader in the u.s. house. host: if you like to join the conversation and talk with judy waxman, you can call . host: and jim joins us on our independent line from new orleans. caller: good morning. i see judy waxman is somewhat beatty about what she sees, but rest assured, having lived in

the south my entire life there are a lot of people here who still believe that the decision by the supreme court to alter the fact that blacks used to be slaves, they would like to turn that back. we see the supreme court in the 1860's had the wisdom to change what was considered at the time settled law, in favor of people like ms. waxman who favor abortion. a lot of people felt slavery was settled law. host: the correlation to women's health? caller: the in utero american is being fort totten here. -- for gotten here.

guest: let me say abortion is not one of the preventive services on the list, so the question is not relevant to the topic at hand. host: are there provisions that help women that are pregnant? guest: what this section does is require the health-care plans to recover contraception and counseling, birth control, not abortion, and what the centers for disease control have said it is best birth control is one of the top 10% of health services of the 20th century, so what birth control really does for women and their families is help them to have children when it is the right time for the family and is really a preventive health service which ultimately helps families be healthier and stronger.

host: joe, democratic college in wichita, kansas. -- caller in wichita, kansas. caller: thank you for c-span, and judy waxman, for bringing out the truth and the ignorance of that man from louisiana. i'm a vietnam veteran. in this country, we are sick of a lot of the things that are going on, and ms. waxman, thank you. may god give you strength. guest: thank you. host: a headline from "the washington times." host: there are losses continuing on the issue. what is your take, judy waxman,

and the owners of companies that have concerns about giving birth control coverage to employees? guest: my concern is for the individual. our constitution protect the individual right to religion, and what this means is that every woman gets to decide for herself whether she wants to use this product, and 99% of us do, but nonetheless it is the individual woman's ability and choice to decide whether this is the product to choose for her and her family, not for bosses. host: a republican in mississippi. caller: while all of this free and wonderful stuff is falling from the sky because we do not have to pay for anything, why don't you give me a new car and

a purse to go with it? host: where this is being paid for? guest: the cost is shared by everyone. the reason these services are really required without co- payment for the individual at the time of service is that it is a way to encourage women to actually use preventive health service, which is believed generally will help women be held here in the long run and sit costs overall. host: judy waxman it is president of health and reproductive rights at the national women's health center, promoting quality and availability of health care to american women. let's look at some of the statistics on women's health in 2010 -- under the age of 65

without insurance, 16% 40 and over who have had a mammogram in the last two years, at 67%. 18 and over whether that a pap smear in the last three years, 73.2%. what do those numbers tell you? guest: this tells me the new role is fabulous for women because what you have seen is that not everyone is getting the preventive health services that they should to keep them healthy and to avoid cost in the future, so now that all of these services will be included in insurance plans without a cost at the time of service, our hope and belief is that more women will get these services and stay healthier over time. host: jeremy. independent in new york, new york. caller: i think one of the most

significant things for all health care is preventive care, and i agree with everything that mrs. benson says, and i appreciate if -- mrs. waxman says, and i appreciate the cit correctly pronounces -- that she correctly pronounces preventive. even before this article came it-n had the word "prevent- tuive." guest: thank you. host: let's go to twitter, -- let's be clear, these are being provided to many that can't afford them. women who want a man can pay get

it, so, win-win. will women get to have this without having to pay out of pocket? guest: every woman with private insurance will get these services, but maybe not right away. the rules are complex. they do not require that the changes go into effect today, but has plans change from the past, or the new plan compel year starts, like mine, which is january 1, we will see these changes january 1. many will take one year or two, but over time all women will see the benefit. host: it does not affect women who are poor as opposed to women

that are middle-class or upper class? guest: it is private insurance. additionally, it does not apply to all women on medicaid. medicaid is a program for low- income people. part of the supreme court decision was that states will be able to not expand the program to more low-income women, and we are hoping every state will and assume overtime every state well. these rules will apply to the new medicaid people, but not necessarily the old ones, so it is almost every woman in the united states over time. host: let's review some of the background as i read from a "the washington times."

guest: that is true. first of all, churches and organizations like that are exempt from this rule just for the contraception, not for the mammograms and the breast feeding, etc. additionally, the administration proposed, as you call it, and accommodation, so that other nonprofit entities can figure out a way that students, and please, and other people the plan effects will get the service, no matter where they worked, so it is sort of behind- the-scenes accommodations of the entity is not directly paying for the services. host: tony, duncan, okla.,

republican line. caller: let me emphasize that there is certainly a cost involved. there will be a tremendous increase in the cost. there is a 3.5% tax that is implemented, and several other texas. you know, as long as it is representative, that is fine, but the people that are on the very bottom, it is a tremendous benefit to them, but middle income americans will pay heavily for this new health-care program they have going, and i do not agree that it is an affordable health care act. it does nothing to do with the affordability of health care. the insurance company is going to get paid off so that everyone is covered. guest: two comments. first of all, didn't come --

middle income people will have a great help in buying health insurance. there are subsidies, which many people are not talking about and i do not understand why, but there are substantial subsidies for people up to 400% of poverty, which is about $90,000 of income a year for a family of four. that is not high, but that is middle class, and that this -- there will be subsidies for those people to help them buy a product, and additionally the law has many provisions to help hold down costs. for example, might own organization recently had -- got a check because there is a new rule that says companies have to spend a majority of what they take in the financial services, not administration and profit,

and if they do not, they have to send a check. there are billions of dollars going out in checks, and we got one last week. host: we will look at a story related to that in a moment, but first, sara, democratic caller in cleveland, ohio. caller: good morning. i wanted to give a compliment to ms. waxman for being on the show, and i think it is wonderful that young women today can have preventive health care. there are far too many young women caught up in the system, having children, and that causes poverty. in the long run i think they become more impoverished based upon having more children. i also think that it is still a woman's choice to take birth

control or have control over their bodies. i am a mother of two and a grandmother of one. i am far beyond child-bearing age or anything, but i still believe women should have that choice over their life, and as i said before, ms. waxman, keep up the good work and i look forward to hearing more about you. ok? thank you for listening. host: judy waxman mentioned rebates. here is a story from abc news.

h., salt, the law says if you are spending more -- host: so, the law says if you are spending more money on the cost of running your business, you all your customers a rebate. here's a look at the rebates by the numbers. health insurance companies had to pay out a total of $1.1 billion. atlantic city, new jersey. jack. independent caller. caller: the morning. good morning, ms. waxman.

a to -- a simple check on statistics, 100 years ago, women lived two years more than men, today it is five years. it is the emphasis on women. the yearly checkup, does this apply to men, and if it does not, what would be the difference if you were sitting there praising the new health- care bill that assures white persons yearly health care care but not black citizens even though white men and women live substantially longer than black men and women. could you answer that, please? guest: i get the gist of your question and thank you for it. as i said at the front of this hour, there are many services

that will be required for everyone -- cholesterol screening, blood pressure screening, obesity screening -- that applies to men, women, and whenever race you are. the reason there is this new provision for women is senator barbara mikulski for maryland said no one has ever stepped back and said in addition to the long was that is required, what are special services women should be getting because they are women? so, the provision made it into the law, a law passed, and the administration called together scientists to come up with what the list should be. i think there are more preventive services that could be added for everyone. this particular list does not do that, but i am in favor.

the group in charges the united states preventive health services task force. they do continue to do their work. the law requires them to keep on it, and hopefully they will add some other services that will benefit everybody. host: one of the aspects calls for a while-women this its parent -- well-women visits for this. why is that important? guest: women have different bodies and there are special considerations as to why that was added to the list. i agree that it would be great if well-man visits were added. well-child visits are part of it. we have more work to do for men. host: this tweet from right wing

radical says it has been shown that preventive care increases utilization and health but never results in cost savings. what you think of that, judy waxman guest: -- judy waxman? guest: if the problem is caught early, it would be less expensive. i guess if the person is not treated at all they will die, and that is cheaper in an ironic way, but that is not the goal for all of us. on the contraceptive issue, it is very clear that that service in particular clearly saves money because healthy babies are born. host: judy waxman is vice president of health and reproductive rights at the national women's law center. we are talking about a package of women's preventive services that are part of the affordable

care act and go into effect today. debbie is a republican in houston, texas. caller: good morning. i do not understand how you could give or make it mandatory for insurance companies to give these preventive services for free without even a co-pay and expect the insurance companies to pave the -- paid the providers and laboratories for these tests, and not expect insurance premiums to go up. i'm 58 years old. that means i have to pay for all of these young girls. i did not think that is fair. how are these insurance company's going to absorb this? guest: good question. i think the insurance companies, interestingly, have not talked about this at all. i think you have to ask them

directly, of course, but i think they see the advantage of women and all of us getting preventive health care. that is another thing is what actually does. it it deals with sick people to having people stay healthy longer and to save money overall to the system. that is the intent and i think that is how it is going to work. host: we have a story from national journal daily.

host: there was a move to overturn the affordable care act. how much do you think the fight influenced how the nation is talking about contraception and the affordable care act? guest: it is fascinating, the article that you read. there were hearings and many other activities that were saying women should not be getting birth control in all different circumstances. actually, 99% of women in this that are sexually active use birth control.

when women use it, men involved as well. this is a virtually universal practice among americans. for some people to go onto the floor of the house or senate and to say, this is a bad thing, i will assume they got backlash from their own constituents and that is why they have backed off. host: democrat's line from alabama, james. caller: good morning. the republicans do not want to help no one. it is paid by me, the american taxpayer. they talk about the baby boomers. there's a lot of us in numbers.

all these baby boomers would be dead. then you would have a young generation. this is how it was combined. you pay money in. you pay a premium. it might be worth millions and millions of dollars. pay our people that work. i like to ask the congressmen and senators, will drop your insurance where i will not have to pay for it? go out and get insurance. the average person would be bankrupt. thank you. host: james, are you still with us? any comments?

guest:no. host: tom is joining us now. caller: everybody will have to buy these things. i am a 55-year-old white male. these people that are making these decisions are bureaucrats. they are not elected officials. for other people to make these types of decisions, it is unconscionable. thank you very much. guest: the people that passed this law or the elected officials. i would differ on that. the way insurance works is everybody pays something and everybody gets what they need.

i don't expect to get certain health problems. they are not in my family. nobody has ever had them in my family. my plan will cover them if i need them. that will be true for the caller, as well. he may not meet contraception but a partner will. if he has children, they will. he will get services covered that they will not use. that is how it works. host: you are on with judy waxman. caller: i think you're never naivite is just astounding. put out free stuff and people will go to get it.

for free chicken sandwiches and people cannot handle the mobs that show up. the impact on the doctors and the system will be huge when you throw these free services out there. it will impact the doctors. they will not be able to help the people that are truly sick. you're throwing millions of people into a pot with fewer resources to cover it. some people call this death panels. they have removed psa tests and more things like that will happen. people and their old years will not be able to get hip and knee

replacements because things are free. you guys have underestimated it. the cost is going to be 10 times what you're estimating it because the government always otches thing up. they never do anything right. guest: i respectfully disagree with many things the caller said. i think it is high time we look more at preventive care and that we do not treat our health-care system as something to be used when someone gets sick, but we try to help people stay healthy and not just become healthy and i do believe that will save money over time. there is no such thing as a death panel. his

remark about removing psa tes is an interesting case in point -- about removing psa tests. there are many false positives. many get treatment that does not do anything for them and could be harmful. this is a way not just to save money. but to make sure that people get tested in results of doing something real for them that it's not just throwing money down a rat hole. i hear talk that we should save money. as soon as the scientists say, maybe we shouldn't do this as often as we do, or not everybody needs this, the same people are up in arms, taking away something from me but not

looking at the total picture. host: judy waxman was a professional staff member of the commission on health care and an adjunct professor at georgetown university. was an attorney -- she was an attorney. new rules go into effect today that allow women to get preventive services free of charge. the rollout will happen over months and years. caller: good morning. i would like to thank you for this show and judy waxman for your helpful insights. one of the biggest concerns i have as a progressive democrat who is moving from capitol hill

to vermont is that it is such a complicated law and it is difficult for those of us who are watching these shows it to understand. my question for judy waxman is, what can those of us who are supportive of the law due to be educating our friends and neighbors and family to understand the benefits of the law? guest: great question. thank you for that. there are lots of websites that to explain the law in more direct terms. it is complicated because it is building on a complicated system that we have. trying to fill in all the holes that have existed for a long time. there are many websites you can go to.

healthcare.gov. kaiser family foundation has a great information. there is a lot of good information out there. if you cannot find it, i would be happy to direct you to it and you confinement on the web. host: did the complexity of the affordable care act cause issue to measures -- did it monuddy the water? guest: the affordable care act is a great step forward for women and for everyone. which is have to work with what we have. there are many things we are

monitoring to make sure the insurance companies to provide these services. we are concerned that lower income women get on a health plan and that we will be working with states to make sure they pick up the medicaid expansion. there is lots of steps to build but we have a great foundation. host: sam from portland, maine. caller: good morning. i do not think we should be afraid of public health. it is something we need to understand. it will be part of the future of health care for women and men. we do have to pay for this. we are buying a product. the product is necessary and positive.

how do we ensure we're getting the best prices? guest: the law does some things to make sure that as consumers will get a better deal. we need to do more on that front. insurance companies will be held to a standard which says they can only spent a certain percentage of their revenues on administrative costs. 80% has to go towards health care costs. there are other provisions as well that creates ways to figure out how we can get better quality care. we get a better bang for our buck. some but it only has to go into the hospital one time. there are provisions that look

at those issues so that the consumer gets a better deal. host: we have 8 tweet coming in with a question -- we have a tweet. ree t: there is nothing for and that response to what your caller said, as well. some body does pay -- somebody does pay. people do not have to pay money out of their pockets when they show up. that is an incentive so more people will go for services. many plans do cover some of the new services. but many of them do not. this is to level the playing

field. host: kay point this out on twitter. judy waxman, vice president of health and reproductive rights at the national women's law center, thank you for joining us this morning. next, we will talk with max fisher about his peace in "the atlantic." >> adp says businesses added 163,000 jobs last month. the report covers hiring in the private sector. the labor department will offer a more complete picture this friday. chrysler says its u.s. sales rose 13% in july, selling more

than 126,000 cars anad trucks. the auto industry is featured in a new mitt romney television ad out today. it takes president obama to task and blames the obama administration for dealership closures across the state of ohio. that is where president obama is scheduled to campaign today. president obama would exempt military personnel from any automatic defense spending cuts. testimony this morning on how the impending automatic cuts will affect defense programs. watched live coverage of that hearing on c-span3 or you can listen to it here on c-span

radio. [video clip] >> at the foot of the bridge, i thought i was going to die. >> john lewis part in a voting rights march that would take them across the bridge. >> i came within hearing distance of the state troopers. -- this is an unlawful march and would not be allowed to continue. milwaukee beside me said, give us a moment to pray. and the major said, troopers advance. >> john lewis, sunday on c-span "q &a >"

." >> "washington journal" continues. host: this week we're taking a look and a piece at "the atlantic." >> the shooting in colorado -- i started reading about how the gun death rates are some of the highs. there's lots of discussion about how to change it. i thought about the country on the other end of the spectrum. it is japan. these gun death rates -- it is is.unding hello iow low it japan had 11, and that was

fewer people that were killed in aurora. it is a mixed bag. there are some trade-offs in terms of basic freedoms and liberties. host: you say most people in japan do not own a gun. how was their culture different than ours when it comes to philosophies of gun ownership? guest: america has the second amendment which are firms in have the right to keep and bear arms. say no assault rifles. japan starts with a law that says no one shall possess a firearm or sword.

there are some cultural differences because they include swords. they worked in exceptions which are few and far between. no one can have handguns except on duty police officers. you cannot have air rifle unless you bought it before 1971. you can have shotguns and air rifles if you go through a difficult process. japan has one of the smallest gun ownership rates in the world. in the u.s., there are 890 privately owned guns for every 1000 people and in japan, there are six. host: what kind of workers do you continue to go through? guest: getting the gun is really hard. first

you go through an all day test which they hold once a month. then you have to pass a shooting test. and you have to pass a mental test and a drug test at a hospital. you have to prove you are mentally fit to carry a gun. then there is a background check. the association with extremist groups, you cannot have a gun. assuming you pass all that, you have a shotgun or an air rifle. herehave to tell police, w is where i am keeping my gun in my house. every three years, you do the process all over again.

it goes back even before they passed all these laws in the 0's.'s, 1960's, and 197 the japanese people were not as enthusiastic as americans about carrying guns. "none of these police are carrying guns. they are not choosing to." all the cops had to be ordered to carry handguns. host: we are talking with max fisher, associate editor of "the atlantic" about his piece. if you would like to join the

conversation, republicans can call 202-737-0002. democrats, 202-737-0001. independent callers, 202-628- 0205. have you thought about whether any of these measures could go over in the united states? guest: yes. the answer is probably not. there's a lot to learn from japan's wlaws. you see a lot of amazing -- the number of lives they have saved by restricting guns -- over 10,000 year. the restrictions they have and it starts in these basic cultural differences. the famous japanese mafia tend to not carry guns.

carry assault rifles. it is not the norm. they take this idea very seriously. if you see a japanese dramatic movie, a police thriller, there are very few guns in it. in an american movie, it is a boring seen unless there are 40 guns going off at once. ok is it to have a police search and seizure? there is more power in the japanese laws. host: mike is an independent caller from florida. caller: that was the quickest turnaround i ever had on c- span. i can appreciate the gentleman's contribution. there's

no way that americans will ever allow any of these provisions that he is discussing to be implemented in america. going through the rigmarole of getting the police ok, that is so -- you said many unconstitutional provisions and there would be no way. we have a constitution and it was put there for a reason. we have a right to bear arms and that means something. we can look to canada up north. they have loads of guns. we look at our culture minus t he guns. guns are the tools to

facilitate. host: it sounds like you own a gun. caller: that is correct. host: how many guns do you have? caller: i would not like to say on tv. host: the number of guns tends to go up. there is almost one privately owned firearm for every american in the united states. guest: it is the highest rate in the world. yemen is number two and it is half. i think mike made a good point about history. the second amendment is in response to british colonial law.

you can see where the law came from. in japan, it is more complicated and there is probably not a single cause. the disarming of the samurai. the monarchy said we have had these summarize it for centuries. they carry swords and we need to get rid of this. the summer right did not want to give up their swords -- samurai did not want to give up their swords. no one should have a firearm or a sword. is a national trauma of too many swords. caller: i'm calling in regards

for a responsible gun law. i'm paralyzed from the neck down. i lecture in school regarding gun safety. i do not want anyone to lose their right to own a gun. i want responsible gun laws -- i was shot by a person, a young boy that was 10 years old in a household whose parents owned guns. there were not locked up -- they were not locked up. host: tell us what responsible gun laws would look like. caller: if you own a gun, you

should be held accountable. nothing happened to the people that owned the gun when i gunshot. why do need rounds with 100 clips? 100 clips? they used with hunting. are you kidding me? it is common sense. guest: i think it shows a difference between u.s. and japan. in japan, there was a spate of gun deaths in 2007. there when from two to 22. america has 10,000-plus a year. there was a big outcry. one mass shooting after

another. maybe if there is a lot of public push back, they will consider reducing the clip. host: we have a question on twitter by ck9. how did the bad guys in japan threatened and deal if they do not have guns? guest: i think the first thing i might suggest is if somebody from a gang is threatening you with a gun, you should probably call the police. the japanese mafia it is very powerful and dangerous. they do not tend to wander into

people's homes and demand things from them. i didn't have an answer for how you end gang violence against gang members in the united states. putting more guns into society has increase the number of gun deaths. mike is a republican caller. caller: i get a kick out of gun zealots.ealo they are out to limit the weapons. i would suggest that anybody that wants gun laws -- they enforce the ones we have, they would not have to worry about it.

if they want gun control, moved to japan. host: who is it that is trying to restrict the kinds of guns you can buy? caller: all of your gun control zealots. host: here is out president obama responded in the wake of the colorado shooting. "new gun legislation will not be on the political agenda at this year. a position not unlike that of his rival, mitt romney. obama still supports a ban on assault weapons. earth things we can do that can reduce violence in our society." host: eric, an independent

caller. caller: good morning. thank you for a great topic. those who support gun rights say that the main reason is because they want to defend for self- defense. i would like to know how much guns are being used in defense of one's home or family? had somebody in the theater had a gun in car, i do not believe they would have had time to defend or shoot or anything because there were canisters of tear gas going of. i'm curious as to how much guns are being used for self-defense. guest: i do not know the answer

to that question. one statistic that is interesting is in 2008, there were 587 americans killed by the accidental discharge of a gun. that is just an accidental gun going off. in all of japan, 11 people were killed by guns. you can still kind of see the cost in terms of human life of having guns in society. host: we are talking with max fisher from "the atlantic." good morning, patsy. caller: i was wondering if there was a connection between the american culture and the

japanese culture as far as religion is concerned. i get the impression that the japanese culture is an eastern, buddhist religion. i was wondering if that mattered into his opinions about the culture being different because it is more of a peaceful culture. guest: i'm not sure the connection i would make -- i am not an expert on religion. i do know that right now japan is a peaceful society. it is important that we not think of culture as static and per minute and all-determined. japan was a very militaristic society and very aggressive. it is the same culture.

it has changed a great deal over the past 75 or 80 years. host: larry from kentucky on air republicans line. caller: i heard that last comment about china become a peaceful society. japan? caller: i do not believe that because -- i got two little girls and a wife to worry about. i'm 51 years old and recovered from a car accident where i was hit head-on and i shattered my right leg. i am recovering. a 280-pound man

with a knife. i am not going to say, hold it, i have to call the police. there will be lots of bad guys out there because they do not want to go to work or they cannot get work. they have a lifestyle that is violent because there is no jobs out there. the government takes way to much of our money out of our checks and distributes it to the people that do not want to work. the government has created a society of people eating potato chips and getting diabetes waiting for their welfare checks and their food stamp checked. host: it out like you own a gun. caller: i have to own a gun.

i have a firearm to protect myself and i have a rifle to hunt for dear when i'm hungry. erybe i want some der sausag sausages. host: you were talking about the nature of the society but not making a cause and effect. guest: i think one kind of informed the other. it is worth considering the one concern about americans from gun control. the united states is unique of it's got lots but not with poverty. the scenario you hear is, what if i'm attack by somebody and i

need to defend myself? potter that fits into the kind of cowboy culture of america, "i need to stick up for myself and i can trust anybody." part may come from the enormous pop culture we have. in societies with comparable numbers of impoverished or jobless people, this has not been a problem. there have not been hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered in the streets because they didn't have firearms to defend themselves. host: joe tweets in -- what do you think about that? guest: it is a big country. japanese society was on board for the colonial expansion in the 1930's in world war ii.

it had to do a lot with nationalism. i did not think if they had guns, they would have been more resistance. host: max fisher is an associate editor with "the atlantic." some people are tweeting in and asking about other countries and asking about their gun laws. mike says the crime is low. what about other countries? are there other places that we can look at to also learn? guest: swiss gun ownership rates are high for western europe and gun violence is low.

that is still a fraction of america's. there is a secondary effect, really rich countries with few people -- norway, finland, all the scandinavia. switch to let is one of them -- d is one of them.anld is oe if you look at the overall trend, there is a pretty uniform correlation between the looseness of gun laws and the amount of gun violence in society. host: bryant in nevada it joins us now -- brian. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. is a difference between japan

and america culturally. the low number of guns in japan had a lot to do with the feudal system where they did have swords. my problem is this. our constitution was set up for us and i am a firm believer in the second amendment. i am a gun owner and i do believe in some more restrictions on certain types of magazines, not so much the type of weapon. also, it hasn't shown like a chicago -- the murder rate done related is extremely high and they have never won a gun restrictions in the united states and let's take mayor bloomberg for example. they have the fourth highest restriction on gun laws but their gun vault has gone up by

4%. i would like to see a better world. this is the world that we have. thank you for listening. guest: i think that is a good point about chicago. another case i would point out is mexico. mexico has much stricter gun laws than the united states but they have more gun violence. terrible criminal violence. one factor is a lot of the guns in mexico come from the united states. you have a big country with a lot of people that have huge numbers of guns. it is easy for them to move around and across borders. that could be one factor for the gun violence in chicago. you drive for an hour and are at a place where you can buy a gun in walmart.

host: kppotatoes write in -- guest: it is true that it is a more peaceful society. you have to look at the complications of history. japan was in a state of civil war for hundreds of years. there were at war with korea and china. i did not think we can say it is a peaceful or not a peaceful society. i think there are a lot of factors that contribute to whether a country is internally or externally peaceful or not peaceful. gun ownership is not the only one but it is worth considering the correlation. host: linda from the york state -- melinda.

caller: this works for japan, that is wonderful. this is america. we were bored with guns in our hands. i myself owno two ak-40's, an ar-50 and a 12-gauge shotgun in my name. host: why do you own them? caller: i like to go to a shooting range and enjoyed the feel of a gun in my hand. there are so many people that are doing it for fun. we are not out there to hurt anybody. if anyone has kids, lock their guns up, yes. there's no reason to hurt the people that are doing things proper.

i'm tired of every time somebody gets shot, making it harder for people like me to get guns or get magazines or dead .et ammo guest: yeah, it is a trade-off. japan has stricter restrictions on civil liberties when it comes to guns. so to police searches and seizures. it is a trade-off. you have to give something up another two get the astounding low homicide rates in japan from guns. it is worth considering what is the cost to society that it is easy for some want to go have three assault rifles in a broom closet versus the civil liberties restrictions of police in japan can search you often

without a warrant and can take your gun away even if you have a you.nse for it but not on n you start off your peas by reflecting on the fact that japanese who go to all why are a big market to go to the shooting ranges. it is a matter of time before somebody handles you a flyer with english and japanese text advertising the many shooting ranges. host: wire these japanese tourists coming to hawaii to shoot? guest: that is interesting to look at this. it says something that even in japan, it is fun to shoot guns.

they will go all the way to hawaii. it's not uncommon to leave the beach and go to a shopping mall and to a shooting range and fire off a handgun. if they were to do that in japan, they would be breaking three laws and could face up to one to 10 years in jail. japanese tourists seem to love these shooting ranges does tell you that they are losing something by not having access to guns. not a magical solution. isher writes that they will be breaking three separate laws.

punishable by oneial to 10 years in jail. guest: the majority of criminal charges are for illegally possessing a gun, not for robbery or for killing somebody with a gun, which tells you something about the potential preventative value of these laws. not many guns around to put your hands on. host: naomi joins us now. caller: i have a comment after i asked my question concerning c- span. i have been here on hold after so many democrats and independent calls before you get

around to the republicans. every month you have the republicans on top. the next month you will have the democrats on top. you start out calling on the independent caller and two or three democratic callers before you get around to the republican caller and i wanted to comment on that. it makes me feel real bad. i have been a fan of c-span for years. i feel that we are being neglected on being called on, even when our titles is put up front at the first of the month. host: we try to get a balance of calls throughout the show and it is a matter of who gets to the call fastest. we try to make a balanced.

caller: try to compare us with japan. we're not japan. picture the united states without any weapons and japan without any weapons. tell me the value of that. host: who comes out on top? guest: 12,000 people a year that do not die from gun violence. caller: i am a gun owner and i have trouble to japan before and discussed this with people over there. tt could to bring up a bunch of the history of the different culture. i would say that world war ii charges were related to the war and disarming a defeated enemy. but it has progressed. there is a generation that grew

up without firearms. they are a little bed authoritarian -- they are a little bit authoritarian. i have seen footage in crowded streets, 6-lane street where the police threw a grenade into a car, smashing the windows. the police are feared there. host: or have you seen that happen -- where have you seen that happen? caller: in japan. everyone is afraid of the police. host: you said you have been to

japan. are you hearing a different message about guns? the young people have grown up with this all their lives. caller: there was a fascination with the taurus thing about wanting to fire a gun -- with the tourist thing. it did seem like they were interested and wanted to know more about it. guest: talking about the police is an aging comparison. the police do have more power to search people on the street and pat you down and take your gun if you don't have your license on you. you are less likely to be killed by a police officer in japan

than in the united states. they take more hours of martial arts training in japan. part of that might be tradition. there is a fundamental expectation that even if you're beat inn a tough spe your, you do not draaw yow weapon. police on more likely to shoot the gun at someone. up poll last fall. a record low 26% of americans favored putting a ban on possession of handguns in the u.s.

60% favored banning handguns when there were first asked. opposition around 70% in recent years. we're seeing a change over time of people who think there should be a ban on handguns. guest: that reminds me of speed limits on the highways. we tend to have a lot of driving deaths. we decided it was worth it that i can drive 65 on the interstate. it is more convenient and we except there will be more people killed by auto deaths. if americans want to have guns, it is 8 democratic society at some point we say ok. host: rich is a republican

caller. caller: good morning. i think great took some of my thunder talking about world war ii. . militaristic culture. following world war ii, the japanese must be a very peaceful, non militaristic culture that translates into their personal lives as well. you have discounted that in this conversation some. you have talked about the causation between the quantity of guns that are available and the number of violent acts with a gun. you have left out in the united states conversation the 1960's, or the quantity of guns did not

increase but the amount of gun violence tripled. we want to look at the implement brother then what took place to cause the use of the implement. i would love to see more reporting on that. that leads us down a path that a lot of journalists do not want to go. and an atheist -- i am an atheist. a host of things we would have to confront as a culture if we wanted to get to the culture where you talk about japan as a positive. it took millions of people to die in the world war ii experience. if we do have 10,000 deaths a year, we have to go many decades before we equal the deaths caused by japanese militarism.

guest: to speak to religious observance, rates are much higher in the u.s. than in western europe or japan. they have lower rates of gun homicides in western europe or japan. i think i might push back on your connection. but you're right. there are a lot of factors that could contribute to gun violence and gun deaths and violence in the streets, and ownership of guns is one factor. if you look across many different countries and say western europe and the middle east and all these different places, what is the connection between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun- related homicides, and you find a strong correlation between the

two. host: we have a couple of tweets coming in. mike says -- let's look at a different opinion. different opinions. guest: very different. as regards to the tweet about how to protect ourselves from turning. there was a revolution against a dictator. host: last year, the arab spring. max fisher, thank you for coming in and talking with us. that is all for "washington that is all for "washington