republican majority and the bush era tax cuts and mother jones reporter andy cole will talk of a campaign fund raising and campaign finance law. host: good morning. wednesday, august 8. you are watching "washington journal." 1500 counties across the country are in severe drought status. the president announced a plan -- will use that and other headlines. we will talk with you about the planet's status regarding global warming. extreme weather, climate change, and what are the solutions? we would like to hear from you. 202-737-0002, republicans. 202-737-0001 democrats, .

202-628-0205, independents. good morning. before we get to the question, yesterday was primary day. let me show you some front page stories. beginning with michigan, the results for this former rip -- epresentative. host: also, in missouri, a couple of races. tap taken -- todd aken won. lacey clay has also won.

those are the results from primary day. we will talk with you about the summer of extreme weather. not only here, but in other parts of the globe and ask you what you believe about the cause of this. is this climate change? we would like to hear your beliefs and what you think the solutions are. we will take your calls. let us talk to a reporter and editor for "scientific american ."cam here is one of their latest stories. where does the science stand today? >guest: pretty unequivocal.

scientists have found that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases are trapping more heat, and that is leading to global warming. over the last 20 years, it has become more clear that those predictions are true. host: what about the policy side of the equation? guest: it is getting more money. probably on the international level and national level. you and your viewers may be aware that the reason climb in -- recent climb in change -- recent climate changes are not going anywhere. there is no -- and we met some

of the greenhouse gases is because we like to buildings and have the list trustee -- electricity. it is the burning of fossil fuels that results in greenhouse gas emissions. host: the overlay of a global slowdown, is that having an effect on the policy debate? guest: yes. it is making it less likely that anything will be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. the only thing that has been proven in the past to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is economic recession. when there is less activity in the economy, there are fewer greenhouse gases being committed. host: this recession has been around -- or slow down, has been around since 2008. has that been holding true?

guest: yes. they have dropped significantly in the last few years if you look at energy information administration data or epa data. u.s. emissons are down does of the recession and we have been doing things like burning less coal and driving more efficient automobiles. host: what is next on the policy front if the meeting went nowhere? guest: there is another meeting scheduled at the end of this year. the international negotiations are ongoing. the problem is getting the hundred 90 countries in the world to agree wwith each other is as easy as getting the 100 senators in the u.s. senate to agree on anything.

it is just not happening. one of the proposed alternatives is to kind of break up into smaller groups. for example, the world's largest economies are responsible for the bulk of the emissions and that is 8 to 10 countries. they could get together and try to decide what they are going to do as a smaller group about reducing emissions. host: you can find this magazine on the internet. thank you so much. our question to you this morning -- >> great weather the we have been experiencing, -- extreme

weather that we have been experiencing, what do you have to say? tweet us @cspanwj or find us on facebook.com/cspan. also, e-mail us. lots of boys to be involved. let us begin with washington. you are on the air, robert. caller: good morning. i know the weather is going through changes because of the carbon footprint and all of those types of things. i was wondering if people were aware of the fact that they are experimenting with microphones? it pushes up on the atmosphere in and changes the jet stream.

they're experimenting with that. i was wondering how many people were aware that is going on. host: you concerned about clennon change? do you believe the whether we are seeing is a result of it? caller: yes. i believe they are experimenting with it, as well. host: boller, oklahoma is up next. go ahead. caller: my friend is a scientist in oklahoma and he explained the greenhouse effect. he said it was basically co2 -- is pretty bad. we just hit 400 parts per million.

there is no doubt there is climate change. what we can do is strategic particle injections for climate engineering. that is putting so further into the atmosphere -- sulphur in the atmosphere. of course, you can overdo it in and destroy all life on the planet. we will never cut carbon. that is our energy source. spice could help. host: this is a map of the u.s.

that looks at the drought as of july 27, 2012. this is ramallah -- from noaa. you the red and brown -- you are able to see those red and brown. yesterday at the white house, president obama announced a relief package for that part of the country. let us listen to what he had to say. [video clip] >> we have designated many counties as disaster areas. we have opened up more land for grazing and we have worked with crop insurance companies for insurance premiums.

this has been an all hands on deck issue. a lot of folks are being affected. the department of agriculture is announcing an additional $30 million to get more want broader -- more water. the national credit union ministration has launched many credit unions. the department of transportation is working with truck drivers to provide supplies to farmers and ranchers. and their connecting even more eligible farmers, ranchers, and businesses. host: the president at the white house yesterday. before congress left for its

break in august, it was considering the farm bill, which did not go anywhere. the emergency relief package did not pass. the white house announced -- we are talking about this year's extreme weather and asking is if climate change? we would like to hear what you think. post on facebook and send us a tweet. one tweet -- next up is a call from south carolina. caller: good morning. host: your contribution to our discussion? caller: it is global warming.

there was a scientist who did a study on this in and he concurred that it is definitely caused by exhausted from human beings. it was funded by the koch brothers. bumphis he is way be wolow norm. people think this is a one time thing, but they are totally wrong. the ocean has raised 3 feet above normal. it will continue on. if we do not do something about this soon, there will be a point where there will be no return. that is my comment for today.

host: thank you. the study was done by th-- some money came from charles koch. the fund for climate and energy research, created by bill gates. here is a report that came out at the end of july. host: here is a quote from the leader of the study.

host: that is the study the caller just talked about from berkeley earth temperature analysis. next is a call from texas. good morning, fred. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. with regard to climate change, i like to mention that water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. there was a book in which the

sayies were compiled to that 33 degrees celsius and of natural greenhouse gases, 32 degrees driven by water vapor. co2 is minuscule and compared to the water vapor, the water moves in and out in symbiosis with the oceans of the world. nasa put out a study that said all the planets in the solar system seem to be heating up. as the oceans absorb sun energy, it drives more water vapor into the atmosphere and keeps the globe. there you go. host: thank you. on twitter --

host: let us turn to the facebook audience. we will see what some of the people there have been posting. host: next is spokane, washington. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i am hardly ever 0 able to be up this morning, but it is fun to talk to you.

do i believe global warming is a real? yes. the solution is, and my response to the question of solutions are, we are doomed. first of all, i am in my 70's and this situation has been around for all of my adult life. it is just now we are getting serious about it. when it first came up, there was a theory about global cooling. that was attributable to a particular matter in the upper atmosphere blocking the rays of the sun. census have demonstrated that we are experiencing global warming and global cooling. even if we seriously address the problem of global warming by

reducing our carbon footprint, we will probably also reduce the particular matter in the upper atmosphere, thus exacerbating the problem of global warming by reducing global cooling. there is that. but the reason is if we're going to do anything serious about global warming, the american people will have to give up their cars. i do not see that happening. host: okay. next is a republican in arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. i kind of agree with that guy. when i was in school, they said we were going to be in an ice age. i do not see them considering the effect that the blacktops

have. when you cover over half an acre or so of earth's surface, you kill it. all day, it sits there and absorbs the heat and then it releases the heat. also, the effect of the heat that is coming from the center of the earth is affecting the surface of the earth. he dissipates according to the law. when you have this course of paving over the surface of the earth, you are really interfering between -- if you

can see what is below you 3,000 miles, it would be brighter and bigger. that very delicate balance is not just being destroyed by would put in the atmosphere, but even more about what we are doing to the surface of mother earth. we're destroying this planet like a bunch of parasites. we will have to change the color .f the roads host: are right. thank you. estella on twitter rights -- host: next is a call from new

york city. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to mention an essay. when somebody says it is too late, it was mentioned before that it is too late. human beings tend to think more of their themselves. the tallest mountains in the world -- when this information comes in, as they're gathering facts, i-- we figure out what is going on

and we hurt blowing them up into these -- alarms. michael clayton decided to spend a lot of money to look up about climate change. i do not know his whole background or anything. we should do as much as we can, but we are not calling to sacrifice jobs, stop driving cars. it will take a long time. that is my comment. host: thank you. robert january is on twitter. -- host: from the political world, one politician who is made up his mind is harry reid. he hosts a climate and energy

summit that is sponsored by the center for american progress, the progressive think tank here in d.c. is happening in vegas. here is the title of his speech. "time to stop acting like climate change deniers -- "washington journal >> doesn't -- [video clip] >> dozens of new report links extreme weather to climate change. not every flood or drought can be attributed to humans. scientists report that these extreme events are dozens of times more likely because of those changes. the seriousness of this problem is not lost on your average american. the large majority of people finally believe climate change is real and it is the cause of extreme weather. despite having overwhelming evidence in public opinion. -- those people who deny it

still exist. these people are not just on the other side of the debate, they are on the other side of reality. it is time for all of us, whether we are leaders in washington, members of the media, scientists, the academics, or utility industrial executives, to stastop acting like those who ignore the a crisis -- ignore the crisis. host: we're listening to the debate. here is jerry who sent us an e- mail -- host: back to facebook, where you can comment.

host: next is a call from mississippi. this is tim, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: hello? ok, there is no question that climate change is real. i believe that if you have been listening to the comments, it is the majority of the people disagreeing -- the republicans do not think science has real meaning at all.

if he think about what would happen if you released gas inside of a closed system, how that would change the temperature -- as the release all of this carbon waste into the closed system of the atmosphere, it has to build up and create a blanket, which increases the temperature. that is logic. if you look at what is going on in the world, all of the things that global warming climate change has predicted have happened during including the melting of the polar ice caps, the glaciers, and these huge storms that have begun to occur, like a dream of. the glacier in greenland, which does melt over the summer, but usually takes the entire summer, melted in one day this year. the glacier on top of mount kilimanjaro will completely

disappeared. these things will change entirely as the way the world is and will lead to mass extinctions. these are the only choices that are left? they studied and said it this issue was not dealt with by 2013, it was too late. it is 2013 now. this issue is not being dealt with. by 2052, there will be 82 degree change in the u.s. temperature. some people think that means nothing, but it means a foot rising in the ocean's levels. if you rise to levels of foot, you missed up the entire seacoast. this is the end of the world. nobody is doing anything about it. thank you. host: thank you. the national center for

atmospheric research -- these are annual precipitation levels for 2050. here is the u.s. the darker the color, the less rain. you are able to see what they predict the u.s. will look like annually in precipitation levels in 30 years. we are talking about the extreme weather and your thoughts on the causes of that. janice fromis colorado. good morning. caller: i tend to believe that most of this is cyclical. i am 58. this has come around and got around.

we will never be able to get other countries to go along with all of the things that we are trying to do. cutting down on emissions can not heard anything. 30 years ago, we had a car that got 32 miles to the gallon, had plenty of room for our families. we went everywhere in it. all of these low mileage cars that they are coming out with now do not get that kind of mileage. i cannot imagine what they have been doing for the last 30 years by not improving them and getting them much more efficient than they are right now. host: thank you. next up is joe calling us from atlanta. hello. caller: this is bogus.

i am certified by georgia clean air. we had five gas analyzers -- you can measure them ppm's of co2 and what they are saying is not there. co2 weighs 1.5 tons more than ever. ruxton not float. they do not tell you how much co2 is used to produce oxygen. mostly people are invested in the chicago climatic change. i would tell you -- if i was going to make that much money -- i do not understand why

they say this. look at plant life. they taken co2. the pores are in a small amount on the plans. -- they are in large amounts. they do not get enough co2. they're not getting enough. i got out and walked on that stuff. host: thank you. we are going to make in stories about other topics. let me start with this -- part ofreddie mac post say profit.

host: next up on the weather, our call is dorothy from ohio. caller: good morning. i am 70-years-old. we have seen up and down and good and bad ever since i can remember. i wanted to say that i read a book not too long ago that said

the temperature changes were caused by a solar spheres and the change in the tilt of the earth. i do not see what we can do about that. i do not object to us doing as much as we can to keep our planet clean and treat us well, but other than that, there is nothing you can do. host: thank you b. chicago, and illinois is next. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i love this commentary going on. in the earth that i have been taking care of for nine years, i see so much change in the trees, the leaves, yes. mother nature has bumped up against us humans and we have a lot to do with regular

pollution. thank you for letting me talk to you. host: thank you. minneapolis is next. richard is a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. buy gaf shingles -- they reflect sunlight and they will make your roof about 20 degrees cooler with all of these dark colored shingles. do we really want to ruin our economy by passing all of these regulations? extending any kind of cap or tax -- host: thank you. next up is man -- montana. you are on the air.

we are listening. good morning. caller: i definitely want to comment on global warming. when the icebergs start to melt, they have found pools of water. they heat up and it makes the ice melt quicker. my solution would be to my now the water, take the pools out. my biggest concern is the ph level in the ocean changing. all these other countries are fighting over water. it would be a way to -- we should ship the water over to foreign countries.

then it will not melt into the salt water. host: thank you. robert is on twitter -- host: he is talking about historical cycles. this is related to fannie and freddie mae. "wall street journal" front page. host: front page of "the wall street journal." also this from "the wall street times" --

this is been wolfgang. host: we are talking about the extreme weather and your thoughts about its cause. next is from georgia. this is frank. caller: good morning. i think it is the sign of the times. god speaks of the times coming. people should start opening of the bible and start reading some of the things mentioned there.

this thing will come. hopefully, we can all get together and get a little closer. host: thank you b. sarah is a republican. good morning. caller: hello. i just wanted to make a couple of comments. tesla invented green energy and when jpmorgan financed the national electric grid in the u.s. and they saw what he had invented between the bankers, government, and the industry leaders, they made sure that energy was never made available to the public. former defense minister talks about free energy. they have it. it is available. it is not being made available to the public. every person could be energy

independent if they could allow free energy to make it to the masses. if you do that, you lose jobs and you lose the industry. it is not right that we have to pay for these things. it is a crime against humanity and the planet by sacrificing the health of the planet for the sake of profits. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: on twitter -- host: a couple of more items from the news. this is from "the washington post" --

host: here is "the new york times" --

host: we're talking about climate change. we are just about out of time so let me tell you what is coming up next. we have a number of guests coming up. later on, we will speak with gerry connolly and "mother jones"magazine. nextel is -- next is stephen moore. we will talk about congress and its last measures.

>> the political parties are holding their platform hearings. democrats are voting on the final platform recommendations in detroit. republican start their platform process at their camp a convention site mid-month. the complete coverage of their party coverage begins monday, august 27, with live coverage of the republican national

convention. and the democratic national convention live from north carolina starting monday, september 3. >> sunday, look for our interview with andrew nagorski. >> i had no idea about my predecessors. despite all the times i had spent in germany, i had not thought about what it would have been like to have been a correspondent in the 20's int 30's. how would you have operated? what would you have noticed? much was, how would you attack it? >> sunday at 8:00 p.m. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are pleased to have our first guest. here is stephen moore. he has just told me he wrote the

lead editorial this morning. we will get this later. this is a chart from the committee for responsible federal budget. just so our camera folks can get a sense, this is the fiscal impact of policies that expire or activate in or after 2012. it is essentially a gathering of all of those things that people refer to as -- when i read your piece, that takeaway was congress might as well stay out of session because they cannot find any that forward. guest: it is hard to see how there will be any decisions on some of these issues before the election, but i doubt it. the big ones that matter to me or whether we will diffuse the tax time bomb, where they all go up on january 1. i think it would be a disaster for the economy if we let that happen. the other one that we have expressed concern about is

whether the defense department and our military can take those deep cuts that would be invoked by the sequester process. those are the two issues that matter to me the most. i would like to see this resolved before the election, but i doubt it. there is a chance that the economy does not improve because the numbers have been pretty lousy. if we get another month of bad economic news, they might say it does not make sense to have these taxes raised next year. host: the next time we will talk with gerry connolly -- he broke ranks and actually voted to extend the bush tax cuts for one year. will you explain really -- make your argument for why those tax cuts should be extended. what do they do for the economy? host: we are talking a lot the

capital gains tax, the dividend tax, and the small business tax. they would all go up on january 2. the president says there are rich people and they can afford it. the argument against the is it makes no sense to raise capital gains taxes. every time we have cut it, we have gotten more revenue. one of the weaknesses of the economy right now is that businesses are not investing. it makes no sense to be raising taxes on investment, which is what the capital gains and dividend taxes are. the income tax rates -- the dividend tax would go up to 15% to 44%. there is a tax on investment that would be in addition to the expiration of the bush tax cuts. that is a big increase in the

tax rate. on the individual tax rates, those people at the top who would pay those higher rates, 35% to 45%, with the joint tax committee said a couple of weeks ago is that over half of that income comes from small businesses. this is not a good time to be raising taxes on employers if we want more jobs. host: your second item was the sequestration. here is a quick handicap about some of the major provisions of the sequestration. can we get in close? 2% reduction to medicare providers, which has $5 billion. other mandatory reductions, $5 billion. 10% reduction in defense spending. eight% reduction in -- 8% reduction in on discretionary

spending. ok. is your concern that -- guest: i believe that given the size of our massive deficit, every agency of government will have to take a cut. there is no question. we cannot afford to spend all of the money we have been spending we are borrowing $one trillion year after year. is this being done in a way that makes sense? i am not a military expert. that is not my area of expertise, but leon panetta is and many of president obama's national security advisers understand what we need for our national security. they are saying this is a disaster for our troops in and our ability to protect ourselves. i think those cuts are very substantial. the military takes almost half

of the cuts in the budget next year. i do not think that is a wise way to cut the budget. i think there is waste in the military in the pentagon and we should we get out and save money because we have to do that in every agency of government. host: you have seen the statistics that the u.s. spends more. is that accounted for by waste? is that the responsibility of the super powers? guest: i do listen to the security advisers of president bush and president obama who say this will really put strain on resources. one statistic i do know because i follow the numbers is that we are spending roughly 5% of our

gdp on military right now. go back to the early 1960's with john f. kennedy and we were spending 10% on national security. the big expansion of government that has happened over the last 20 or 30 years has not been because of the military. the main reason the budget is exploded has been these entitlement programs like medicare and medicaid. interestingly enough, under the sequester process, they do not take any cuts at all. that is a big component of the budget. host: we found this chart published just a couple of weeks ago. the source is the oecd. it looks set total tax revenue as the share of gdp. u.s. is the lowest by far and has been declining in the last decade.

what is the appropriate level of taxation? guest: it is true that europe has higher taxes. that did not turn out so well. the last thing we want to do is emulate european-style taxes. president obama would like us to have european levels of taxes and i think if we did, we would see a faster decline in the economy. i do believe that we need higher tax revenues to balance this budget. there is no question about that. i think this is a difference in philosophy between some of the economists in the obama administration. i believe the way we could get revenues in is the way that ronald reagan did by growing the economy and incentivizing work and risk taking and business creation to create a bigger pool of money. lot

during this recession andtse wht working and businesses are not making profits, there is not a lot to tax. host: jody on twitter wants to talk about tax rates -- guest: when tax rates go up, you stifle economic activity. the easiest way to explain if you tax something at 100%, you are not going to get anything done. when you reduce the tax rates, what you do is incentivize people to work harder and take risks. the lower the capital gains tax rate, the more likely people are to invest in new equipment. if you keep raising the tax rate, people will say it is not worth it because the government

takes a huge share of whatever i make. i am not suggesting that people are cheating but i am saying that high tax rates -- we are living in a global economy. we have a high corporate tax rate. we have a high tax rate on investment. if you do that, you will incentivize people not to invest in the u.s., but zero other low- tax countries. the best way to reach a we need to cut tax rates of people want to invest in the u.s.. host: our viewer asks -- host: front page of the business day section in "the new york times."

francois hollande is vowing to oppose a 75% -- guest: that is a big problem for these european countries. france, especially. france imposed a 75% tax rate. he will not have any millionaires left in france to tax. we see this in the u.s. we have high tax states. california has virtually the highest tax rate in the country.

losing its is l rich people. rich people and business owners are moving out of california. they are moving to places like texas, florida, tennessee, where there is no income tax at all. taxes do matter. they matter in terms of the overall level of activity and they also matter in terms of where activity happens. factories and jobs move to lower tax places, not higher. host: let us move to the presidential campaign and your editorial. your editorial really took up the entire page today. it is one of only two end of the headline is the romney hood fairy tale. he is referring to president obama's characterization using the robin hood metaphor to romney hood. ok, we have the advantage of

getting that cliff notes from you. guest: we say it is not true that mitt romney's plan is a huge tax cut for the rich and an increase for the middle class. it is not true. most direct it to not understand how the income tax system is screwed already. -- most americans do not understand how the income tax is so cute already. mitt romney wants to cut the tax rate by 20%. this is the hard part, but he wants to get rid of deductions and loopholes in the system. lower the rates, but make a

broader base. by doing so, you can add to e efficiency. we did that in 1986 in a bipartisan way. that is what mitt romney hopes to do. you raise the same amount of money, you make the economy more efficient. you reduce a lot of the barriers from the tax code. you leave the middle class better off. it is not true that the middle class would pay more under this tax plan. they would pay less. host: senate went through an exercise of the limit any loopholes. they were not successful. guest: that is true. every once in awhile, -- we did this in 1986. it was a miracle. we had all of the special interest groups -- washington, d.c. is infested with lobbyists. they want to protect their loopholes. it is difficult to take those out. sometimes, you can get around

it. president obama says he wants to do this. get rid of the loopholes. make it much simpler. no deductions at all. let us get the rates down very low. almost all economists agree that is much more efficient and simpler. host: the impediments are what? guest: lobbyists. special interest groups. housing in to do want to keep the mortgage deduction. -- housing groups want to keep the mortgage debt chin. the wind industry wants to keep the deduction for green energy. if you want to wipe out the lobbyists in this town and create a fairer system for everyone, a move to something like a flat tax. host: on twitter -- guest: i have always favored something like -- remember

guest: if you ask me what single thing we can do to make this economy grow, i would say is simple flat rate tax would be enormously productive for this country. that you could do at a rate somewhere around 18% or 19%. host: let's take a call from new orleans. good morning. caller: i have a few questions and bank the right wing republican entrenchment as bell lowest approval rating. tax cuts do not stimulate the economy been in the economy is stimulated from the bottom up. there are no jobs. this did not work under the bush and reagan administration as a model. mitt romney wants to give to the

rich. we also want to look at mitt romney's taxes. why is he not disclosing his income tax records? guest: i am going to avoid the issue because this is something people have their own opinion on. use said that tax rate deductions did not work in the 1980's. i think that is wrong. we had an incredible expansion of the u.s. economy and the 1980's. i wrote a piece in "the wall street journal" not too long ago. the state of reagan's presidency, the economy was growing three times faster than under president obama. the unemployment rate was falling. we did not have 3.5 years of

over 8% unemployment. this woman mentioned the fact that we had these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. the% of taxes paid by millionaires and billionaires increased. the best way to get tax revenues out of rich people is to cut their tax rate and expand their businesses. host: this is a tweet from someone on twitter. guest: that was in what year? 2010. since 2007, the percentage of it in come to the top 1% has fallen.

a lot of viewers will be surprised about this. the richest 1% paid 40% of the income tax. i think one of the problems of our tax system is it is too heavily reliant on 1% or 2% of taxpayers. i want more rich people. i want a tax system that creates more rich people. we want a tax system that tries to make poor people rich. i think we have a miserable recovery. we are not creating enough jobs. under president obama, the average median income family has lost over $4,000. we should expect more. we probably need a change in policies that work for the middle-class. host: the next call is from aurora, colorado.

caller: taxes are absolutely incentivized to certain things. i make less than $40,000 a year and my tax rate is 30%. investors do not do that kind of work. we are incentivizing people who do not do the footwork in this country by more than half. i think we should either reduce my tax rate to 15% or put that capital gains tax right back up where it was before reagan back up to 30%. as far as the expansion of government do to medicare, the expansion of government is due to the cost of health care in the united states'. medicare is one of the more

economical methods in the united states. they offer a full 100% health care coverage at half the cost of the health care industry in other countries. host: i am going to stop you right there. guest: good news for this caller. you are going to get a 20% tax cut if mitt romney is elected and he is able to pass his tax plan. your tax plan will go down by 20% under mitt romney. you will pay closer to 24% under mitt romney. the employers of this country, the people investing in the plants, equipment, and computers -- let's tax that at a

higher rate. i think that is going to lead to less investment by business and fewer jobs. i think tax on capital gains should be 0. i want a very low rate of tax on investment because i was more of it some more jobs come to this great country of ours and do not get outsourced to other countries. host: one thing congress agreed to was not to extend the roll back on social security taxes. in fact, all people who collect a paycheck are going to have a small increase in their taxes. guest: another thing they agreed to -- some people were worried about a possible government shutdown. it looks like congress has reached an agreement with the

president so we are not going to face a shutdown in october. host: sequestration was a hammer in tended to be so draconian that it would force congress to move. it is now working. why not? guest: the super committee -- the idea was to come up with a plan to try to cut $2 trillion or $3 trillion out of the deficit over the next 10 years. we are going to grow another $10 trillion in the next 10 years under obama. republicans are willing to raise tax revenues by growing the economy but we are not going to raise tax rates. they could not come to an agreement. that is why this election is so important. these decisions about how we bring down debt -- those

decisions are going to be decided by the election. president obama says we can balance the budget by taxing rich people. i think we need to cut government spending and growth economy faster the way reagan did it in the 1980's. host: ron in colorado asks -- guest: that is a really good point. i agree with the premise of that question. i actually believe this writer has a good point. i think we have a shot in 2013 for blowing up the tax system completely and starting over. think about all the issues we have to deal with. the tax code is a train wreck in 2013.

28 million americans would be hit by the alternative minimum tax. nobody knows what the estate tax will be next year. personal income tax rates. the whole system is a mess. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. i believe we should start completely over again. i think republicans and democrats could come up with in much saner tax code that creates more jobs. host: this is james, a republican. caller: i have a couple comments and questions for you. myself, a middle-class american, i have had to take deductions in my pay, losing personal days, vacation days, and getting cut back on my hours because the economy is going downhill.

congress anding why the president have not taken a substantial amount of deductions in their pay, vacation time, and stuff like that. guest: i ask myself that. maybe congress should take a pay cut. the average family has lost $4,000 in income. president obama did not create the recession, but he certainly has not made things much better. the main thing we need to do is get congress to do its job and balance this budget, get taxes down, fixed the tax system, and relieve the regulations that are holding back businesses. i am an optimist on the economy. if we were to do some of the things we are talking about, fix

the tax system, get the tax increases off the table, and there is a change in the regime, i think the economy is ready to boom. there is capital sitting on the sidelines that is afraid to be invested. investors are in a state of fear. they do not know what washington is going to do. if you eliminate that cloud of fear, i think we could see a 1980's or 1990's style of expansion where we get 400,000 or 500,000 jobs a month. host: here is a question off of twitter. guest: yes, reagan did raise taxes. the main effect was to lower tax rates across the board. when president reagan came into office, the top income-tax rate in the country was 70%.

when he left office, the highest was much lower. we have 1.1 million jobs created. -- we had 1.1 million jobs created. the payroll tax was raised. overall, the tax burden was lowered. host: this e-mail -- guest: there is some truth to that, susan. one thing i would say to that is we are borrowing a trillion dollars a year. how much do you want to borrow? the worry is at some point you hit a cliff or a tipping point. that is the lsson of europe.

europe had very low interest rates, too. you look at these countries like greece, spain, and portugal. their interest rates have gone way up. i think it is dangerous to say we have lower interest rates so we can continue to borrow and borrow and borrow. if you have a family -- if you have an enormous mortgage and enormous debt, you do not go out there and say the first thing we are going to do is borrow more money. host: here is an e-mail from juditha kin king. guest: it is not true we are

outsourcing to europe. europe is a basket case right now. where we are losing competitiveness is not with europe. we are more competitive with europe. we are losing competitiveness to asian countries central american countries that have been cutting their tax rates. asian countries have fairly low tax rates and are getting very competitive. my big issue right now -- i would hate to see an american company outsourced jobs to another country. we have to take competitiveness seriously and have a world class tax system that does not encourage companies to send jobs abroad. we had a huge amount of in sourcing that happened in the 1980's. that is what the want to see.

i want to see businesses say the best place to invest in the world is the usa. host: good morning. caller: i have several comments to make. first thing is abraham lincoln said you can not full all of the people all the time. the gig is up on this trickle- down economics. a huge tax going to the wealthiest and the working class just being obliterated. this is proved by check advance places that you see. we cannot work for a living and make a living working. and the cause of this, the cause

of all the money going straight to the top -- these people will buy refrigerators and cars and then they will be taxed on that, and then those people will be taxed on it all the way up the line. they will be taxed over and over again. we will have an infrastructure in the united states again. that is my comment. one other thing. the mortgage. you mentioned this. doing away with the mortgage tax deduction. it was put before the congress and the thing that was applied was let's do away with the second home mortgage reduction. but the republicans said, "oh, no.

" only the wealthiest of the wealthy will have these large deductions. we are taxed out down here and we are not making any money. have a chanceyou in the world. guest: i agree with a lot what the woman was saying. poor and middle-the class to do a lot better than bank they did not do well under george bush either. what is happening right now is not working. we probably have to change direction with this over spending and over borrowing. the problem i have with this class warfare is those are the

employers in this country. these are the people who signed the front end of the paycheck. they are not going to have the money to create the kinds of jobs that we want for this country. it is a very dangerous thing. i saw a movie the other night and there is a famous scene where bane is taking over gotham city and he says to people on the streets, "tear down the rich." they execute the rich people. that is not the way to make an economy function. we need employers and rich people. we need an opportunity for everyone in this country to get rich. americans do not hate rich people.

americans want to get rich and they do not want the government to take away half of their money once they do. host: your successor has a piece this morning published by "the daily news." here is what he writes -- guest: i do not agree with. we have a great opportunity right now to take -- to make some big compromises for how we will deal with this is entitlement crisis. we do not want to end up like greece or france. the bigger area is our tax reform. i think this tax system we have right now is just a disgrace to

the human race. it is one of the worst tax systems in the world. we can do much better and we can raise more money for the government in a much more efficient way with lower tax rates. this woman who just called had a good point. a lot of times republicans want to save these tax deductions. i do not agree with that at all. let's get their rates down as low as possible and get rid of all of the deductions. host: tom is an dependent. -- independent. caller: -- have mitt romney pay no taxes. he probably already does that. i am seeing tim cook saying he

cannot bring back the jobs because nobody could afford it. he makes $348 million last year. tax and 90% and he would still make $35 million -- tax 1090% and he would still make $35 million -- tax him 90% and he would still make $35 million. thank you. host: thank you. guest: i think our system of taxation is not competitive. there is too much of an incentive for businesses to move offshore. i like the idea of cutting our rates as low as possible. we did this on the president kennedy. this is what mitt romney wants to do.

i am not saying taxes are the only thing we have to deal with. we have been overspending problem and a debt problem. we are borrowing over $100 billion a month. i never thought i would see the day where we would be bar wing $1 trillion by year. i think we should start worrying about our kids. who is going to pay off this enormous debt? we are in current all of these enormous debts year to year and saving our kids and grandkids will pay for it. there is no fairness and that. host: also on outsourcing, this viewer on twitter. guest: i was in chicago last week and i was at a major engineering company.

they make parts for airplanes. it is an incredible company. the reason the united states is competitive is -- we have higher wages, but we have higher wages because the american worker is more productive. the reason is they have incredible kinds of capital investment and all these incredible instruments that make incredible products. the people who work there are very proud and they make a good salary. if we want to have a high-wage country, we have to have capital to work with. that requires capital. why would we want to tax capital more? we should want to tax capital less. to create very productive products at a very competitive

price. i believe the american worker can compete with a worker from india or compete with a worker from mexico or a worker from china as long as they have the skills and the training and the capital equipment they need to be productive. host: a dallas librarian writes -- do you think what is going on with the super wealthy is contributing to the super pac's this year? guest: we are probably going to have easily a billion dollars by the time this presidential race ends. we have a $4 trillion federal budget so we are fighting over big things. i do not have a problem with people spending money on this campaign. i think we need to alert more

people what is at stake. this is the most important election for this country since 1980. this is a really important election. this is an election about two very different visions about how to grow the economy. people can take sides, but they are bigger issues. host: next is modesto, calif ornia. caller: i am from california. they want to raise taxes here again. hello? guest: sorry to interrupt but you are right. caller: they want to raise taxes again. one question to start with is

why haven't all the states that have democratic of letters basically going in the toilet -- democratic governors basically going in the toilet? i think we should spend every penny we can to get rid of democrats. i would not hire a democrat if you paid me all of the money in the world. all they talk about is talking points. they are so irresponsible, it is ridiculous. i just do not get it. guest: i am glad this gentlemen called because california is a disaster. that he did this states that have a disaster right now are california and my home state of illinois. for a while they have been run by democrats and bank california wants to raise its income tax rate to 13%.

tell me why california is a catastrophe. california cannot pay its bills. it is now going bankrupt. they cannot pay their bills of. rich people and people with businesses are moving out of california. they are moving to texas. half of the new jobs in this country were in the state of texas. one of the advantages texas has is it does not have an income tax. high income taxes hurt and economy the best evidence of that is just by looking at the state's. host: we are running out of time. i will point this out to folks if they are interested. that old maxim about all what

matters when you are -- guest: i do not have a big problem with it except there is a big issue about fraud, whether people are voting fraudulently. host: for his part, ron paul -- discussions are continuing about how all -- the campaign realizes mr. paul cannot speak at the gathering because he is still technically a candidate for president. what do you think of the tea party folks and the paul-ites? guest: i will tell you a personal story. my son came home from college in june and had all the ron paul paraphernalia. ron paul is very popular with the youth. youth are very idealistic and

ron paul is an idealistic candidate. very limited government, lower taxes, and government is the problem and not the solution. your question is a very good one. will those very hard-core libertarian, very conservative, anti-big government republicans go out and support mitt romney in november? i do not know the answer but i think the reason they will support mitt romney and go out and vote is because anyone who believes in limited government knows that barack obama it is blasting the government to highs we have never seen before. he has totally unified the republicans in a way they have never been before. host: our last call for you from new jersey.

caller: good morning. with all due respect, i think you should be giving more respect to the people, and maybe you would have come up working three jobs and doing strenuous labor. apparently, their income is not appreciated quite as much than thsoe who invest. you were talking about reagan's time. i remember going home to my father and asking him who fica is. we have the best tax system that money can buy in this country. i am not complaining. i am making slightly over 250. i am paying 37%.

anybody who is able to hire a lobbyist or a lawyer pretty much pay nothing. you tell me how that is fair and how in an economy that is driven by consumers, the middle class, and they see their wages go down -- the people who employ them used to make 40% more than they were making. they are now making 400% more than they are making and being attacked minimally. where is the revenue going to come from? these people have lost 40% of their wealth since 2008. guest: there is a methodology out there is that the rich do not pay a lot of tax. the richest 1% pay 40% of the income tax. the top 25% pay 95%.

there are very few rich people who get away with paying nothing. if you want to solve that problem, lawyers and lobbyists getting around paying taxes, this is my point. let's go to a flat rate tax system with no loopholes. everybody should pay 18% and we should be done with it. i think that would raise more money. i do feel for the people who work two or three jobs. this is a lousy economy. we talked about this a little bit. i do not think that is fair to people working, to basically say people can get two years' worth of unemployment benefits or food stamps without working. host: that welfare story is captured in an article from one of the newspapers. we will hold that discussion for

our next guest because we are out of time with you. in just a few minutes, congressman gerald connolly. thank you so much. if you are interested, find "the wall street journal" this morning. we will be right back. > >> connecticut senator joe lieberman is criticizing the obama and mitt romney campaigns for engaging in record high negativity during this year's presidential race. mr. lieberman, former democrat, made his comments on the same day a political action committee debuted an advertisement that featured a steelworker linking bain capital's closure to the death of his wife to cancer. president obama campaigns today in colorado, while mitt romney

will be campaigning in iowa. more on the campaign from reince priebus. in an announcement, he released more names of the scheduled speakers. they are the florida attorney general, the florida first female attorney general, the texas republican senator nominee, the porter rican governor, the first republican elected governor of puerto rico since 1969, and finally wisconsin gov. scott walker. the rnc national convention begins august 27 in tampa. c-span will cover the conventions live gavel to gavel.

>> sunday, look for our interview. >> i had no idea about the experience from people who were my predecessors in berlin. despite all the time i spend in germany, i have not spent a lot of time thinking about what it would be like to be a correspondent there in the 1930's and 1940's. what would you have noticed or not noticed? >> sunday at 8:00 on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: meet gerald connolly. he is a member of the oversight and government reform committee. he is here for our next 45 minutes. we have been talking a lot about taxes. explained why you say the bush

tax cuts should be extended for one year. guest: that is not entirely fair question. i voted for the two democratic proposals first. when they both failed, the choice was we allow all bush tax cuts to expire or extend them for another year. my position has been consistent for two years. in 2010, i was the first democrat to call for a temporary extension of this tax cuts because of the state of the economy. we are still in a fragile place. we were only growing at 1.5%. one of the inconvenient truths about our economy is the top of% account for 30% of spending. if you are worried about the economy, this is not a time to take a chance.

what democrats have to understand is the last thing in the world we want to do -- the people who are most affecte and of the people we are trying to protect. they will experience great pain. we must avoid the chance of an economic contraction or another recession. that was my thinking forecasting that vote. host: how do you see it playing out? the tax debate. with a compromise be reached? well tax cuts be allowed to expire? -- will the tax cuts be allowed to expire customer guest: i would like to see us have a higher threshold than $250,000.

host: i always see that $250,000 number. that is for a dual income. guest: i think those numbers are too low. i do not think it is a good thing. i favored the million dollar threshold. 90 pelosi and chuck schumer and the senate -- nancy pelosi and chuck schumer have decided that number as a good threshold. i am hoping we can come up with a higher number that is more realistic and allow what is above to expire. long term, we cannot afford it. host: virginia has been targeted with the highest the fact of

sequestration going into effect because of alleged number of military jobs that would be affected. -- because of the high number of military jobs that would be affected. guest: sequestration is going to be addressed in one fashion or another. unfortunate, it is going to be kicked over the lame duck session. three prominent republican members have had a series of town hall meetings and swing states. bemoaning sequestration like it came from mars and was a proposal of the white house. it was the republicans in congress for the first time in history refused to allow a clean debt ceiling vote. never since 1917 have we ever conditioned a debt ceiling increase on anything. this time, the house republican majority and the senate insisted

on condition it on a big package of debt reduction. a noble goal but playing fire with the u.s. economy and our credit rating. we had our credit rating reduced as a result. they then create the super committee and also buried in the super committee legislatively sequestration. if the super committee did not do its work, automatically $1.20 trillion in cuts would go into effect january 1 of next year. that was a republican creation. host: didn't the white house support the idea? guest: that was the only way to get thprevent the tax increase. i was not going to risk the

creditworthiness of the united states of america. this was their creation. this was the crisis they created, and they are the ones who walked away from the super committee because of revenue was not on the table. it is in the bill bit much hearing these republican members of congress expressed their deep concern for sequestration one day are the ones who put us in this position. it is like the man who murders his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the court claiming he is an orphan. host: this story looks at how much we have increased our spending on military. from $294 billion to $716 billion. what is the right level of

spending in the military? guest: we face different threats. i think we are still in a period of reassessment with the end of the cold war. during the cold war, our enemy was clear and strategies to the terror that enemy were clear. -- to deter that enemy were clear. we now live in a much more gray matter world where many of the threats are murky. we are trying to fight the insurgents and terrorists who can use rather simple technology. that takes a different kind of military intelligence. you are seeing it in drone technology and use of technology to better penetrate those kinds of cells. we are still working through

what are the resources and what is the correct defense posture to deter those threats, some of which are not even known. host: gerald connolly has a master's degree from harvard university. he spent 10 years on the staff of the senate foreign relations committee. he served a total of 14 years in local government on the fairfax county virginia board. chairman of the board of supervisors of fairfax county. it is listed as among the very wealthiest counties in the united states and one of the most diverse with more than 100 languages in public schools. served in congress for two terms. let's go to phone calls. fred is a republican. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i was wondering if you could answer why in over three years the senate has not passed a budget? the republicans just sent over 30 different jobs bills and harry reid shoved them right under his desk. i beg you, sir, please stand up for us and work with the republicans to hammer out a jobs bill. can you stand up against the democrats who have a total power right now and take a stand question please, give us some jobs. guest: i have to a mildly observed that democrat with total power is news it to me. i see the republican power every day of the week. they control the agenda and the

process. i have not seen jobs bills coming out. we have had 197 bills and amendments to the disarray the environment. i think that is a challenge for the country. much of the leadership was going all the way back to teddy roosevelt. of the epa was created under richard nixon when he was president. there were prominent republicans who were pro-environment. i have not seen jobs bills. i have seen 33 attempts to repeal of the affordable care to basically excite the republican base but not a serious move for serious legislation or to reach across the aisle to work with democrats

in both the house and senate. about 30 jobs bills going to the senate and dying there i have to take issue with. the point you made about the budget -- in an ideal world, we would pass a budget every year. unfortunately, that has not happened. in the republican-controlled house, we have passed a budget which i would argue is one of the most radical document in american history. the first iteration essentially ended medicare as we know it. i think it reflects a very darwinian world. ryan ii, the budget we passed this year, it essentially cuts spending.

$5.70 trillion. what does it do with those savings? certainly it pays down the debt. no, it is used to finance $5 trillion of a new tax for the higher income tax bracket. that is terrible public policy. it is a reckless investment in america and in our future. it is something that i think represents a radical departure for the republican party and the congress and would represent a radical departure for this country if it ever would become a law. thank goodness that budget did not see the light of day in the senate. host: a viewer asks -- guest: it is a great question. i'd like to joke there is the gregorian calendar, the chinese

calendar, and then there is the congressional calendar. there is only eight more days from now until november 6. i favored canceling this august recess. a five-week recess. you asked about sequestration. if there is a crisis, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle -- why would you recess? we went out a day earlier than planned. we went out on thursday and not friday. i think there are a lot of political games being played to exploit unaddressed issues for partisan games at the expense of the country. at some point, all of us need to put the country's interest first. so, no, unfortunately i do not think we are going to have a very productive eight days.

it looks like we will be able to fund the government for six months. but that is pretty much it. i do not know if we are going to have a foreign bill. we are not going to pass any the of -- any of the appropriations bills. we are going to kick sequestration and the debt increase and tax deductions down the road. host: the next caller is from massachusetts. caller: good morning and thank you very much for your time this morning. i have to tell you how angry i am with all of you. you are saying it yourself. why are we waiting for the political and not doing what is right? do your job, guys. if i decided not to do my job for the next six months, i would be fired.

you all should be fired for not doing your jobs. this is the fault of elected officials who got us into this. do your job. thank you. guest: listen. i agree with you. i was one of the first to call for canceling the august recess and staying in session. this has been one of the most unproductive congresses in living memory. very few days in session, very few bills passed. a lot of political posturing. i certainly share your frustration. i would not agree that both parties are equally to blame. by the way, a new book written by two scholars, republican- leaning -- they wrote a book

called, "it is worse than it looks." they figure the other side of the aisle very clearly. the two parties are not the same. one of the two parties has pretty much gone in a very extreme direction at the congressional level and is hurting the country. host: of the voters in your state seemed to be pretty evenly split. guest: the president has maintained a lead in virginia all year long by three or four. . there is a new poll out today that shows a lead in virginia. the is absolutely competitive with virginia and i think he is likely to carry a virginia for a second time in a row and only

the second democrat to do so since lyndon johnson. that is an extraordinary development. i think virginia is going to be in the short list of everyone's concerns. i think we are going to receive a lot of attention from both candidates and outside groups. at the end of the day, i think president obama has an advantage. we have a very large number of federal employees. we are heavily defense-related but we do a lot of defense contract and in the northern part of the state. a lot of our rank and file military are very receptive to the president's message and see him as somebody who cares about them and their families and their security. i think he gets a lot of credit

for winding down the wars that he inherited. and virginia's economy is doing better than many other states. i think virginia has been a beneficiary of many of the economic policies of this administration with a took root in virginia. host: the latest skirmish between the two campaigns is over welfare reform. here is a headline. that is "the washington times." in "the new york times," i want " -- i want to show you a recent ad. >> requiring work for welfare. on july 12, president obama announced a plan to cut welfare reform by dropping work

requirements. you would not have to work or train for a job. welfare to work goes back to being plain old welfare. mitt romney will restore the work requirement because it works. host: can you explain the policy change that the administration made? guest: this ad cites president clinton. president clinton said it is a gross distortion of what is going on and not fair to the president of the white house. what is in question is to be able to help states with more time for implementation. the waivers are not intended to undermine the core of welfare to work and the ending of that kind of welfare program. no other source -- president

clinton himself says this romney campaign ad is false. host: last month's announcement by hhs would give states more leeway when it comes to financial assistance.

guest: that is absolutely a false charge. what i find so ironic is romney is a former governor of my home state, massachusetts. he does not like to be reminded he was the governor of massachusetts. every governor and every local officials want more flexibility to implement federal law. i spent 14 years in local government. the one size fits all, washington knows best, bureaucratic as driven formula that is imposed on you when circumstances change, not everybody is the same, we might have some ideas of our own that we would like to try out. and not risk the loss of revenue or punitive reaction by

the federal government. that is what is going on here. this administration is giving more flexibility and implementation. to argue that is a threat to the underlying premise of the law is absolutely false and is an enormous disturbance for governments trying to implement the law with some flexibility. host: next is wichita. caller: good morning. thank you for receiving my call. i just wanted to thank you. being a preacher here, i like truth. hearing you, i have heard more truce and clarity in the last few minutes you have been sitting here then i heard from the previous guest. we heard a caller from california with your last guest talking about he would not hire a person because they are

democrat. we heard a man who seemed to have all sorts of issues who was an independent. this is causing so much racial hatred. i went to say thank you and continue to tell the world what is going on. guest: vigorous debate is healthy for democracy. teddy roosevelt talked about fighting in the arena. we are fighting about world views and philosophies. we are even fighting about morality. at the end of the day, can we can see that we are both sincere in their views even though we are different? i think that is a fundamental thing. let's acknowledge our adversaries are as highly motivated as we are. i think that would go a long way in helping us we instill some

stability in our policies and get on with resolving it. some of the personal vendettas that have characterized our policies as of late are unhelpful and damaging to the democratic process. host: joe lieberman has made some news on cnn. here is the story. guest: i would say that most of what i have seen from both sides is positioning and exploring the weaknesses of each of the two presumptive nominee is. but i do not know it has crossed the boundary of horrible negativity. what i am worried about is the super pac's and the expenditures were frankly citizen united in

one of the worst decisions ever rendered by the supreme court that will transform politics in america if it is not curbed -- i am worried about that because they have recreated the wild west in politics. host: you have queued up our final guest who will join us on this program. story, one to buy an election? looking at the 40-year history of campaign finance reform, the cycles of reduce -- of abuse, attempts at reform. he will be our final guest today. on our wednesday "washington journal." here is an e-mail from a viewer who writes, "the president could have signed since and bowls but threw it out. he is responsible for sequestration." guest: simpson-bowles was not a piece of legislation. it had rules on how to vote for

it and the president recommended to congress for legislative action. unfortunately, they were not able to reach that consensus pretty could not reach that critical mass within the commission itself. that does not mean the framework suggested by simpson-bowles is not alive and not well. there are many republicans and democrats who have cited it as a very useful for more. certainly the idea of going big i favor. both republicans and democrats have signed a letter saying we should go big a market that number suggested by it. it does not mean that every single specific recommendation has to be embraced, but the framework, the concept of making a serious dent in our debt, in a balanced way. one of the key things about simpson-bowles is that it had a

balanced -- a balance between revenues and spending cuts. the idea that we will achieve it with simply spending cuts is absurd. the idea that it will crush our children and grandchildren, everything needs to be on the table -- with one exception, no revenue. that is akin to democrats saying that debt is crushing, it is inescapable, the single most pressing issue, endangers national security and our future way of life, competitiveness, therefore everything must be on the table -- with one exception, no spending cuts. neither is irresponsible position. both are in fact reckless positions. the democrats have not say in -- have not said that in the republicans have. it is an irresponsible thing to do. we take one oath, not two, and

that is to the constitution of the united states when we are sworn in. all of us need to remember that. host: mike miller has this addition to the welfare discussion. he writes on twitter -- guest: that is one of the other things going on here that is a rather cruel part of the romney critique. a lot of states facing still high unemployment have to adjust the requirements of welfare to work, taking account of the fact that the jobs are not always there. giving more flexibility rather than penalizing them for not reaching goals that are unattainable at this point in the economic recovery makes sense. i think the white house is to be applauded for that. i say that as somebody who was a regional leader here in washington and headed one of the largest local governments in america for five years.

we want more flexibility, and we want a partner in the white house as opposed to some stern paternalistic entity that is unbending even when reality changes on the ground. host: a virginian up next. richmond -- lewis, a republican, go ahead, please. caller: raising taxes causes your revenue to go down. we're talking about california vs. texas. republicans take revenue off the table, saying that is misleading. raising taxes, taking revenue off the table, that is an inverse relationship. you raise taxes, you lower revenue. causing a credit rate not to go down, our credit rate went down because we made that $2 trillion

increase that did not address the problem. guest: no, sir, that is not true. the bond rating in the house that lowered the debt rating specifically cited the debate in congress and the irresponsible rhetoric on the republican side that may be default would not be all that bad. some people actually embrace that. they actually cited that. the very fact that serious members of congress would entertain default was enough to shake their faith in the credit relief in the united states, for the first time since alexander hamilton. that is how reckless and dangerous that debate was. that is not true. let me just tell you, someone who was in local government for 14 years in the state of virginia, the largest government in the state of virginia. i represented one out of seven virginians. there were years we raise

taxes, years we lowered taxes. what you propound does not reflect reality. when we raised taxes, our economy did not go to hell in a handbasket. it recovered and we were able to take services. when the revenue went up to a certain point, we were able to lower taxes. at the federal level we have national responsibilities. it is not the same as a state or local reality. under bill clinton, we had higher tax rates. the highest tax rates was 39.6%, vs. 39 -- vs 39% and bush cut the tax rate. the economy had 10 and the best years in a post world war ii era. we created 25 million jobs, and we paid down the debt. we had four budget surpluses in a row. your previous guest was on "the wall street journal."

if you go back and look at 1999 through 2000, "the wall street journal" was read it hands over its economic performance because it was so good. there was the suggestion that we could pay off the debt for the first time since andrew jackson, and they were wringing their hands over what that would do to the bond market, treasuries, portfolios. the next eight years took care of that under republican economics. host: a viewer writes, "why not stop spending?" guest: again, the question is not just about stopping spending. there are investments we must make, a safety net we must protect. there are senior citizens that we made a promise to that we must keep. the idea that all spending is the same and the problem is we're just to profligate and we're just spending is simply not true. federal spending, as a percentage of growth, is a

little lower under obama then it had been before. however, as a percentage of gdp, spending is higher because of the economic reality. because of all the commitments made. you cited defense commitments. we had two wars and paid for. we had tax cuts, and paid for. -- unpaid for. those were all done during the bush years, all three of those. they turned a record surplus into a record deficit. so we cannot rewrite history here. we have to acknowledge policy decisions made that had policy decisions. and if we will balance the budget or pay down the debt in a significant way to get our fiscal house in order, there has to be a balance between some revenue sources and spending cuts. host: pastor, pennsylvania. john, you are on.

caller: good morning, c-span3 i have one question. everybody focuses on the debt that the federal government has and the deficit that it has. why don't we focus more on the trade deficit. there would be a more direct correlation to jobs with the trade deficit. we would create more jobs, and also if we could have a revenue side where we could have tariffs -- excuse me, i am a little nervous -- where we could have tariffs that would also maybe negate some of the money going out of the country through outsourcing because there would be a free door to come in with the outsourced product without paying a tax, and the american people would have a choice than to either buy the product or not. i think, me, personally, i am 63

years old. i saw the economy before free trade, i see it after, and i am sorry, these free trade agreements are always -- this is my opinion, and i will take your answer. guest: i thought your earlier point was why are we focusing more on the trade deficit rather than -- or certainly in addition to the debt of the united states. you make a really good point. president obama recognized that in calling for tripling u.s. exports -- the u.s. economy, unlike some other competitor economy, is very consumer spending driven. overwhelmingly, that is the base of our economy. you look at economies like china or japan, they are heavily export driven and export based. i think it is a wise policy of the president to say let's set a goal of tripling exports to try to improve that trade deficit

you refer to, john. and at the same time may be rebalance our economy so that we are more focused on producing goods and services for overseas markets and the resulting benefits for our economy that come with that. i think that is a worthwhile goal, and that's something we should do. with respect to trade agreements, not all trade agreements are the same. the united states has got a lot more sophisticated negotiating trade agreements to our advantage to create a level playing fields, to assist -- to insist that we are addressing labor laws, non-tariff barriers, and we're looking at environmental protections and laws in those countries before we just willy-nilly sign off on a free trade agreement that favors one party but not so much us. those days are over. the president deserves a lot of credit for actually delaying at

one point the creation of a free-trade agreement to make sure there was going to be open access to the caribbean market for u.s. goods and services, -- to the korean market for u.s. goods and services, especially automotive. host: while we are on american jobs and trade, let's show you the latest ad from obama, not the obama administration reelection campaign, but friends of, and a pac. >> i do not think mitt romney knows that people's lives really changed. >> when mitt romney closed the plant, i lost my health care and my family lost their health care. a short time after that, my wife became ill. i do not know how long she was sick, and i think maybe she did

not say anything because she knew we could not afford the insurance. one day she became ill and i took her up to the jackson county hospital and that is when they found the stage for cancer. there was nothing they could do for her. she passed away in 22 days. i do not think mitt romney realizes what he has done to anyone, and furthermore i do not think mitt romney is concerned. >> priorities usa action is responsible for the content of this advertisement. host: the theme is bain capital and mitt romney closing plants in the united states. i want to read to you -- "big mismatch exists today between house eeo's look at the world and how many american politicians and parents look at the world, and it may be preventing us from taking

education challenges as seriously as we must. for many politicians, outsourcing is a four-letter word because it involves jobs leaving here and going there. but for many ceo's, outsourcing is over. in today's seamlessly connecting world, there is no out and no in anymore. there is only the good, better, and best places to get work done, and if they do not tap into the best, their competition will. for politicians, it is about "made in america," but for ceo's, it is about "made in the world." guest: i think there are some myths about bain capital, and obama administration is doing right by highlighting them. what is the myth about being capital? it was to maximize profit. it was to squeeze profit out of entities in which they invested

at an enormous return. and in order to do that, they had to sell off pieces and close down factories, and cut jobs, they did that with abandon. that is the nature of that kind of equity capital enterprise. and that is how they made their living. it made mitt romney a very wealthy man. but let's not kid ourselves. the recidivist view of bain capital does not comport with reality. that is capitalism. it allows you to do it. what that ad shows is that there is a human cost of that, a real human cost to that, and do not come back and tell us now that you are a presidential candidate you know how to create jobs. that is not what you were doing. far from it.

host: how will you be spending the time off from congress? guest: i will be spending time with my family. host: thank you for being here this morning. we will be back with "mother jones" cover story on the history of campaign finance reform in the united states with our guest andy kroll. an update from c-span radio. >> productivity rose at an annual rate of 1.6% the second quarter after falling 0.5% in the first quarter, a smaller decline than first estimated. productivity is the amount of output per hour worked. rising productivity can slow job creation because it means companies are getting more from current work forces and do not need to add workers. the trend is typical during and after a recession.

credit reporting agency trans union says homeowners are making more timely mortgage payments. the company says from april to june, just over 5.5% of mortgage holders were behind on payments by at least 60 days. it was 5.78% the previous quarter. in more economic news from fannie mae, the company reports earnings of $2.2 billion from april through june. its second quarterly gain in net income since it was taken over by the government during the 2008 financial crisis. fannie mae has received $116 billion so far from the treasury department. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> sunday, look for our "q&a" interview with andrew nagurski -- andrew nagorski. >> i had no idea about the experiences of my predecessors. despite all the time i spend

injure name -- in germany, i had to think about what it would be like to be a correspondent in the 1920's an 1930's. what would you have noticed or not noticed, much less how would you have acted? >> andrew nagorski, sunday at 8:00 on a "q&a." host: on wednesday as we do a feature called "spotlight on magazine's." andrew -- andy kroll is with us to take your calls until the top of the hour. thank you for being here. you close with a quote from former senator russ feingold, engoldf the mccain-fine go campaign reform.

"the scandal could be the mother of all scandals." how is the table set for the mother of all scandals? guest: you have a record amount of money in washington around the election, and at the same time you have so many different ways it is coming into our elections, coming into the states, the presence of the race, whether it is the super pac, a nonprofit organization that does not disclose donors and operate under a veil of secrecy, whether it is the campaign itself, which has grown into such a huge size. they could raise $800 million each, which would break the record of president obama in 2008. there are so many ways vast sums of money are being injected into the political system, and it is the campaign at the local level to the presidential level. senator feingold believes this is a disaster, especially with little oversight, such little

disclosure, especially when we talk about independent groups that are affiliated with it. host: we had an interview recently justice antonin scalia, a supporter of the citizens united decision, and in defending it he made two points. first of all, the level of spending in this country is that the $2 billion to $4 billion range. we spend $22 billion in this country a year on cosmetics, so why do people say there is too much money in politics? guest: the sec in preparation for this election said there would be $11 million in spending -- $11 billion in spending, matching our cosmetics spending. we could see anywhere between $7 billion and $11 billion, a huge amount of money. this is the amount of money we

are running out advertisements on the internet, in battleground states. the money is being spent in so many different ways. it is also the matter -- the manner in which the way the money's being spent. it is the ways in which it is coming in. we have groups that do not disclose their donors and in some cases do not disclose their spending. the gps group, co-founded by karl rove. the sheer number itself is staggering because this line is accelerating more than it has in recent elections. at the same time, it is the matter in which the -- the manner in which this money is coming in. there is no accountability. host: we want to open our phone lines, also twitter and e-mail if you would like to be part of the conversation with andrew

kroll. you are welcome to dial in or send us a digital message and makes it into our discussion about the history of campaign finance reform over the past 40 years. you used a metaphor in this, something like "a stream through the grand canyon," that money will find its way through politics no matter what the manner." what is the right way to put a framework around it? guest: this is the central theme of my piece. limits on how much individuals can give, limits how much organizations, corporations can give. there are also limits on spending, limits on what kinds of outside things can come into

place. on the other side you have folks who say money should not be limited, money is speech, and if you limit speech it is unconstitutional, and we should have no limits and full disclosure. the candidate can take as much as he or she wants from whomever as long as we know where the money is coming from. this is the tension at the heart of it. the problem is, as i write in the peace, -- in the piece, it is always undermined by lawyers, operatives who know the system in and out. in 1996, the big issue was so- called soft money, unregulated, undisclosed, unlimited money going into the parties. until that mall got whacked. host: because there was a limit on how much parties could collect. guest: correct. that law got whacked with the campaign -- with a mccain-

feingold law. super pacs are a result of this, various nonprofit group, some may become the new weapon of choice. democrats and republicans -- in 2004, democrats dominated the outside money game. this time around it is republicans. so it is the cutting the -- how do you properly regulate the system in a way that it will not devise to another uncontrollable entity. this is the tension for the last four years if not longer. host: should there be any regulation, if there is not full disclosure? what is the consensus? guest: there is no consensus. if only there was pre one side says full disclosure, no limits, people can see this coming in. the other side says when you have unlimited money, you give

rise to corruption. as far back as teddy roosevelt, when the money in politics system in america was essentially the wild west, when you have unlimited money, the ability to influence a lawmaker, a candidate, to influence legislation is shaped is so much greater because there is no limit on one side saying i'm going to give you money, support you, and these are what my interests are. there is also -- the potential for corruption history shows is high when there are no limits. with a patchwork system we have now, just as many problems are created as possibly there would be if we did not have limits. host: on the exposure sites, digital technology allows things to be almost instantaneous.

explain to people what progress has been made and what kind of transparency there is in the way this country reports is the nation's. guest: it is scattershot, the disclosure system is. the time of the money coming in, how much is coming in, who is giving it. websites like the center for responsible politics, that kind of technology relies on having the disclosure in the first place, having transparency and the information. when we have these profit groups, dark money groups, as i just called them in my piece, in many cases we do not have the data, no matter what states their spending in, what candidates they are targeting -- there's a big part of the system that is black because the

disclosure is not there. there are no laws, no requirements for nonprofit organizations saying and tied -- running anti-obama add. but we do our best with the information we have. host: and your piece is dealing with federal elections, not even states? guest: that as such a patch work. in some states it is fantastic, in some states it is almost nonexistent. host: buffalo, roger, an independent. caller: good morning. andy, this whole dark money thing, you might as well put the election on ebay. the supreme court came through with this, it is mindboggling. it has gone underneath the radar. i talked about the presidential election, but think about what

the young lady just mentioned about state elections for county elections. especially in swing states. look what happened with the recall in wisconsin with walker that was flooded with ads from some group at a p.o. box in virginia in some place. it is scary, it really is. i would like to know just a little bit more about your view on the possibility of the full disclosure, because you cannot have it both ways. if you are going to spend all this money, private p.o. boxes and places spending money, trying to influence especially the swing states, people have the right to know where it is coming from. host: as he is answering, this is one of the -- a source from

the center of responsible politics. the green line is disclosure, the red line is no disclosure. you can see how those lines have been coming together. this is 1993 the current election. guest: there are several good points in there. in congress just this year, there were several attempts to shine a light on these nonprofit groups that operate out of a p.o. box or that are funded by shell corporations or what have you. it was called the disclose act. it was filibustered by the republican caucus by senator mitch mcconnell from kentucky twice. this bill was shot down, streamlined, tailored specifically to focus on these nonprofit organizations that are the big players in elections right now. we tried to avoid putting a burden on the nra, the sierra club, or longstanding nonprofits

but focus on the nonprofits gps or americans for prosperity. that film twice, and it is interesting that it did because the republican party -- that failed twice, and it is interesting that it did because the republican party -- supreme court justice antonin scalia recently did a tv interview in which he said the people deserve to know who is funding these elections. the public disclosure is incredibly popular in the public polls, and people believe it is a basic tenet of a democracy especially with people influencing how you vote. but there is just not the will to get it done in congress, and there will be more attempts to do it going forward, but for right now exposure is not important enough to certain members of the senate and house to get through and become a reality.

host: andy kroll, journalist from "mother jones." saxon, georgia, bill, and republican. caller: one of my main concerns is more along the lines of i guess you would say the actual content of the ads and the information that we see. so much of the stuff we see is half truths, information that is pulled out. it is not totally -- it is a statement where something is pulled out, and it is not alive but is not a complete truth. i am one of these people that, well, we southerners tend to like to hear the whole message, and we hear and and and it has a

statement, and it is a partial statement. i do not care for that very much. that turns me off, whether it is a republican or a democrat making that statement. but i am concerned, too, with the fact that we are going to go into a stage where we are going to be so bracketed or hit with so many -- well, commercials for the election period, that i think people are going to be turned off to the election. host: thank you, sir. guest: the first point about half truths and deceptions in campaign ads -- keep in mind that some of these ads, like the priorities u.s. actions, for mitt romney that we saw earlier here, they are run by party is not affiliated with the candidate directly. these do not say, "i am mitt

romney," or "i am barack obama and i approve this message." when i noticed is that some of the most deceptive, hard- hitting groups, the accountability is not there. you do not necessarily know who is running priorities usa action. even if you do, it is a relatively anonymous former press secretary in the obama white house. you can go back as far as the willie horton ads that attack michael dukakis. the most hard hit in one was run by an outside group. when you have money flowing into super pacs, nonprofits that are not part of a campaign -- the level of accountability is not there. the likelihood that they will run an ad that bans the truth or breaks the truth is much higher. host: here is another one.

outside spending by political meaning in millions. the dark grass here is liberal groups, and the lighter tan is conservative groups. spending by liberals was higher than by conservatives and outside groups in 2004, 2006. in the last few years, spending by conservatives is higher. what happened in 2004 that made the spending bill from this level to this level? guest: you saw the end of soft money, which was no longer in play. you had a group of operatives, democratic and republican, in washington, sit down and say how are we going to bring in big bucks, $5 billion, the $10 billion check. veryivthey turned to a

obscure part of the tax code, created organizations that could do just that. the media fund, swift boat veterans for truth. these were all independent groups organized not in a pack of some kind, there were organized by the irs. so you have one mole gets whacked, another one comes up. that metaphor is so perfect. democrats seized on this, led by harold eycks -- carol i experience they found donors in george soros, willing to pony up tens of millions of dollars because they really did not like george w. bush. harold ickes tells me a story of walking into a room, and all you would have to say is short w. bush and the checkbooks open up

and the donors want to give money to his outside group. democrats are very motivated, even though outside money was not that big of a factor. but now the opposite is true. if you walk into a group of conservative donors and say obamacare, the money comes out. it is that simple. it is about anti-incumbent anchor. to throw the bum out of the white house, so to speak. but it is very clear. all that changes is what kind of vehicle they are using. host: and the levels of money. based on your demonstration here. maverick on the order asks, "asked mr. kroll house secret or -- secret foreign or black money could infiltrate u.s. elections, as in your article." guest: again, it comes down to a lack of disclosure,

transparency. these nonprofit groups that we discussed can take money from foreigners just as any nonprofit can. it just cannot go to politics. that has been banned in the middle 1960's. but if they want to take $10 million from a chinese investor and use it to build a new office, use it to pay their employees, they can do that. as a former head of the irs tax- exempt division told me, the guy who used to oversee all these groups, a foreign business can also set up a formal corp. in delaware -- the red, white, send five orp. -- fiv $10 million into that, and it will funnel it to a nonprofit and we would not know. they would look at who gets that -- to the money comes from, but they do not necessarily dig

deeper. while a super pac cannot take for money because they see those owners -- june, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: i want to know how they keep people from stealing money from the super pacs that do not have to disclose anything. guest: the super pacs do disclose, so we have a fairly rigorous accounting of who gives them money and where it goes. in terms of the groups that do not disclose, on the non-profit side -- or what they call spooky packs, a nice moniker. they do not want to have money disappearing for whatever

reason. again, this brings into the issue of how big these organizations are, and frankly, as money disappears from them, we will not know about it because they do not have to tell us. the only person they tell is the irs, and that is private information. host: speaking of disclosure, james writes, "you have no right to know what political causes i support. none." guest: i think the supreme court would disagree. the supreme court believes that disclosure is integral to a functioning democracy and a campaign finance system. the supreme court says this, and there is a long history of saying that donations to organizations are a form of speech, and to participate in the democracy, you have to have, as justice antonin scalia put it, courage.

you have to have a body when you donate to an organization, you give your signature for a proposition. some people believe that it is who you give to that is a private matter. others believe that if you are going to participate and give money to an organization, trying to influence our election, you have to exhibit and accept the fact that your name is going to be out there. host: bloodwoods, california. mike, an independent. -- laguna woods, california. mike, an independent. caller: my choices in voting in the 1960's were lyndon johnson, mccarthy, and george wallace. right now because of campaign finance reform, so-called, whose objective was democracy, that

candidacy is impossible. so right now i faced two similar choices, two unreconstructed neocons, mitt romney and barack obama, both of whom continue to fall on our u.s. constitution -- to fault on our u.s. constitutional rights. i really have no choice but to go with the libertarian candidate. it strikes me that the campaign finance reform has lead to unintended consequences that has made democracy much worse than it was in 1968. a final point, that media person is exempted from campaign finance rowlock -- finance law. your position is much more powerful in terms of influencing election outcomes. may i have your comment, please? guest: 91st comment about

competition. you have kind of -- let me first comment about competition. the system that we have now can increase competition. you can have a super pac, for instance, swoop in, spend several million dollars in a house or senate race. you can have a super pac swoop in and support a candidate like newt gingrich and keep that candidate's campaign afloat, whether from taxing opponents, whether it is from running a slate in support of that. the system that we have now does not necessarily work to the detriment of getting people in. it can at times, but i think some of these groups exist only to bring new people into the fold. in the case of gingrich, keep someone's candidacy alive that maybe would not have been alive if he had not had this outside help. the other side of this, and this

might get at the point you were making -- in the process of an election, in the cost of winning and i election when it continues to rise, you do rule out a huge swaths of the population, 95%, who do not have the means personally or the kind of network to raise the amount of money to win an election. $1 million plus for a house race, $10 million for a senate race, to be successful, to have the kind of organization you need to win. that is a serious issue. both sides, democrats and republicans, believe it is a problem, because the bar of entry is so high that you have much of the population that cannot afford to get in and to run. to your second point about the media, obviously, the jobs that we have our huge responsibilities, and we have to do right by the public.

obviously there are those who do not do that or spin the truce just as much as some of these super pac television ads do. but the sec exempts the federal government. it is helpful reading i think the best -- the best are the journalists who are trying to do that every day. you have to look for those. host: an interesting story in "the new york times," here is my opportunity. it is about the president and his own news consumption and the critiques thereof. he is the first president with and ipad. he uses it often for news. "what former president w. -- george w. bush and his aides said day ignored the fourth estate, mr. obama is an avid

consumer of political news and commentary. but in his informal role as news media critic in chief, he developed a detailed critique -- critique of modern news coverage. as president, he believes the ins media has a role ban frustrating his ambitions to change the terms of the country's political discussion. publicly and privately, mr. obama has articulated what he sees as two overarching problems with the media -- focus on coverage -- coverage that focuses on political winners and losers rather than substance, and a false balance in which two opposing sides are given an equal rate with regard -- with no regard to facts." do you want to comment? guest: it is something that i see and struggle with every day.

on the one hand, twitter has incredible benefits, especially with breaking news, especially with seeing what people are out in the world saying and being able to absorb it in real time. but the flip side is that it has created this need for instant analysis, instant reaction. when you force an analysis of deep issues, whether the sequestration fight, tax policy, entitlement programs, when you jam these important issues into a news cycle that once something every few minutes, you obviously are going to simplify it, it will be brought down to winners and losers, and it will cheapen the base. i think the president is voicing the frustration that a not of it -- that not a lot of reporters would voice as well. not a lot of time to analyze and distill really complicated issues for the public that matter to them. the latest sound bite on the

campaign trail may not be the most consequential in the lives of most americans, but the reform of medicare, social security, cuts to the defense budget and welfare, those are things that do impact millions of americans. increasingly, they do not seem to get the kind of intensive focused necessary coverage they deserve in the place of manufactured outrage and other things that are not as important. host: for andy kroll, from citrus heights, california, randy, a republican. caller: good morning. i am having trouble seeing a problem here. i think that each party cries about this every election cycle depending upon which one is ahead in the game. unlike the previous caller, i would have no problem with full disclosure. i think they should just allow unlimited donations to a candidate, and full disclosure.

that is democracy to me. i tell you what, it is really frustrating as a taxpayer to see your government spending millions of your dollars to advertise the health care law when a lot of us do not like it. it is our money they're spending to try to sell it. it is good, it is great, it is super. so now some rich people are stepping in in our place because the middle class is a little tapped out right now. they are stepping in with their ney and saying these guys have been bashing us for the last 3.5 years, that we are the enemies in this country. we are going to try to get some regime change here, and it is policy driven. that is why people want to donate money. they see this as -- they see

that this is not working, they're saying no, and they want change. thank you. >> the idea of unlimited donations and full disclosure is very much supported by one side of this fight over how money should come into american politics. you are hardly alone in saying that. however, what critics of that idea would point out is that if donations are unlimited to political candidates, you could give unlimited amounts of money to mitt romney if you want, or barack obama, or whomever. the issue of ordinary people's voices being drowned out by the wealthy, a small percentage of the american population, is even more likely. the possibility of that is greater if there is no limit. there have been very -- reformers in different states and cities have tried to find

ways to amplify the voice of small donors, whether it is matching a 250 them -- a $250 million donation times 6, or times 8, as i believe they do in new york city. or publicly financing elections with taxpayer money instead of privately financing them as mitt romney and barack obama are doing now. ideas have been put out there, enacted to try to emphasize both donors' voices, and not just $1 million or $10 million. but that is what would happen with unlimited donations and full disclosure. the problem is, that is the mantra of the party for many years. now it is getting to the point where you can get unlimited money to a super pac and they are working on it for candidates. they do not want disclosure anymore either. that has led to quite a bit of hand-ringing because disclosure was always a part of this, and

now disclosure is d.o.a. in congress as well. it is a complicated issue. you are hardly the only person to put the idea forward, and it is the rallying cry of one side of this fight and has been for more than a century. host: is there an alternative for those living under the rules deciding what the rules are? guest: what do you mean? host: are there any other models out there for independent commissions in setting the rules and everybody else having to follow them? guest: the states are all different, but you do have ethics commission's, for instance. you do have stronger campaign boards, campaign committees commissions in different states that are kind of like the federal election commission here in washington, except the

federal election commission is just an enforcer and also an interpreter. it will take what congress does and interpret it. in some states you have commissions who actually set the rules. it is out of the hands of lawmakers, which, as you know and any more right-minded person would understand, there really is no discussion about that happening at the federal level. congress loves being able to write the rules of its own elections. there are models out there and models abroad as well, at which how campaigns are funded either residing in the hands of the federal government and not elected officials or their independent boards that try to find the most equitable way to fund an election and a way for candidates to run without the candidates themselves having the final say. host: next, from connecticut, mickey, s f.

-- mickey, a d. caller: i want to tell you about a story that happened a couple of days ago. my state park in westport got closed up because obama was coming over. they took over the whole park. they did not pay the kids any money. they sent them home, gave them the day off without pay. they 0 westport $15,000, and that is a democratic national convention that should be paying their bills. you are talking about campaign finance. when are they going to pay their bills to states and cities that take them over? why should we even have these people come over if they have to figure out how much money they have to pay for them? obama's campaign should be

paying for it, just like ronnie's campaign does. that is my concern. -- just like romney's campaign does. guest: there is a trend with current presidential candidates and previous republican candidates not paying their bill, everything from the golf cart rental company to bands that play at events, to is renting out a park or some sopa -- some sort of local revenue to have a campaign event. this is a bipartisan tradition. the fec does not have the ability to force a candidate to pay its bills. candidates will go multiple election cycles and still have unpaid bills. newt gingrich has bet, michele bachmann does as well. herman cain has some debt.

it is up to the campaign to make a good-faith effort to repave the vendors and take care of the places they go and people that they hire. but as we have seen, whether in westport or with these other candidates whose campaigns have been finished for months, paying their bills is consistently a problem. host: two viewers offering variations of the same theme. host: we will let that stand because we're almost out of time. we will take this call from philadelphia. ronald, an independent. caller: the analysis between the cosmetic and donation to the

elections, that is kind of off. 90% of the people might buy cause cosmetics -- might buy cosmetics, but how many dead people are donating to these groups and we do not even know? put it on a voting bloc and say yes or no. thank you and have a great day. guest: you make a good point about the percentage of people who do contribute, who do participate by giving $5, $10, $1,000 to a candidate. that is absolutely minuscule. it is in the single percentage points, how many people give a significant amount to the campaigns. more interestingly, when you look at who is funding super pacs, we know who those donors are and we can analyze that data. who is funding super pacs?

$47 account for 57% of super pac donations that we know of through the end of june. host: on both sides of the aisle. guest: exactly. and it is a tiny sliver. another way to think of it is 0.00035% of the population, a tiny part of our population, has coughed up more than 90% of donations, democrat and republican, through the end of june. there is a very small percentage of people participating. with super pacs, it is absolutely minuscule. it is the province of the very wealthy making these super pacs a force in this election. host: is there a discernible quid pro quo, i give what i get, or is it more philosophy based?

guest: it is both. you have some donors who believe the candidate stands for their belief system, and they want to see them in office. you see this a bit more on the democratic side, especially if it is a millionaire democrat giving to a democratic candidate or a super pac supporting a candidate. obviously the democrats are not running on a huge tax cuts, not running on the same kinds of policies that would help the very wealthy, whereas the -- there is more of a transactional the london. if you are a large donor. host: this is the cover story on "mother jones" magazine for july and august. "want to buy an election?" there is much more we did not talk about. there is more tread in this,

and we encourage you to find it. andrew kroll is the author. andy kroll, thank you for being here this morning. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern time, and we will see you then. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we have some live and stay on the c-span that works. coming up at 11:00, the center for security policy hosted a discussion on possible brotherhood of muslim influence. andrew mccarthy. here on c-span, we will be live at 12:30 easrn