richard fry. >> ♪ >> good morning, it's friday, august 10. we will talk with peter edelman about the welfare reform debate. judd gregg as well. and whether or not there is increasing economic segregation in america's neighborhoods. we will start with a focus on the election and the economy. on wednesday there was a front- page story asking the famous question from ronald reagan, "

are you better off today than four years ago?" we would like to ask that question of new this morning and how that will affect the vote in november. the numbers to call are on the screen. as always, you can send us a tweet. and you can post a question on facebook and send us your comments there. or send an e-mail. are you better off today than four years ago? a good friday morning to you. from the news this morning, the associated press story --

there's the front page story from wednesday in the wall .treet journal -- an economic policy reporter for the wall street journal is on the phone with us this morning. ronaldrken back to reagan's famous questioned from the 1980's where he asked that question of voters. let's watched the clip. [video clip] >> next tuesday all of you will go to the polls to stand in the polling place and make a decision. i think when you make that decision it might be good to ask

yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? is it easier to buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? is there less unemployment than there was four years ago? is america as respected throughout the world as it was? do you feel our security is as safe? and we are as strong as four years ago? if you answer all those questions, yes, then the choice is obvious to who you will vote for. if you don't think that the course we have been on the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then i suggest another choice you have. host: on the phone with us is damian. let me ask about the historical

averages and graphs. ronald reagan framed this as a personal question to individual voters. is this what people are processing this year as well? guest: i think so. it is a gut check? and we are at that point in the economic recovery where folks are almost back to where they started four years ago. maybe they have been doing a good job of taking care of their personal debt or companies have been able to tighten their belts and get back on firmer footing, but there's not been much progress beyond that. there's been a frustration with democrats and republicans on the pace of the recovery. a lot of folks are wondering could we be doing better or should we be thankful that the financial crisis was not worse than it was. in our conversations with voters, we heard a lot of people saying i am better off, i

still have my job, or the job market is falling a little, but we do have to make some tough choices at home or in our business, not eating as much or not buying the new car that we wanted. so it is uneven. host: let me run through the four graphs. let's at some historical perspective after we look at them. you looked at gdp --

when people looked at the numbers, what is the context they placed this presidency in ? guest: a lot of voters from both parties recognize the blunt trauma that the first year-and- a-half or two years that the country went through. the financial crisis really pushed the stock market down heavily. we were down below 7000 in the early part of 2009. now we are above 13,000. housing prices fell sharply. disposable income, when you have high unemployment, that takes a big toll on that as well. folks realize in the first two years, things were really hard and it was hard for businesses

and americans to regain their footing. what has complicated that is the recovery has been slow. we have had spurts of strong re- month or six-month periods, but they have been met with tough head winds. the recovery has been painful for a lot of americans. none of the president's you mentioned entered into a financial crisis like president obama did. the question is whether the recovery we have endorsed is the kind of thing we can build on and improve in the next few years or is it time to change course? host: how much culpability turns to congress? with the fiscal cliff and other urgent items pressing without much progress? guest: that is a huge question. i think the white house is counting on voters pinning some

of the blame on the congress. they are making the case. president obama is on the campaign trail saying congress needs to get its act together and he's doing the best pecan despite congress'. the question is, does the buck stops with him or will americans buy into the idea that congress has been obstructionist in getting things going? that will be a key decision. i think election could hinge on that, who they blame for the recovery. voters will probably start making up their minds very soon since there's not much time left. host: damian paletta has been talking to voters around the country trying to ascertain the answer to the question, are you better off than four years ago? we will hear what the c-span audience has to say on that same question. thanks for being with us. we want to get to your phone calls and show you some facebook comments. are you better off today? if so, where are you giving the

credit for that and how that will affect your vote? if not, same question. hope is a democrat in arkansas. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i am better off today than four years ago. thanks to obamacare, i have been able to start my own small business and have been able to go in to self employment. i feel much better about my economic future, thanks to obamacare. i will be voting for the president in november. host: next is a call from redford, michigan, lorraine is a republican. caller: i am not better off. food prices are going up and gas prices are going up. everything cannot keep

everythingup. the price of war and everything. reagan was not an excellent president, because mortgages were at 18%. the only people who did well during that time were those who had stocks and investments. mortgage rates up to 20% under ronald reagan. i don't know why they keep talking about that man as being wonderful when he was not the best economic person around. host: who will you vote for in november? caller: right now i am not decided about anything. host: showing you some headlines with conflicting views of this --

next is lancaster, pennsylvania, don, an independent. caller: yes, susan. you might want to show a graphic in september of 2008 when they came and told congress the world was about to collapse. just think of that time and how on certain things were,. the doom and, obama, even though he's no day at the beach, has done a reasonable job for changing that amount. that was four years ago. so i think we are better off.

i am better off and i think we are in general. host: citizen of the world on twitter asks, are we losing 800,000 jobs a month? next is westminster, california. leo, a democrat. caller: good morning. i am not worse off. i am retired, but we do have rentals. some of my renters are not doing quite so well. so it hurts me in return. one thing that i wanted to ask is you put you put the state and the person's first name, but could we possibly get the age of the callers? it would make it much more interesting.

the other thing that i would like to see if you could possibly do would be to get more shows on what is happening with these red states that are forcing the people out of voting by their requiring all this id and everything else. myself, i was born and home. if i had to get my id in maine, i would have a lot of trouble. host: thanks so much. we have done programs already on the voter identification statutes and we will again before election day. jim on twitter -- next is winston-salem, north

carolina. this is from jimmy, a republican. caller: hello. go ahead.ld you tu sir? jimmy, are you there? i apologize, we have to move on. albany, new york, charles, democrat. caller: i think this is a question for the individual. as a disabled veteran, i'm a lot better off now that we have a democratic president and he helped implement the correct changes to the va system to help veterans like myself. as a country, i am split down the middle, because we have people that the benefits that are not getting them. and you also have people taking

advantage of benefits that don't need them. i think this whole race thing that the media keeps talking puts us at a different axes as a country. last, i probably will vote for president obama again because i don't have a short memory. i remember the project romney was involved in, all the lawsuits that happened afterwards. i'm not a huge supporter of the right-wing. i do like some of their decisions, but i probably will vote for president obama. thanks for your time. host: canyon lake, texas. sylvan, a republican. caller: no one is better off than the democrats that stole the money from america, like obama, clinton, and all the rest of them that are filthy rich now. they lied to us all these years about america and bigotry and racism is rampant on every phone

line from the democrats. we keep hearing about romney and people like romney because they are rich. the rich are the ones who pay obama's salary. every one of these democrat cowards that are in congress that live every day about rich people, without them, they would be on a street corner. they are nothing but a bunch of cowards like obama. the truth is we hear females calling in about free contraceptives. those females should be fixed. host: we are letting you go. next, twitter -- and to the fiscal cliff --

next is a call from georgia, richard, an independent. caller: good. morning, good thanks for taking my call. we are in a poll economic meltdown. $16 trillion in debt and a deficit of $1.60 trillion per year. the administration and has not come up with a budget in four

years. unemployment at 8%. you could probably really double that. almost 50 million people on food stamps. welfare rolls are spreading. this obamacare health care plan is going to break, just about destroyed medi medicare. we are in big economic trouble. we need to make some changes in november. host: are you supporting governor romney? caller: well, he's not my favorite. we need someone who can really fix the problem. ron paul is the man for this country. but i probably will hold my nose and cover my eyes and vote for romney.

host: thank you, richard. from the baltimore sun this morning -- next is a call from bethlehem, pennsylvania, a democrat, phil. caller: of course i'm better off today. i don't have to be concerned about insurance companies cutting me off. host: the health care law is the best thing for you? caller: absolutely. i am a very old man. i remember the days when

workers used to beg to cut your grass or wash your car so they could get something to eat. for now we don't have to worry about insurance companies cutting us off because we get sick or something like that. and the donuts toll has been closed. we did not have coverage under the bush administration. now we have full coverage. thank you to obama. host: "usa today"has a story about the economy and private industry --

next is george in austin, texas. caller: thanks for taking my call and thanks for c-span. i am better off and i think it's due to the energy business here in texas. i think that the local and the state economy may have more influence on your personal income and finances. in this state we are benefiting from the oil and gas business that has taken off in this state. the one policy that has helped

us a great deal is the health care act, because we have a because whose coverage was extended until she was. 26 that helped us a great deal financially. host: given that, as a republican, who will you vote for? caller: it's going to be really difficult to vote for mitt romney, but we will see. i am kind of undecided right now, because it is hard to vote for mitt romney. but in the state of texas we had to cross party lines a lot of times to vote, because we elect our judges. our judges are elected, so nobody votes straight party tickets here. i am kind of undecided about romney. i will have to wait until we get closer to the election.

host: gary on twitter -- in an opinion piece in the wall street journal this morning, the virginia political analyst and a political analyst write --

next is a call from wyoming, hello to janis, an independent. caller: i am in an energy state. we're not suffering from unemployment like other states. but still obama is definitely anti-energy. he is trying to stop anything, especially coal and gas and oil. another thing, if we are so well off, why is it 1.5 million seniors are being foreclosed on their homes from reverse mortgages? we all cannot live on the government? somebody has to pay the bills. host: let's listen to president

obama making this case about the comparison to four years ago to voters. [video clip] >> we knew we had a lot of work to do. over the last three and a half years we have focused on righting the ship, making sure we did not slip into a depression, saving an automobile industry, creating 4.5 million new jobs, half a million new manufacturing jobs, getting health care done, helping young people go to college. we have been working to get us moving forward. [applause] as tough as things have been, and our job is not done yet, what we have learned over these three and a half years is that the crisis did not change who we are. it has not changed our character. it has not changed one is made us great.

it has not changed why we came together, what we believe in, why we feel such an urgency to get to work. host: your response to the question, are you better off than four years ago? john in northern virginia -- on twitter -- next is a call from concord, california, a democrat, elaine. caller: can you hear me? i want to say, if americans, whether you are democrats, republicans, independents, would actually be honest and be

truthful with yourself, there's no way that you could say you are not better off. when this man took office, you know this country was in a freefall. it was melting, going into a depression heavily. everybody with an ounce of understanding knows that. this country should have come together like it came together after 9/11. they should've put party aside and put this country back together. instead republicans decided to say to with this country, it's all about getting this black guy out of there. this country is doing much better. hiniers that sayener

food prices and gas prices are going up, he has no control over that. the drought is drying up the corn fields. republicans say there is no global warming. the guy from texas who said that his child is using health care, you will not been using it if you put your party first. those people that have said talking points, it's like they don't have a clue as to what is really going on in this country. it is really sad that you use talking points to say this man has not helped. congress is the one who should be voted out of office. host: thanks so much. a tweet --

carly in minnesota -- back to telephone calls. mclean, virginia, lucy, a republican. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i don't believe our country is better off. i certainly am not. i think president obama, the first two years it was as if he was doing everything he could to retard the recovery, instead of focusing on the economy, which was on life-support. it was a 1 trillion dollars

stimulus, the threat of cap-and- trade, the uncertainty of taxation involved with that. also, the taxation of obamacare. there are certain fairness issues that i would hope would be replaced. the problem with obamacare is it did nothing to reduce the cost of health care. nothing. 90% oft, it's one to be gdp in a few years. but the taxpayers will have to pay for it. i'm worried we will not have a country left to sustain all these entitlements. it is as if he has been casting a net to bring in more and more voters.

people would be less likely to give up benefits. host: let's turn to the opinion pages for some answers to this question --

that was the washington post. let's go back to calls. next is franklin, north carolina. hello, george, an independent. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i am not better off. i work construction. that's a no-brainer. ? are we better -- are we better off? it scares me to think of

dick cheney running the place. host: peers louisiana governor bobby jindal for mitt romney on the campaign trail talk about the four-year record. >> every american voters should think about this, are we as a country and as families better off than four years ago before he was elected president? absolutely not. use of the jobs report today. if you heard the president say he was gone to turn around the economy. 23 million unemployed or underemployed americans. the median family income gone down $4,000 under his leadership. the median family worth is at a two-decade low under his leadership. we cannot afford another four more years of president obama. yet he thinks the private sector is doing just fine. let's look at our facebook --

next is north carolina, ralph, a democrat. caller: good morning. four years ago i was working as a flatbed truck driver. we were getting a lot weresteel from china. the democratic administrations stopped that. now we are using american made steel. ford, but i did not want to see chrysler and general motors go under. a lot are saying this president has nothing to show for it economically, but he does. the people of louisiana with the oil spill and the major automobile companies up there, chrysler and gm, this man has done a lot. he has not been given credit and

they're not trying to work with him. what people fail to realize, if obama fails, the whole nation fails. i don't think the republicans care one way or the other. am i better off? yes, i am. host: another north carolina caller, up next, asheville, roy, a republican. caller: i was wondering if we are so much better off and all that, i want to go back and see how many foreclosures on houses there have been compared to when the republicans was in up to this date, to see which has had more? on top of that, people keep talking about republicans and all that. it's not republicans. they all need to work together. a lot of people want to play the

race card. i cannot see that he has done nothing. i am not better off. everything keeps going up. i don't understand it. anyone with common sense audible to see that. ask them if they know anybody was lost a house or anything and gas prices and all that and be honest. that's all. host: next, twitter -- let's turn to a few other stories in the newspapers this morning, from the detroit free press --

and the associated press reporting --

now back to phone calls. are you better off today than four years ago? deerfield, illinois, steve is an independent. i am a father and grandfather. i am much better off thinking about my children and grandchildren having health care for the rest of their lives, that no governmental agency or person can ever take away their health care. that makes me feel very, very good. that's basically what i want to say. host: next, it wanda, a democrat

in michigan. caller: hello, thanks for taking my call. i live in michigan. i was doing better than four years ago until a republican governor started taxing my pension, which is costing me $200 a month out of my pension. i am not old enough to get social security. i don't want to see republicans take that away. i also have a son that is in college. he's 22 and is allowed to stay on my insurance, which really helps me. what has stopped me from doing better is my republican governor in michigan. that's all i've got to say. thanks for taking my call. host: now this -- front page of the financial times --

next is a trenton, new jersey, tracy, a republican. caller: this morning. i am not really better off. pullingsee anyone else

us out of this. during the bush years we waste a lot of money in iraq with his buddies in construction contracts and drained our economy. i also think that president obama as an african-american is doing nothing on the surge of gang violence in the black community. he is acting like it does not exist. i don't think we are better off at this time. host: the newspapers are full of what we can call the vp states. in the washington post, they tell us --

finally, this, robert portman seen as having an edge --

lots of names still being bandied about as people wait to hear that announcement from mitt romney. are you better off today than four years ago? next in shreveport, indiana,. randy, and independence caller: your looking beautiful today. is a bigger coninda-- artist than obama. it does not matter who gets in there, they are both the same people. they jump out in front of cameras. but when they get behind closed doors, they're patting each other on the back on the job well done. ron paul is the only one who knows what's going on.

he's the only one telling the truth. the rest of them are blowing smoke. host: next is diane, a democrat in dublin, texas. caller: i am definitely better off. we have to remember that clinton balanced budget and george bush turned right around and gave us -- after clinton balanced the budget. countries like germany operating on over 40% of green power. you think of all these people making all this money off the oil and gas. they make money, make money, make money, and they never put any more money back into the system. in texas we have had over 80 earthquakes since they have been doing that fracking.

they are ruining the texas. the president has taken power and is trying to help the country. the republicans are doing nothing but fighting against him. they do nothing but try to get him out of office, when he belongs in office. host: let me get in john on twitter -- on facebook-- our last voice is teddy, a republican in hagerstown,

maryland. turn down the tv volume, please. caller: yes. i would like to make a comment. you check every state that is by republicans, the unemployment is below the national average and they are in good financial shape. any state that's run by a democrat is on the verge of bankruptcy. who do you want to vote for? democrats will give you a free stuff, but they can only do that for so long and the country will be like a third world country out. host: the conversation continues on twitter and on our facebook page if you would continue talking to others on our topic.

in july the obama administration announced a change to the welfare reform law that would affect states and their ability to have trial projects caused a firestorm. lots of criticism from romney and his supporters in new ads. peter edelman is director of the georgetown center of poverty and equality in public policy. he was abounded washington when the health care reform law was passed. he will tell us what he thinks about the obama administration's position. we will be right back. -- he was around in washington when the health care reform law was passed. ♪ ♪

>> i > >envy the drowsy -- i do not envy the drowsy harmony of the republican party. they. they squelch debate.co-- we welcome it. they are uniform. we are united. [applause] >> the choices this year are not just between two different personalities or between two political parties. they are between two different visions of the future. two fundamentally different ways of governing. their government of pessimism and fair and limits or our of hope, confidence, and growth. >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party conventions in 1984. this year, what's the republican

and democratic national conventions live on c-span, starting monday, august 27. >> this weekend -- >> there is a myth that its two guys in a dorm room, they cracked the code and you end up with facebook. and don't see it myspace others on the side of the road not having achieved success. >> the former bain capital partner looks at the free market economy, the causes of the 2008 recession, and explains how lower tax rates for leave to investment and economic growth, saturday night at 10:00 eastern, this weekend. >> "washington journal" continues. host: peter edelman has had a long career in public policy issues concerning anti-property in the u.s. and he's with us

this morning to talk about his own views on the decision by the obama administration on changes to the 96 welfare law. i want to show a couple of recent headlines about this. here's the national review -- you have had a chance to review secretary kathleen sebelius's directive in july. what is your view of what the administration is doing? guest: it is a very modest constructive steps, moves in the right direction. it is astonishing except this is washington and it is a political season, that the

republicans are focusing an attack on this. this is inventing something out of nothing. they are attacking positive steps that the obama administration took to help people get jobs, to allow the states to be more flexible in terms of the things they do to help people get jobs. governor romney is gutting welfare reform and is paying money for commercials to say now all you have to do is ask for your. your. that completely made up. host: when this law was passed, you were critical of its intent and you decided to leave the administration and go back to the private-sector in protest over the lot. did you agree with the work provision in the first place? guest: no, but i did strongly believe that the old welfare system aimed at families with dependent children was deeply

flawed and for the reason it was not helping people find jobs. the diagnosis on my part was the same as people on the conservative side and most people on the liberal and democratic side. i worked for robert kennedy in the 1960's. i wrote a speech for him in 1967 that said that the old welfare system was deeply flawed, bankrupt, because of the fact it did not help people get jobs. the problem is the 1996 law did not do that in a constructive way. it just ordered people to find work and it did a number of punitive things that essentially puts people off the welfare rolls. we saw the results of that in the current recession. host: let me look at some numbers from the census bureau and have you help us understand what happened. 1996, when the new law was signed into place.

here we looked and the number of people in poverty and the party rate. both of those until the recession began, those numbers went down. guest: that's right. the history of the welfare laws over the last 16 years comes in two stages, basically, maybe three. the last half of the 1990's were the hottest time and most successful time we have had in our economy since the late 1960's. what happened, because nobody knew this at the time the law was passed in 1996, jobs were available. and so, people do want to work. one of the fictitious things about the welfare is that it's a bunch of lazy people who don't want to work. women, largely the recipients of temporary assistance for needy families, want to support their

families. they want to support their children. starting in 1996 when the law was passed, jobs were available at. there was another thing, which is the earned income tax credits, which adds to the wage, the person gets an extra $5,000 plus, and that's an incentive to go to work. third, we did have too many people on welfare, 14 million people in that law passed. so it was important that people go to work, especially important then. there was a certain kick in the 1996 law that contributed to people going to work. we have had pretty good results until it 2000. 40% of the people who went off welfare during that four-year job anddid not find a d

ended up with nothing. ever since then, it's been going in the other direction. until the recession, the number of women working went down. it has not gone all the way down to where it was, but it went down steadily. then, in the recession, people could not get welfare at all. if you would think in a recession people would be able to get some help. there were able to get food stamps. the number of food stamps recipients went to 46 million now. welfare, they would go to the welfare office and it went from 3.9 million people to 4.4 million people. if we needed proof that this was a flawed policy -- because the states have no obligation to help anybody. host: let's listen to president clinton as he described what the

goals were for the welfare reform law. [video clip] >> in the last two years we made a good start on welfare reform. our administration gave two dozen states the right to cut through federal rules and regulations to reform their own welfare systems and to try to promote work and responsibilities over dependency. last year i introduced the most sweeping welfare reform plan ever presented by an administration. we have to make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life. we have to help those on welfare move to work as quickly as possible, to provide child care and teach them skills, if that's what they need, for up to two years. after that there ought to be a simple hard rule. go to work if you are able to work. host: i have a couple questions. the president emphasizes it's a

few dozen states experimenting with what works. is that the heart of what's happening now with the waivers expanded the law allows for states to continue to experiment? guest: first, back in 1996, before the law was passed, what president clinton is talking waiversis a number of labore were a good thing, to give the states more flexibility, but in a careful way. then the law passed. the law is really something else. it has essentially -- well, it has a lifetime time limit. it's very cut and dried. it leaves it completely to the state whether it will help people are not. in 26 states, fewer than 20% of children and poor families are getting help. it has largely disappeared in large parts of the country. 1600 people in the whole state getting help, moms and children,

it's less than 4% of the children in poor families in wyoming and. that is the sort of big story. what has happened is the obama administration has moved the vehicle of a -- has used the vehicle of a waiver. the state has to ask for it. not all states will get it. they have to show how they will increase results by 20% in the request that they make from the federal government for a waiver. that's a perfectly good idea and it moves in the right direction. you ask whether there's a legal question about. the republicans claim the statute does not allow this. republicans have two arguments. one of them is this awful campaign commercial that governor romney had the other day making the claim that makingguts the whole system --

that this guts the whole system. that's baloney. the obama administration is on sound ground. the under section 11-15 of overall social security act. i would be glad to be the lawyer for the government on that if somebody asks me. but that is not what people are arguing about in the political world. that is all kind of inside stuff. what they are arguing about is greatly exaggerated rhetoric and everything, whether this has somehow destroyed the whole work based system. the answer is it absolutely has not. what it has done is to push people in very modest ways to allow states to help people to get a better employment outcomes. you just cannot say somehow that

is gutting the system. it's making the system better. host: let's hear from one of those critics, newt gingrich. here's >> no waiver is legal. and the reason is he wanted to force the state level social service level brew croots to recognize this is a major shift back and they have an obligation to apply the work ethic to the poor. the president, president obama, has gone in and issued a proposed regulation of health and human services which waives something, which congress has said and president clinton signed you can't waive. that is a simple question. if they don't intend to waive the work requirement, why are they waiving the work requirement? they say you're leaping into conclusions. that's nonsense. it's very clear people who don't

believe in the work requirement are now trying to set the stage to waive the work requirement. host: your response? guest: this is just wrong. it's made up. it's silly. it's not the first time that mr. gingrich has spotted off on something and been totally wrong. this is all about promoting work. the work requirement is something people have to do while they're on welfare. some of them, what states find is they get in the way of helping people find a job in order to get off welfare. republican governance have been asking for this. we haven't had some kind of whole sale governors of any party to get under the work requirements.

that's why we have jobs when they were available in the 1990's, although it was the economy that was the main thing. so he's just wrong. it's not true. governor romney himself in 2005 was part of a group of governors that asked for more, flexibility on this. so former speaker gingrich is just whistling some kind of a tune. host: let's take some of your calls and your tweet and e-mails. new york city's up first. greg? caller: good morning, c-span, good morning to the world, not just america. it's a pleasure to listen to this man speak the truth on c-span and bring out the fact. i watched newt gingrich yesterday. what we have here is the tool that the republican party has been using since forever, create the idea that the only people on welfare are black people.

that's number one. and number two is they don't want to work. no, no, no, no. they don't want to work. that is another lie. the idea that robert kennedy, john lindsay and people like that and the city that i live in made available for all families to have things to do and opportunities whether it was school training, whether it was job training, it was opportunity. today, they want to take everything away from everybody. you guys were well intended but you're adding to the lie. so this gentleman here who speaks truth needs to come back again and hold these republicans accountable. stop using black people as the weapon to get into office. white folks need to realize when they came after world war ii, the houses they lived in was the government subsidized house. so we all need to stick together

as a unit and the last thing, hopefully, i'm still on the air, is when you ask the question are we better off four years? i bet you mitt romney was better off than he was four years ago. thank you. >> thank you. response for him? guest: well, of course, i agree with what he said and it is whether it's racial or not, it's really an attack on poor people. first of all, it's an unspoken assumption that are there millions and millions of people on welfare who just want to get their check and who are dependant. welfare barely exists anymore. it's ironic that this is the way poverty issues got into the presidential campaign by an attack from the right on welfare. we're down to one and a half million adults, moms in the

entire country who are on welfare and as i said before in half the states, less than 20% of children in poor families are getting help. you know that this recession, there are six million people in this country who only have food stamps because cash assistance isn't available anymore? their entire income, six million people, food stamps which give help at a third of the poverty line. so this is more than just overblown. this is an entirely made-up attack on a small policy that goes in the right direction to help people get jobs if jobs are available. and to me, it's reprehensible. host: gary, pennsylvania, laura. caller: i know you and your wife have been working on poverty issues for a long time. you're part of the public policy that goes into ending it.

so you're very well aware that the number one contributing factor to poverty, according to our own u.s. census bureau, which is not racist says that it's marriage that makes the difference, it drops the probability of child poverty by 82%. now, the young man who just called is right. there are more whites in numbers, trapped in poverty because there are more single-headed, female-headed households that are right. you left out that there is no father in that household. and i'm wanting to asking you -- ask you, in april, rush limbaugh had a comparison chart from a person in mississippi, a newspaper publisher and he said that a single mother with two kids that earns $3,625 will get $31,630 in help from the

government including federal income exemption, child care cost paid for. earned income can tax credit, food stamps, lunch programs. and medicaid, they get under a certain income. so they are rewarded and with subsidies and people making to, trying to be married and trying to pay for their own insurance only get $4,000. so it's what we subs subsidize that we get more of. guest: i don't know what he's adding up. perhaps in theory, you could add up every conceivably possible benefit but understand that people don't get these benefits in mississippi where she's talking about. fewer than 10% of poor children

are in families that receive cash assistance and if you do get it in mississippi, it pays at 11% of the poverty line. you have to be working to get the earned income tax credit. child care help. one in seven people who would cough for assistance for child care receive it. using. one in four people who would qualify for assistance actually get it. food stamps, yes. but food stanches which is enormously important are being helped and it's really the difference between horrible, horrible hunger and homelessness and everything else. but it's pretty small. that's one of those urban legends to say that somebody can get all of this help and

especially if they're unmarried versus married. the union income tax credit is available whether you're married or not. that's a whole fictional calculation that's been done and i can go through -- i have been gone through a lot of statistics of what people get. the other part is on marriage. i think it's better for people to be married than not for a lot of reasons. a lot of people -- but people ought to be able to make a choice. they ought to be able to live on one wage in this country and they can. and i had piece in the sunday times, "new york times," a week or so ago of going through these statistics. half of the jobs in this country pay less than $34,000 a year. a quarter of the jobs pay less than a poverty line for a family of four. i was trying to get across the fact that there's something

structurally wrong with the labor market. i get these e-mail from people who say don't you understand? this is all about terrible choices that people make. well, yes. some people do make terrible choices. some people do behavior irresponsiblely. i true. i heard president obama saying yesterday government can't help people who won't help themselves. i mean, assuming people aren't disabled. many women, maybe most women whether or not married right now would like to be. the vast majority of single moms are out there working.

but the fact is that if you're out there by yourself in this labor market, you ought to be able to earn enough to support a family and you just can't the way our labor market is structured. host: mr. bedelman has a new book out on this topic. it's called "so rich, so poor, why it's so hard to end poverty in america." next question for him is from athens, alabama. kirk is an independent. you're on. caller: i just like to concur -- host: are you there? caller: yes, ma'am. i want to concur what the new york caller said and agree that i really appreciate mr. bedelman for being the voice in this matter.

i just have a question. is welfare an entitlement? and if it's an entitlement, why is there requirement to work for it? isn't it an entitlement like medicaid and medicare and veterans benefits and such? and one other point. necessity could be considered as welfare and why do we subsidize billion dollar corporations and such when they have all these profits? that's my point. thank you. host: thank you, kirk. guest: well, i'll take the second point as semi-rhetorical question. good question. all the subsidies for people who are very well off that people get and why don't we use the welfare for that and question them more? this first question that he asked is really important one because welfare is not an

entitlement. and that's a very fundamental of this conversation. it used to be before 1996. it used to be the state could set the benefit level at any level they wanted so mississippi was still paying about 10% of the poverty line but if you walked into the we feel office, they had to help you. and the problem was -- well, the benefits were besides that. they didn't really help people and kind of give them a nudge to go and find a job if jobs were available. we're now down to 27% of children in poor families who are getting it. why? because it is not an entitlement

now, starting in 1996. if you go into the welfare office, they don't have to help. they have no obligation under federal law to help. and in state after state, they don't. they turn people away. that's why in wyoming, fewer than 4% of people in poor families are getting up because there's no obligation to help them. there was a legal obligation to help and food stamps proved to be a strong anti-recessionary tool. host: new story about food stamps in "the washington post." new steps to stop food stamps fraud. the agriculture department says it's going to impose tougher penalties on stores that violate food stamp rules and give states new tools to root out applicants who are ineligible for the food stamp program that covers one out of every seven americans the

move comes as congress struggles to pass a $100 billion a year bill that would fund food stamps and determine foreign policy. some 80% of the money in the farm and nutrition bill goes to the food stamp program. interesting statistic there. guest: yes. host: wild and wonderful on twitter. the societal problem with the old welfare was the disenfranchised recipient which placed them outside. do you agree? guest: effectively. because of the fact that it did allow people to stay on welfare for essentially indefinitely and some people did. there came to be even more of a sense of at least separateness, if not exclusion. and it's just very important that we do everything we can to include people in our society and include and have that be

economic inclusion as well as for the whole inclusion. when people have income, when they have a certain measure of material comfort, they do have the time to participate politically. they feel better for themselves. that's one of the reasons besides the sheer fact, if not suffering, that we have to end poverty in this country. let me say something about the agriculture department just so we're clear. the fraud rate are very low in food stamps. i don't want us to walk away this morning by believing there's some problem. there is not. host: it does say that. only 1% of total transactions. but since the program is to large, even 1% is a whole lot. guest: it's unacceptable. and same thing is true with medicaid fraud. there isn't much welfare fraud anymore because there isn't much welfare. but in any of these programs, you have to be vigilant.

we don't want -- although we better be putting people who are at the top who violate the law in jail too. if we went after some of the things that happened in the recession among financial institutions, that would be an important step toward equality in our society also. host: atlanta is up next. this is chris, a democrat there. you're on. caller: i've got a couple of comments and a question. my first comment is to the democrats. please help president obama. he has been attacked more than any other president by g.o.p. and the corporate media, cnn, fox, msnbc too, c-span, especially, all have been the g.o.p. -- chamber. c-span comes out every day. they're having the "wall street journal", and then they bring out a republican to scare people about the debt later on. this is all corporate media.

cort media are all against democrats. we haven't had democrats complaining in because this is the way we get our info and corporate media is the root to all evil. host: chris, wait. caller: hold on. host: no. you're going to make a charge against this. and i want to defend the fact. c-span is not part of corporate media. we are a non-profit organization. and in between our question, which had not only had "wall street journal" news reporters, not the editorial page which is conservative, we had "baltimore sun" and "washington post" stories that were supporting the president in this. we had a president obama clip as well as a clip from bobby gentle. so it's not fair. and in between the question on the debt, we had mr. edelman here. we are being fair in this discussion. go ahead with your next comment. caller: i totally disagree with you. of course you're going to

explain it. the cable industry own you guys. you've got to take direction from the cable industry. the cable industry is definitely in it for profits. so they have a conflict of interest with customers. customers are also voters. here's my other point. george bush gave china access total w.t.o. that's the world dwyane wade organization. he made china the most traded nation. so george bush outsourced all the jobs and now the g.o.p. has been oh, well, people aren't getting married and that's why they're on welfare. and it's their part. china aborts all its groups against abortion. george bush makes china the most favored nation. and george bush had the worst record of any eight-year president.

3.2 million jobs. president clinton, 22 million jobs. this is crazy republicans. welfare reforms. it is simply a small issue. we're all talking about how mitt romney, press secretary said if the guy was in indiana was in massachusetts, where romney put the massachusetts health care plan, his wife wouldn't have died. host: this is taking this in all different direction here this morning. but the central point is on jobs. and here is a question from twitter that echos that same thing. workers all well and fine, but where are the jobs for them to apply for? shouldn't we have those first? what's the central theme of that caller itself? guest: yes. the president did a terrific job at the beginning of this term and as the recession was in full swing in getting the recovery act passed, and it really kept

five, six million people out of poverty. it preserved a large number of jobs at the state and local level. one of the major things is holding us back now in recovery is the fact that the states and local governments are in such very, very tough shape. and we should have continued at the federal level and would have if president obama had been able to get some response from congress. they should have help from the federal government to preserve those jobs at the state and local level. congressman jan has a bill that is really important which is create a new deal type job and program for people who are out of work and want desperately to work and to earn money. and that should have been taken seriously but under the politics of the last two years, it's a non-starter. so number one is get this economy up to speed again and

that includes getting america back to work. but doing that in a way and this is my point. when we had occupy and we had 1% in the 99%, it was, it was our obligation and responsibility to be talking about the 99% all the way to the bottom. and talking about work and a decent income for everybody. host: from the other side of the aisle, here's someone who describes himself as right-ring radical can on twitter. who says if -- all this is enslaves american. i object. guest: this is so frustrating for me because here, i'm sitting here, telling you that welfare basically doesn't exist anymore in this country. barely over four million people

in some states, almost gone. you have 26 states were under 20% of children who live under low income families that are getting help. who is it that he's so upset about? it's some fictional group of people that don't exist anymore. if he want today, i wouldn't have ever taken and accepted that allegation in that forum but if he wanted to complain, the time was when we had 14 million people. now in the middle of a recession when people desperately need help, we're down to, you know, 1.5% of the american people who are getting cash since and it's so interesting. they -- assistance, and they turn out to be women and children. the people who are the most defenseless in society, especially the children, of course, who need the help. so we have people who have these -- have their minds all made up. doesn't matter what i say. doesn't matter what anybody say. their view is if somebody wants to help them, they should get

their own money. it's not right. host: george, republican from tampa. you're on, george. caller: my point is for mr. edelman, this is not a republican or democrat issue here. what i like to come across is we as the united states, we hand out money to all these people who are basically unemployed. why not just take the unemployment and make it so that -- and create jobs. in other words, you want a check? we will give you a job. and hey, whether it's sweeping the streets or whatever, and this will get these people to do something for themselves and, you know, bring up their morale as well because yeah, i could sit here and collect a check, but when the check is gone, i don't have to face the outside world as opposed to if you're creating these jobs with the money that's being given, it's

no longer a hand me down, it's creating jobs so that you can continue and possibly bring back jobs to the united states. and my last comment here is [unintelligible] i've tried calling her several times and they sent me a voter i.d. information card. i mean, who gives them the right to print out flags, the united states of america which is where we basically have left in this country to print it in just blue and not red, white and blue? guest: i'm very worried about the voter i.d., not our subject this morning. but the voter suppression that's gong on all around the country. but the caller is kind of half right. it's not about the morality of

the people. people work very hard. the majority of people who are poor, the majority of income that goes to people who are poor in this country, not elderly comes from work. they're trying very hard. yes, of course, there are always people in this society who you can point to who don't take responsibility. it's a big country. but the fundamental question here is our labor market, is right now, there are not enough jobs and even if we have enough jobs, too many low wages. i do agree with the caller that in a recession, in addition to the good things that we did do, and the good things, i applaud president obama for what he did in congress, supported him, we should have had a new deal kind of job creation program. we could still have that. and so he's right about that. i would say that you do that when you have a recession.

otherwise, we should be essentially getting people jobs that exist in the economy or exists in government the things that we need to have done. host: this question on twitter. this is what happened when states are left to control their own social program, just like revisiting the early 1970's and 1960's. is there a mandatory minimum of how much welfare benefits should be in the states? guest: there is none. it goes along with the caller's question about entitlement. there's never been, actually. old law, new law, going all the way back to 1935, there's never been any minimum benefit. and it's very interesting in terms of our ideas about deserving poor or undeserving poor, which you know, we really do have. the elderly are the deserving poor the disabled are the deserving poor. low wage workers are somewhat more deserving poor than people

whether or not working. all of that -- but in terms of the benefits that get paid to people who are in the safety net position, there is no minimum benefit. so if -- social security, that's deserving. so we have a national system. and food stamps we've made good decision to have the same benefits no matter where you live. it's a national definition. welfare, no. there's no minimum benefit. host: next call is from inglewood, new jersey. david, an independent. caller: your program is always excellent and you have very intelligent callers. if romney was really smart, he would have the first debate made up entirely of c-span hosts because you guys are very, very even-handed. so just a suggestion. but my point was mr. edelman is

he is so disingenuous it's just beyond compare. him and his wife have been talking the same stuff since the 1970's at least. his wife was vehemently against the work requirement. i mean, she just had a hissy fit about it. and yet, he sits up here and pretends like oh, well, this is just a small change. what really needs to happen is that advice he would give his own kids, liberals need to give to the so-called poor. and he would never give his kids the same advice that he sits up here with a straight face and talks about. he would tell them you better get a good education and the liberals are against school vouchers because they would never send their kids to these schools to the dropout factories so he's so isolated. he stays in the academic world. he occasionally jumps into

government. but they need to be part of some for-profit organizations. he needs to work in a law firm and understand what it means to guard him and try to make a profit. and i have one last thing to say and that is -- well, actually two quick points. host: marriage, he glosses over that. the black marriage rate used to be exceeding that of whites. because we have so many kids born out of wedlock, this is what destroys us. and i am a black man. guest: i want to just say don't say that any woman has a hissy fit, whether it's my wife or anybody else, that is unacceptable. it is such a gender-based think to say. look, we don't listen to each

other. i believe very strongly in work. my record goes to the 1960's, not just the 1970's, sir, and the same for my wife. our issues are about what is the right policy. it includes people taking responsibility for themselves. but we want people to work. that is what gives people a sense of accomplishment and dignity, the importance for the children to see there is work in the household. so let's get that straight. on marriage, the same point. for a lot of reasons it is much better for children. i want to be careful about this. on the whole, and in general, and when we are talking about a good man and a good woman, marriage is what makes the most sense.

that includes economics. two wage earners. a statement about really h how our economy works, that you have to have two wage earners to make ends meet. marriage is good for a lot of people. some people, for a lot of reasons, don't want to get married or are not in a position to get married. we need to not be so judgmental about all of its. host: let me understand a little more about the statutes. is the document from the u.s. department of health and human services. here is what the department writes --

twice its talks about marriage. how does it do this? guest: it did not, effectively, it did not. i want to be very clear with the last caller and in general. without casting aspersions on any individual, and this is an international problem. the number of children born to women who are not married is very high. it is highest in the african- american community. 70% of children are born to women who are not married. that's a serious problem. i agree with the collar about

that. -- c aller. s-- caller. one of my problems with the law is it was sort of empty in terms of the actuality that these things would be pursued. some states have done a good job, whether it's about promoting marriage -- host: how would you do that? guest: the bigger thing is about jobs, it really is. the language about two parents and marriage, the way you promotes marriage is fundamentally about economics. if we are talking about a woman deciding whether to get married to a guy, she wants to know that this is a man to marry. getting into the question of

how the criminal justice system operates, there is a pipeline, too many black men in prison in this country, a disproportionate number of black and latino men in prisons or jails. the result of kids growing up black or brown in areas of concentrated poverty in the city's, lousy schools, disconnection from society. some make it out and that's good, but not nearly enough. if we have boys and girls growing up who and get a good education and have life chances , who can get into the labor market, without discrimination, we will get more marriage. host: next is san diego, katrina, a democrat.

i think she hung up. , aet's move on to wisconsin republican. caller: good morning. i have a few points. this is a total joke about welfare. these people, the representative from milwaukee, gwen moore, she said she refused a 50 cent per hour raise when she was working, collecting welfare, because it would have moved her out of welfare, so she had to refuse it, and the state along with it. i find it disgusting people can get off welfare because they live better that way than if they take a raise. work,ou said there's no come to wisconsin. there's work at the shipyards in

northern wisconsin where they are building a defense for the navy. standing in milwaukee, a huge amount of unemployment down there. the plant that makes big shovels, all kinds of exports to improve the economy, they cannot get people to work either. host: we keep hearing that there's a disconnect between the number of available jobs and skills people have to fill them. guest: a couple things about that. first, as far as the benefits and what he calls a joke, it's not -- you have to understand the rational behavior of people. if somebody back in the day was on welfare -- and hardly anybody is any more -- it was the loss of medicaid, which was worth a

whole lot. now, under the new health care law, we are going to have medicaid for all low-income adults below 133% of property. we need to have the benefit system -- we are hearing about fiscal lives in washington -- that does not have the cliffs where you drop off and end up worse if you go to work. that is wrong public policy. so we need to talk about that were carefully. the question of work when we don't have a recession, it is certainly true that we find that jobs [unintelligible] there are pockets of that in the country, but it is anecdotal. the bigger question is how do we educate our young people and get them ready for the labor market of the 21st century. that is the bigger question,

because there will be jobs not killed over the next decade if we don't have a decent education system. you have to have some post secondary education. not necessarily a degree, but some kind of certificate of that prepares you for various jobs out there. there is a mismatch right now between skilled development that the offering to young people and jobs that are available. that is unacceptable. host: the last caller is an independent in new york city, beverly. caller: i have a few comments about welfare. i have known all lot of people who were on welfare. i know a lot of people who have been on welfare. i know that they wanted to go back to a job. i have a cousin who was poor for years, she became disabled, and she complained about getting welfare.

i said, if you are so embarrassed, do something about it. she went to nursing school. now she is a registered nurse and is doing just fine. the problem i have with the welfare system is that they need to have a shorter time where you have to go back and get recertified. if you have two children and you are getting food stamps, you come back with a third child, they should not increase your food stamps by $200, they give you an extra $50. young men don't want to get married. if your girlfriend is getting welfare, then you don't have to provide food for your children, because your girlfriend is on welfare providing for those children. so we have to look at the laws and tighten them a little, but not take away from the people who really need them. one more comment, in this country what we are doing is like you are against the president and you would rather

blow up a plane and killed 100 million people just to kill one person, just to get to one person. we need to stop that. we need to provide jobs for these people. .ost: that's our last caller her concern seems to be the incentives in welfare. guest: actually, the incentives are arranged that you are better off if you have a decent job. but the real point around the country is that this issue, which is a real important issue if there is a system that reaches most people in need, but right now the facts are not state after state consistent with what the caller said. it's very hard to get welfare.

in every state they pushed very hard. there's a. statutory they have made a lot of changes that. she's. i think that there are attitudes out there that we can find on the street here and there. there are things we need to work at within the communities in terms of people having the attitude that her cousin had, work hard and went and became an rn. i think that is how most people think. much of what we hear is not a statistical case but it is the facts in some instances. host: don't forget peter edelman has a book out that continues many of the themes we spoke about this morning. thank you for being our guest. guest: a pleasure. host: we will take a break and we will be back with former senator judd gregg. he is with us from new

hampshire. he's part of an organization called the campaign to fix the debt. we will be right back with him. >> the library of congress has a new exhibit called books that shape america. 88 books were selected by the library for their influence on america and american culture. here's a brief interview about the exhibit and how you can join in on an online chat about the library's list and what books you think should be included. >> we call it books that shaped america as opposed to some of the other works that changed america. we think books slowly have an impact on american society. so many books have had such a profound influence on american culture and society and the very essence of what america is. the earliest book is actually ben franklin's book on electricity. and thomas paine's book that

really sparked or shaped the american revolution. novels are a critical part of american culture. many of them identified who we were becoming or the aspirations we had as a nation. others told about experiences that we had uniquely as americans. we also thought it was very important to look at non-fiction and books that either were self- help or kind of broke barriers. many books were innovative, that kind of showed america as an innovative country that used books as stories to inspire, going to the frontier. that could be literally or intellectually. >> if you would like to participate in on-line discussion with the roberta shafer, assistant librarian, we would like to hear from you.

e-mail us. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from the studios in new hampshire is former new hampshire governor and former senator judd gregg, now the co-chair of the campaign to fix the debt. thanks for joining us. guest: susan, thanks for having me. host: i have heard the argument from some even in fiscal conservatives who suggest the state of the economy today could delay the need to address the debt for right now until we get the economy on track. do you disagree? guest: absolutely. that is a police statement, to be honest. the one thing that's holding the economy back is the uncertainty of the business community and entrepreneurs, the way they feel about the future. that uncertainty is due largely by the fact we are running a massive debts at the federal

level and we have a fiscal policy that out of control, the size of government borrowing from 20% of gdp in the last four years ago and now 28% of gdp. these numbers are not sustainable. we are headed into very serious fiscal waters and are on the road to bankruptcy. we have metrics not far off from the european metrics. people look at this and they are small business people and they don't dare invest. they don't make the extra effort to create extra jobs because they don't know what the outcome will be relative to the economy, due to this very dire fiscal road we are on. if we fix the long-term deficit and debt issues, you would see a real explosion of economic activity in this nation. we are very well positioned as a nation to see great economic growth. if we have really positive things going on in the private sector. for example, we will shift from being an energy importing nation

to an energy exporting nation probably within the next 10 years. energy costs will go down dramatically if we can use the natural gas we are finding. we are still developing cutting edge technology that will the world, such as things like facebook. in the new england area we are seeing a massive explosion in medical technology, especially biotechnology. we have a lot of good things going on in this nation. what is regarding our efforts is the overhanging fear about our long-term fiscal policy and the affected will have on the value of the dollar and our ability to borrow and our children's future and reduction in the standard of living. if you put in place a legitimate debt reduction plan, like simpson-bowles, and we would see real economic expansion. i think that is what is retarding the economy right now, concerned about the fiscal situation. host: let me go to the efforts that you are cochairing and show

people recognizable names involved with it. simpson-bowles are the founders of the fix that campaign. yourself along with former pennsylvania governor ed rendell. and the steering committee includes michael peterson, stephen ratner, and david cote. you also describe it as a movement. how do you hope to affect public policy if the simpson-bowles commission did not do such a good job in its efforts? guest: simpson-bowles did exactly what it was supposed to do. it produced the first and it continues to be the only viable bipartisan vehicle which dramatically reduces the debt and deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years. it was supported by very conservative members of the commission like myself and tom coburn and very liberal members of the commission like dick durbin and kent conrad.

it produced a package. unfortunately, the president walked away from that. what we have decided to do, and it's a very large group, the names you mentioned are just part of the group, it really involves a very significant number of people. also, all walks of life. we are interfacing with lots of members of the legislative branch, especially in the senate. if we will update simpson- bowles. it will be simpson-bowles plus. \ we want a blueprint. it is a viable brand. when folks mentioned simpson- bowles, a lot of heads will not and say why didn't you pass that? we will give them an opportunity to look at another package which we will work out in the context of bipartisanship in the context of a goal, that goal being to

reduce the debt and deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years and along the lines of what the original simpson-bowles proposal was, and updating things the biden group agreed on and things other groups. suggested simpson-bowles and i were invited to speak to members of the senate a couple weeks ago. 40 senators showed up. it was amazing. from both sides of the aisle. everybody stuck around for about an hour-and-a-half to talk about how we do this, how we put in place the procedure and then the actual policy to get significant defdebt and deficit improvements going for word. -- forard. i thinkhe election there will be fertile ground to get something big done.

we want to make sure there's blueprints to work off of if people want them. host: a tweet -- guest: 2 does not understand the debt limit. that's not unusual. -- she does not understand. i voted to increase the debt limit under bush and under clinton. both of them had to increase the debt. the fact is, if you have a personal credit card and your bill comes due, you have to pay it. or else you go bankrupt. you cannot lift the nation's creditworthiness in the world by not raising the debt limit.

the failure to act creates economic chaos. we saw that last august. it's not really constructive or helpful not to pay your debts when they come due. have dabberou proposal in place which gets under control the rate of growth of our deficits and debts over the long term. if the caller wants to look at my record, i was one of the strongest members of the senate in trying to reduce spending so that we get our debts and deficits under control. the last significant reconciliation bill that was of third as chairman of the budget committee, one of the last time congress did a budget, which has been a real failure of the congress, especially the senate, which has not taken up a budget in more than 120 days.

it was to reduce the deficit by billions of dollars. it was a lot at the time. my record on being fiscally responsible is pretty darn good. host: in new jersey, mitchell is a republican. don't consider myself attached to any party. we have seen austerity spending taking effect in europe and it's having the opposite effect of what the republicans say it's going to do. it has actually made things worse. they seem to be headed for a double dip over there. the other thing is i don't see consistency in a lot of these arguments but. i would like to know if the senator would favor cuts in military spending, if he would favor increases in income tax

revenue? what i see happening now is basically a system where the republicans can attack social spending by starving the beast by cutting out all the revenue that might come in. host: thanks. guest: the european situation is dire. there's no question about that. their problem is they borrowed their living standard. they have been living off borrowed money a couple. couple the chickens have come home to roost. they cannot borrow a lot more money in some of these countries because people don't believe they can repay their debts. their standard of living is going down as a result. the austerity action to some

degree aggravated that situation. the underlying fact is a must put some kind of limitation on the rate of growth of their governments and the amount their government is spending beyond what their governments are taking in, they will have even more severe downturns, because they will have defaults and it will go into an extremely severe recession. that still possibility throughout europe, because they have not yet taken a tough steps to get their house in order. in the u.s. i see this differently. we're not at the present this yet. europe is hanging on by. their by we are headed towards the press of this. if we continue on our present path, we will have the same type of fiscal situation that they do. people will lose confidence in the dollar and our standard of living will go down. we can do this in an orderly manner. it does not mean a short-term,

severe act. the fiscal cliff would be a severe attack to get our deficit under control. there would be across-the-board cuts of $1.20 trillion. it would be a very detrimental back to our economy. that's not necessary. what we need in our country is to put in place programs which will put us on a pathway so that we know the programs we have, the major entitlement programs, will be affordable over the next five, 10, 15 years, and that we will not have to borrow excessively to fund them. that is very doable if you just have some leadership in washington on the issue of controlling the rate of growth of the government and disciplining. on the issues the gentleman asked about, and i willing to cut taxes, look at simpson- bowles. they did a fairly brisk they did a fairly significant cut in defense

spending. i want an agreement that puts in place substantive and enforceable changes in entitlements, which lead to significant reductions in the rate of growth of the government and spending reductions at the rate of about 3.5 to 1 to revenue. if you look at the simpson- bowles plan, what it basically said is we will generate more revenue because we will have reduced the number of deductions and exemptions which people get, which are special interest deductions and exemptions, tax expenditures. then we will take that money that we generate and use the vast majority of it to reduce rates. the rates were 9%, 15%, and 23%. and the corporate rate was 26%. then you take some of the revenue, not a great deal of it, less than 10%, and use it to reduce the debt. this is generated by the new tax law. you do that in the context that

at the same time reducing spending at a rate of 3 to 1 of revenue. and you lock in the spending reductions so they cannot be changed in the next congress. this was the outline of simpson- bowles. it got conservative support and liberals to vote for it like durbin. that is because everybody gave a little and we got a balanced approach. host: next is a call from steven, an independent in minnesota. caller: yes, i have a question. everybody knows that the iraq war was a line. -- a lie. dick cheney went around this country and said iraqi oil paid for this war. it has not. we got screwed again by the corporations. i will take my answer off the air. guest: i disagree.

the iraqi war, i was in the congress at the time. the vast majority of members of congress saw information which we felt was persuasive that it was necessary to go into iraq. it was a very large bipartisan vote to make that decision to go into iraq. you can monday can quarterbacksit, but at the time it seemed like the right decision. we were coming out of the 9/11 attack on our country where thousands of americans had been killed by this heinous act of terrorism and we were very concerned that there were other places in this world where that type of terrorism was being fomented and could give us equally difficult problems. so we acted. as to that issue, i disagree with the caller's assessment. unfortunately, we did not pay for the iraq war and we have not been paying for the afghan.