automobile bailout to $25 billion. "washington journal," with your calls, tyweet -- tweets and e- mails is next. host: good morning. two campaign defense today. a rally with paul ryan at 10:00 a.m. in florida. he will. with his mother. -- will show up with his mother. president obama later in new hampshire. for more information on these events, go to c-span.org or go to the home page dedicated to the democratic and republican conventions. when it comes to the race for the white house, -- that website will give you all the

information you need about our coverage for tampa and charlotte. when it comes to the race for the white house, the campaign has asked romney to release tax records for the past five years. the romney campaign has declined the request. we want to get your thoughts on if you take a multi-year release of his tax returns is relevant to the campaign. if you want to give us a call, here is how you can do so. 202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-628-0205 for independents. reach out to us on social media. twitter -- @cspanwj. send us an e-mail at journal@c- span.org. the obama for america campaign sent the romney campaign in a letter. here is a copy of it.

host: that was from the obama for american campaign manager. here is the response from the romney for president campaign manager -- host: there are the responses when it comes to the tax returns.

if you want to comment on if you think they are relevant or the release of the records are relevant to the campaign, here is how you can do so. republicans, 202-737-0002. democrats, 202-737-0001. is, 202-628-0205. -- independents, 202-628-0205. @cspanwj or email us at journal@c-span.org. paul ryan's tax records are subject of news today. he released two years of tax returns friday that showed he paid a tax rate of 15.0 -- 15.9% in 2010 and 20% in 2011. host: that is from "the

washington post." it is governor romney's tax returns that are the concern. he addressed the issue of tax releases this past week. this took place in south carolina when he talked about the amount he paid -- 13%. it here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> given the challenges america faces, 23 million people out of work, iran about to become nuclear, one in six americans in poverty -- the fascination with taxes i pay that i find to be very small minded compared to the broad issues we face. i looked at my taxes and over the past 10 years, i never paid less than 13%. 13 plus 6% or something like that. i pay taxes every sitting here -- every single year. i am waiting for harry reid to

put out who it was that told him what they said. every year, i paid at least 30% in if you add in the amount that goes to charity, the number is well above 20%. >host: that is governor romney concerning his tax records. pick a line that best represents you can call. be prepared to tell us why or why not. first up is there a sunup. good morning, sarah. caller: good morning. i think he needs to go both ways. if you want president obama to be transparent, you want to see his birth certificate and his teachers, find out all of the ins and outs of everything about him -- that needs to go both ways. mitt romney needs to show the same respect for the country and we need to see exactly who would

be the president. how does he expect to be elected when we are not getting everything about who he is? we are just getting bits and pieces. only what he wants us to see. host: what do you think the country would gain in multi-year releases and information? caller: it allows us to see the way -- i did not know. the fact it has taken so long for him to release it and that he is diverting it, i think being authentic is extremely important when you want a president. i just want to address my president. it is not about the party you are in. it is can i trust you? host: when it comes to politics in campaign 2012, is this a big topic of discussion? caller: i do not really care

much about the tax returns. i care more about how we will lead the country. william penn us against each other? will you call people socialists because you want government people -- government programs that help people? we have to care about each other. i do not care if you're black or white or hispanic or i do not care what your family -- i do not care about that. i care about what kind of human being you are and what kind of character you have. do you care about other people? that is what matters. host: that was sarah and arizona. off of twitter -- host: let us hear from fairfax, virginia. curtis, good morning. is this relevant? caller: it is a distraction. it is a side issue because they cannot argue with the facts.

the caller said we should be transparent -- if obama is t ob not transparent. -- obama is not transparent. he has released his tax returns. he is asking romney to release 10 years of his. obama said he would put every bill of the internet for five days before he voted on it. so we could see what it what about -- was about. why are we asking him to debate health care on c-span? he said he would. he would not do it. he is the most secretive, the cecil person we have ever had -- deceitful person we have ever had. asking romney to release taxes is not serious. host: are you curious?

caller: no, and i will tell you why. governor romney is squeaky clean. he donated more to charity than any other president out there and deviling more than the democrats. one-tenth of 1% of his income last year went to charity. romney has returned money left and right. he will not do that and then tried to cheat on his taxes. host: here is gaithersburg, maryland. hello. caller: it is non so much the attention on things that the good things they have done. the people here have to make a decision about who they want the president to be. romney --

he wanted to make sure that the person he wants to pick does not have any issues relevant to his taxes. this is one of the many questions that we the people need to be able to say -- could we want for president? people are forgetting that. romney's taxes establish character about him. host: if you had a chance to see his record, what questions does it in sir? caller: we are in this economic situation and i would like to know how he will judge other people. does he have money someplace else? how does he pay his taxes?

what benefits is he getting from his taxes? i think it builds the character of the person. it is not just taxes, it is other things. this is just one item. you go for security, they check your taxes. they look at your records. they look at a lot of things. this is just one of the parts people in the u.s. -- we need to choose who we want to run the government. if someone says no, i am not --ind to follow this re-entere host: we will leave it there. san antonio, texas. independent line. good morning. caller: i voted for barack obama

in the last election. i am an independent. i think all of this is totally irrelevant. it has nothing to do with anything. i also feel that -- host: why do you feel that way? caller: it does not pertain to anything that has to do with being a president because if there was a problem with taxes, the irs would have already hit something about it. everyone in the past has given two years of tax returns. let us go ahead and make a mandate that if you run for public office, you show two years and then whatever as anybody wants to do. instead of one person to years, and other people 25 years for this person -- it is just ridiculous. the main thing here is i did vote for barack obama.

i will not vote for him again because i do not feel like he has done many of the things he promised. i also feel that if one side is you need to be more transparent and the other one has all of his past history frozen to the american public and that is much more important and informative than tax returns -- host: thank you very much. the governor's tax returns relevancy to the campaign is what we're interested in finding out from you. call us on the lines on the screen or send us a tweet or e- mail. we wanted to play a tape from this week. this response is specifically to

a question on if anybody really cares about either governor romney or president obama's tax returns. [video clip] >> there have been a lot of questions raised. , i know that this room is filled with a lot of advocates for transparency. if i were to table, you would think it is important. i do think that the voters have an expectation about transparency. that is important. it also illustrates a broader debate that is ongoing across the country in the context of this presidential campaign, senate and house campaigns,

about the future of our tax policy and what approach makes the most sense for strengthening the economy in this country. what kind of approach in the president's view will ensure that middle-class families get a fair shot? what will also insure what policy -- what will also insure that people at the top are doing their fair share? that is a relevant part of the debate. host: next up is miami, florida. how the air -- javiar. caller: i have been a republican for over 20 years. i feel like this time i'm going to go the other way because if you know you are going to run for office and you have $250 million, you can tweak your investments in taxes overseas. a guy that makes $27,000 per

year, you can put your money in different places and it looks like everything is fine and then two years down the road, you know you are going to run for office, you can tweak things here and there to make it different than 8 years ago that shows what you have been doing. host: savannah, georgia. caller: yes, i think the last caller took my point. romney knew he was going to be running for president for four years. he has had in will time to put out his tax returns and make himself look good. donating, like he was bragging about, to all kinds of charities. he knew he would be running for president so there was ample time for him to do all of that. these people want to see

president obama's tax returns and his college transcripts and birth certificate. when it comes to romney, we do not need to see anything about him. the hypocrisy is astounding. i will say the lady from texas is no independent. she is a republican. that is just my comment. host: on twitter -- host: i wanted to tell you about our coverage of the conventions in tampa and charlotte. do not forget, the republican will take place from august 27 to the 30th. republicans, september 4 to

sixth. there are platforms where you can see the gavel-to-gavel coverage. c-span.org. 10 into c-span radio, as well. c-span.org -- we have a specific page that will give you all the information we will provide to you during the conventions and leading up to it. c-span.org. our countdown to the conventions page, find it on our website at c-span.org. there is a story in "the new york times" looking at the debate later on this year.

host: that was the chief negotiator -- host: find this story in "the new york times" this morning. we're talking about the relevancy of governor romney's

tax records. the obama campaign is asking for five years. arkansas. independent line. hello. caller: i am so glad you are talking about this. when a person has to put money in offshore base -- banks, there has to be some suspicion as to how he is operating. here is a man who is very rich in the heat will by the white house. he says do not bother me, i can give you as much as i need to be. i did not have enough information to know of his character in how he runs his business. i would not vote for a person who stashed money in offshore accounts. >> do you think anybody who does that is doing something suspicious in nature? >> -- caller: yes. host: a virginia. good morning.

this is eric. caller: i would like to make a comparison. take joe biden. he gave to charity 300 some dollars compared to the tax returns of mitt romney -- donated something like $6 million to charity. u.s. the most compassion for the poor? you tell me. a lot of people do not understand that 15% tax you pay on investment is money that is invested in the companies to provide jobs. that is the purpose of letting these people pay lower rates, like 50%. -- 15%.

this guy pays himself a salary every year of $100,000. that is what he pays -- $100,000. that is what he takes his salary from all of the money he has invested at 15%. let us look into the hypocrisy of this. host: say the governor releases the records. do you think people would be satisfied if they had the information? caller: absolutely not. they want to -- this is something to get off of the economy. to transfer the conversation to something that -- host: this is vermont. . caller: i'm calling to complain

about the president. i think he is to planted in his position to be talking about pass tax returns. i wish he would admit that we are not going to get that so we should work with what we have. we have 2010, which is a huge document that shows all of these different tax loopholes and things that we hate coming out of the congress -- romney has people loving the tax loopholes in the different kinds of tricks. let us look at 2011. why has he not finished? this is the end of august. most of us had to be finished on april 15. we did not have as much that we had to do. what is he having to finish? what is all of this work that

his accounts are doing that we can not yet see? i feel that there is plenty for the administration to work with in these two years, but they just have to work on their mind set and get flexible. host: as someone calling on the democrat's line, what do you think that the campaign had to send a letter about this? caller: i support the president very strongly. i lived in massachusetts when romney was governor. i just think that the president need to tune it up. and be more effective. i want him to be affected. my concern is that he will -- the train will leave the station without him.

host: florida is a centerpiece in a "the financial times."

host: our next call is from florida. this is rick on our independent line. good morning. >caller: good morning. we need to know what is going on -- there are different views on how to get us out of this problem. obama is not talking about what is necessary. all we are doing is concentrating on this. the advantage to the obama administration in doing this is we get off the topic of turning this economy around. yesterday, you guys talked about the unemployment and dealing with what is going on. if we do not get this going, it will go through the roof.

unemployment went up in july. we need to concentrate on the issues and they are not tax returns. obama says he wants to be trans. . why is he not transparent in his school record? host: george mitchell has a story in "the wall street journal" saying that -- host: louisiana.

republican line. bob, hello. caller: good morning. how are you? what i have to say is at least romney made his money legally. what we need to see is obama's records when he had bet little under the table deal with the house. also, harry reid and his son have stolen more money than romney probably has ever seen. >> why do you say that? -- host: why do you say that? caller: you only hear one thing. harry the world didn't

reid get a $10 million bankroll when he only makes $750,000 per year. if you can explain that, -- i cannot. i do know that romney was an honest businessman that made his money honestly. all of this is just baloney anyway. if he was not paying taxes for 10 years like carry reid says, he would be in jail for crying out loud. host: sacramento, california. hello. caller: i had to laugh at the last caller. lee weese the -- louisiana, a

great state. it goes to the character of the individual in his integrity. everybody is talking about president obama's transcript. i have not heard of any other president being asked about transcripts. nor bowed mr. romney's transcripts. that goes back to honesty and integrity and character. this guy has no character. he has lied from the beginning and he will lie until the end. host: the campaign that will take place -- the convention that takes place in tampa -- there is a story in "the washington post."

host: albany, new york. independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. great questions this morning. let me put this in simple terms that we can all understand. when you meet a girl -- this is like dating. he is still applying for the job. when you first meet your spouse

and it gets serious and you start talking about marriage -- it is my wallet and her pocketbook. i want to know her finances and she wants to know mine and we will be with each other. tied at the hip. i would like to know. this is just business. i do not care if he is republican or whatever. this is business. i want to know what my future leader is all about because he will be pushing around. who will hurt me the least when it comes to this? i would also like to say i'm voting for obama because i want to save my wife's social security. i am 64. she is nine years younger. all of a sudden, he wants to start tapping the money she put

into it for 40 years or 39. in 1969, i was leaving for fort jackson, south carolina for the army. mitt romney was heading to france for the champagne valley. that is character. if i had to serve, why didn't he? what was his excuse for not? have a great day. host: daniel s. this -- host: pennsylvania. this is mary ann on the republican line. caller: good morning. i was listening to the woman talking about the loopholes and the taxes for 2011 that romney has not completed. i do not think he really -- he will not release them until he

finds out if he wins or loses. if he loses, he will do what he has to to keep the focus on themselves. if he wins, his taxes will be scrutinized. regarding the contributions romney made, he also gets a benefit for that. he had his first -- income reduced by that contribution. transcripts versus taxes, no comparison. it is silly to go after transcripts from 20 years ago. this man has been working and now he has been the president for four years. we are very petty. host: our next call is from roseanne on the democrat's line. caller: of course it is relevant. romney was running for governor of massachusetts into the seine

to. it came that he was less than honest. he had himself down as a resident of utah and massachusetts. he had to amend his tax records. he lied. it seems to be a republican trade. bush lied about wmd's. host: from twitter -- host: this week's "newsmakers" tomorrow features marsha blackburn, the republican from tennessee and serving as the convention co-chair of the platform committee at the republican national convention. in our interview, she talks about the convention, the platform, and related issues. she was asked about if romney should release more of his tax

records. [video clip] >> look at what he has had in the public domain from the time that he was governor. i do not know if there is a way that it is ever going to be put to rest. the media continues to talk about it. when i am out and about and with my colleagues in their districts, people are talking about that. that is not their topic of conversation. there topic of conversation is what will be done to get this country back to work? they know that the obama economy has not served them well. host: that topic and others tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from "the wall street journal" --

host: arizona. this is michael. independent line. caller: hello, pedro. good morning. i am a true independent. for all the republicans and democrats, that is the problem

with our political system. party politics. i am independent. anyway, as far as romney releasing his information and obama releasing transcripts from college, i think they both should release whatever the public requests. they have to answer every question in the fbi -- host: when it comes to tax forms, what would you want to see from that? caller: 12 years. like the guy earlier said, he has been running for president for 8 years. he has had a lot of time to do some manipulation. i would like to speak about the president's transcripts. i am a constitution -- i went to school for whatever.

i would like to see his transcripts. just as much as i would like to see romney's 12 years. pedro, have a great day. thank you, c-span. host: this is isabel calling on our republican line. good morning. caller: this whole situation is ridiculous. it from romney to release it. this is part of the vetting process. with regard to the president releasing his college transcripts, he has been fully vented. i think this is a way to undermine the president and i think the way my party is handling this is an embarrassment. i am in florida. you would not think there is a convention taking place. it is not celebratory. i believe that the white house will be going to the obama administration based on what i see around here. host: what do you mean? caller: i see a lot of obama

biden stickers. one time i was leaving work and i saw a brand new mercedes with 5 obama biden stickers. i thought wow. as far as medicare, our seniors are hurting tremendously. i worked in health care. i see what this doughnut hole is doing to the senior citizens. a $6,400 voucher would not even help for one admission to the hospital for a senior citizen. there are some that cannot afford a co pay of $25 for their insurance. this is sad. host: you are a republican. did you vote for senator mccain? caller: i did not. host: what are your plans this time? caller: i will be voting for the president because my mother need to medicare. host: las vegas. this is david on democrats' line. hello.

caller: good morning. i do not want to see mitt romney's 10 years or five years of tax returns. i would like to see his tax return from 2009. the reason is i firmly believe he was cheating on his taxes and was caught up in the irs investigation of the swiss bank accounts and the settlement was people would come voluntarily and report this income they were illegally hiding. they would have to pay a fine, but there would be no criminal charges. these penalties and fines and extra taxes were reported in the 2009 returned. i firmly believe that mitt romney was caught in it. he will not release anything because he cannot release 2009. host: what would prove that? caller: they would have been reported on the form. host: do you think that

information would not have been found out before now? caller: that is reported on your tax return and despite what somebody said before, the irs cannot release any information publicly from what is on your tax return. it is confidential. they can only release it if he agrees to. host: there is a story on fannie mae and freddie mac saying that the treasury will work an agreement for new bailout terms for the two organizations --

host: jackson, missouri. this is gene. caller: i would like to make a statement of romney does not want a man up and show his tax returns, and all of the loopholes he has used, i will not vote for him. host: why does it come down to that? caller: because i am working man. i end up paying 28% of my taxes and i want to know what he is doing to get out of paying his.

host: one more call from washington, d.c.. this is a joy on the republican line. caller: good morning. i do not think we should put some much emphasis on romney's tax returns. the administration has access to his tax returns, even though they cannot reveal them. we need to get onto more important things such as education, solving murders. that is what we need to be concentrating on. we need to concentrate on medicare. the tax returns are so irrelevant. it takes time away from more important subjects that deal with the livelihood of everybody in the country. that is all i wanted to say. host: that is all the calls we will take as far as this topic is concerned. on our coverage of the road to the white house, paul ryan will be in florida today with his mother at the retirement

community. see it live at 10:00 a.m. this morning on c-span. you can also see it on or consult our video library. -- you can also see it on c- span.org or consult our video library. president obama will stop in windham. that will be at 2:00 p.m. paul ryan is the topic of our next segment. we will look at how women's groups are responding to him. sabrina schaeffer will join us. we will return "washington journal" on c-span.

>> i started as a copy boy at "the new york times." i was training after i got out of the army for "the wall street journal. >> this sunday, washington post columnist walter pincus talks about his various jobs as a journalist. his views on u.s. spending overseas, and his criticism of the defense department's budget priorities. >> they built a $4 million facility. it has rooms for everybody.

if you spend $4 million on an elementary school, somebody would raise questions. >> more with walter pincus sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c- span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is sabrina schaeffer with the independent women's forum. she is the executive director. welcome. paul ryan its announced last saturday. our response from various women's groups -- you roll those together in a piece you did saying that pitting paul ryan against women is a counterproductive side show. can you explain? guest: this is the next battle in the war on women. it is very difficult to say that women, 62% of the electorate, are unanimously in support or oppose to anything. i think the idea that we are trying to suggest that paul ryan

is somewhat antagonistic to women is something we should all be looking down upon. host: you talk about specific topics like bill lee ledbetter act. -- the lilly ledbetter act. guest: paul ryan recognizes they are job killers. these are things that may be presented as protective legislation for women, but they make the workplace less flexible and more difficult for productivity. these are things that i do not see as beneficial to women. i know that women do not favor government intervention in the serious. host: it is not a women's issue? guest: it is not. we are pitting the genders against one another as if we live in a vacuum. i have a husband and father.

brother. what is good for me is what is good for men, as well. we do not want women to >> -- succeed at the expense of men. we want recreation. we want health care premiums to come down for everybody. energy costs to come down for everybody. what is the four women is good for men and we care about the same issues. host: one issue that comes up is the hhs mandate when it comes to contraception. >> unfortunately, this is an issue that is being used by this administration to try to secure that single women vote. i think it is offensive. a lot of women see a woman brought out to talk about birth control and are thinking i just went to the grocery store and i know that my gallon of milk cost me $6. i think that is what women care about. the idea we are concerned about the government supporting free birth control for women is a distraction from the real

conversation which is that these economic policies over the last three and a half years have been a failure. we have 8.3% unemployment. these are the issues women recognize are important, just as men do. birth control is seen as an extremely important issue by 20% of the population. this is clearly an effort to secure the single voter could the sun actually turn out with a kind of enthusiasm that the white house needs. host: were these issues directed toward governor romney? if so, why is paul ryan the new focus of the attack? guest: fresh blood. paul ryan is seen as the true fiscal conservative. when governor romney selected him, it was a nod to conservatives who want to see him standing up for free-market policy. when he selected paul ryan, that was extremely helpful to him amongst his base.

it was sort of new blood for the left to say look how bad he is. he will be one of those conservative who hates women. host: our guest is with us and tell a 30 a.m. if you want to talk to her when it comes to republicans in women voters, we are doing something different. we are asking women to call in. if you want to do so, we have divided the lines directly. republican, 202-737-0002. democratic women, 202-737-0001. independent women, 202-628-0205. women only. we will take those calls shortly. i wanted to show you the latest advertisement from the obama campaign, which directly targets concerns about women or at least women's issues. here it is. [video clip] >> i am barack obama and i approve this message. >> i think mitt romney is really

out of touch with the average woman's health issues. this is not the 50's. contraception is so important to women. it is about a woman being able to make decisions. >> i do not remember anybody as extreme as romney. >> i will cut off funding to planned parenthood. >> he cannot understand someone who has to go to planned parenthood. >> i will get rid of planned parenthood. >> romney would drive us back. host: terms like drive us back and making decisions, planned parenthood was brought up. what do you get from that? guest: i am surprised when i see these advertisements because if you look at the polling, the kinds of families -- women care about the same issues that men care about. the economy and job creation. they do care about health care, but they do it in a general sense. 39% see the costs as an important issue. only 20 percent since the birth

control as an extremely important issue. people do not believe it is something that is at risk. people do not believe this is something the government needs to be providing. too often women's groups are concerned with negotiating the specific advantages like free birth control for women without any consideration of the cost to our freedom or the economy. host: if it is about the economy, talk about purell -- paul ryan on an economic basis. guest: this is extremely important. both sides recognize we cannot move forward with medicare as it is. it is not sustainable. the idea that we need to make cuts to something that both democrats and republicans agree on -- when we are talking about paul ryan, this is the third iteration of the ryan plan. i think there are options and he is injecting competition into the program to allow for us to better accommodate those seniors who really do need government assistance.

not to be subsidizing it for everybody when there are individuals who can pay higher premiums on their own. host: do you think governor romney without those principles? guest: i think he will be more comfortable with paul ryan there. i am not an advocate for the romney campaign. then we have congress to consider. this is not just the paul ryan show. host: this is for women only as far as calling in. the lines are on the screen. pick the one that best represents you. we will hear first from a virginia. you are on with sabrina schaeffer. caller: hello. nice to hear you today. i am glad somebody is discussing this. you have to realize and did you have not been alerted, but there is a problem with birth control. i do not think too many people have talked about that. it is not really a birth control

-- it is a proven fact by nurses and webmd. they should be considering that. i know it is a man's world, but they should consider that there are medical problems that will turn into something else such as blood clots, etc., with birth control. i am sure it has improved, but many years ago, my legs swelled for three months. i will hear your comment offline. host: what do you think about that in the political context? what should be done? caller: i think it is a woman once, she should go out and purchase it. i do not think it should be on a health-care plan at all. no more than by agra should be. -- viagra should be. guest: i am sorry for the

problems that she had medically, but i think birth control is something that is widely accepted nowadays. i think that people are overwhelmingly supportive of women having the ability to access birth control and see the value of women being able to control their family -- plan for their families. that being said, i do not think that is a critical issue right now for the campaign. i think that is what we need to really focus on. there are obviously problems with the current health-care system. i think one of the biggest problems in terms of trying to reform it is if we try to focus on giving freebies to people without any consideration of what that will cost us -- host: michele, independent line. hello. go ahead. caller: yes, i am a person that feels that this is a choice for a woman to decide. the government should not have any say in when a person is in

that situation. first of all, that is a decision before a person to make. for the government to sit there and have an opinion about its -- to say they will stop planned parenthood, they will see so many people carrying babies that cannot even afford to even take care of their kids. this is the reason people get abortions because of different situations. it needs to be a choice. i am a christian. i do believe that is wrong to have an abortion, but it is a situation that it is that person's choice. i had to grow and maturity to

understand that murder is wrong. i do understand that. it is not a government decision to decide that. guest: first of all, to give background on the independent women's forum, we are the only think tank that focuses on economic liberty. we do not touch social issues. the conversation about the hhs mandate has propelled us into a conversation we do not usually have. we are talking about birth control in two context. hhs mandate is revolved around religious freedom. that is critical. the other is that we have so many other issues to deal with and the idea that women need to be talked to as if they are a special the victim class in need of protection from government and free birth control and special protections in the workplace, that is where we are sort of having a voice in this conversation and i would leave it to the other women's organizations to talk about the pros and cons of abortion.

host: memphis, tennessee. democrats' line. caller: good morning. can you hear me? i was calling to ask why they don't talk to men and women -- the republicans have passed their time -- they have not created any jobs. every time we send a bill over there, they knock it down. we should speak about that and then taking food from children. sometimes some children will only eat twice a day. tired of hearing this. you cannot say you are a christian when you send people overseas to kill babies. guest: i think your caller is one of those people who is

looking down at congress. congress's approval ratings are terrible low. -- terribly low. there is a sense that washington has hit a wall and there is not any kind of negotiation. i think that is one of the reasons that we are sort of pushing back on this war on women rhetoric. this does not help us solve any issues. host: when it comes to approval ratings, there was a survey done -- this is congress. taking a look at congress and if they are better off. 40% said they were better off with democrats in control. republicans in control, 39%. well, there is a gender gap and it's been taking place since

political analysts have been taking place. that gender gap closed for the first time since 2010. i think that's why we've seen this pitting of genders against one another. i think this is a bit misleading. when we talk about discrimination in the workplace. overwhelmingly women believe there is discrimination. but when you ask if the laws would be helpful in changing the direction of the workplace they actually are overwhelmingly opposed. and i think one of the other things is we're looking at the independent and weak partisans and they are responding very negatively to this kind of political vitriol that i think so many of us are picking up on. >> as far as government romney what has he presented that appeal to groups like yourself? guest: a lot of people are waiting to hear more about his economic plans. i think the selection of paul ryan is a nod that he is moving

in that direction. the idea that he is going to cut spending from 24% to 20% in his first term. but i think that we're hoping that he is going to be someone whose not going to be picking winners and losers for instance in the energy industry. this is an area that the president is currently out there talking about wind power. we want to see market forces determining where we put resources and our attention. host: north tennessee. don't forget, only women callers for this segment. caller: i i'm past the age you need birth control but look at the conditions of women who take it. they were right up there. last year i was diagnosed with cancer. the first thing they asked, had you ever taken birth control and how long did you take it. so it's not a women's health

thing. i'm at the age of medicare and when i see the trustees saying in 12 years medicare will be broke and obama is taking 716 billion dollars out of medicare and he is putting 20,000 a month on disability which is post menopausal welfare women and then in two years they go straight to medicare he seems determined to bankrupt medicare. the same thing with electricity. he shuts down our coal mines. tva is shuthing down plants here and puts these cars that are running on our roads that they don't pay for because they don't pay a gasoline tax. c-span is letting all these democrats like the woman from florida calling on the republicans line they've already taken over the independent line so now they're so greedy they have to have three lines. host: now that you've joined us

what's the specific question then? caller: why do women think that it's the government's business of their birth control? why should we pay for it? why would you even discuss it with someone from the government? guest: i agree. i think this is an issue that women's groups have tried to negotiate. they see we need to negotiate not considering what this is going to cost us but these kind of free benefits don't come without a cost. we have to consider is it necessary that all insurance plans cover birth control? should they cover everything? or should you find an insurance plan that helps cover the thing that is you need most and is most affordable for people? just to back up to your point about the energy issue i think this is something that is becoming acutely a women's issue. just since the beginning of july gas prices have gone up by 10% nationally. i think people feel this not only when they fill up the car but at the grocery stores as

well. food is one of those places where energy prices impact the cost of food. this is something obviously really affects women as women are the leading consumers from everything from cars to groceries. so i think your caller is right. when the president is picking winners and losers and villifying coal at the expense of solindra i think that a lot of women voters are going to say enough enough. >> the president made announcement recently on the tanive program, welfare to work sometimes. talk about the decision when it deals with economics and what has government romney presented? guest: i don't know all of government romney's solutions. i think we need to recognize there is government waste across the board. but to the extent that we are able to encourage a program that puts people back to work, that's the most important. host: so the president's decision to allow states to

make changes? guest: i don't have all of the details. i have a staff of wonderful women working on some of these issues but i think we're moving in the right direction. host: north carolina, independent line. caller: looks well, she speaks well but she speaks out of the side of her mouth. as far as women's health issues and romney wanting to cut planned parenthood and talking about how much it's going to cost to support planned parenthood, how much does it cost to support a single mother that can't make it because she's not getting paid the comparable amount as a man? how much? it's quite a bit more. i'm sure your research which i am sure is biasedly used, would show that if it was peer

reviewed. and as far as coal is concerned, that's where big business comes in. they want to roll back all these policies that have just been put in place to save lives and things are happening all over virginia where people are dying because big business has not followed through with the policies set forth and they have skated. guest: well, just to get some perspective on the birth control issue i think there is a tendency to think this is an administration that truly cares about birth control. but in 2008 60% went out and voted for president obama. that number has dropped to 38%. that is a 22 point drop. so there is some political motivation to get those women back to the voting booth in november. all of this is not wrapped up in the administration's good

will for women and their birth control. this has a lot to do with increasing campaign dollars and increasing turnout in november. host: as far as favorable opinion among women, this is from the poll taken in august. guest: one of the problems is that governor romney has not managed to communicate some of these issues as effectively as he needs to. i think he meeds to explain how government intervention actually threatens women's progress. we needs to emphasize how valuable women already are in the workplace in terms of their education, in terms of their professional accomplishment. women are an extremely valuable part of the workforce. however, governor romney hasn't really hit that out of the park. >> how is ann romney doing? guest: her events are highly

desired. i think too often -- again i am an outsider. but i think that there is a sense that they need to run away from their wealth. i think that it would be better personally if they embraced it and just be honest about what they've given. host: so the release of the tax records? guest: i think that the tax record issue politicians are protected like any other citizen. they do not need to release their tax records. i think that for political purposes he may be wise to release some of them. that being said it's not like he is somehow hiding from the public. he has to file with the s.e.c. he has to lay out his liabilities and explain actually it highlights much more his assets than just his salary. so in a way the s.e.c. filing is much more intrusive for someone like governor romney. but then again i think this is sort of a side show and taking the conversation away from the economy and what we're going to do for job creation.

host: kansas city, missouri. barbara. caller: yes. first of all, i think inshurens is very important for women not only for women but for everyone. that's just for young women is birth control but for mammograms for older people. it would be wonderful if we could all afford insurance that covered all areas but we can't and we know that when we buy insurance in groups that it is much chearp. so having insurance for women is important. but even more than that it's important to have equal pay. we have many women who are heads of households and they need to be if they are doing the same work they need to be paid the same amount. they have their electricity is not any cheaper, gas is no cheaper so it needs to be paid equally for equal work.

as far as the coal, coal is detrimental. we have people who have lung disease. why are we trying to bring back something that has polluted our environment? we need to be forward thinking people. we do need some alternatives. but going barkwards to coal is not -- when we have a process that keeps the chemicals from getting into the air and harming people's health then maybe we can do that. but we have not done so that so we don't need to be going back to coal. host: thank you. implingts i thought i would take this moment to talk about the equal pay issue. first it's very important to point out that the notion of the wage gap is a mess. the idea that women continue to make 77 cents on the dollar is not true. if you control for any number of variables from college major to time taken out of the

workplace, the gap entirely disappairs at this point. so discrimination is not the prevailing reason for any type of discrepancy in salaries. it has to do with choices and those choices aren't all bad. there was a study that women are choosing majors that will sort of give them professions that will provide greater pleasure. this isn't necessarily bad. it means men and women are different. so i think it's important that we don't try to perpetuate this myth that women are somehow -- that the work place is somehow hostile towards women because i think that's very discouraging. women are outperforming men educationly. one of the other things is not only are women making up nearly 58% of the workforce -- and this is significant -- but the highest percentage of women in the work fost are college

educated. they are taking on professional positions. i think we want top point that out. that women are not somehow under attack in the workforce. host: and their families? guest: every family is different. some are going to have two family earners, some one. one of the things that benefits men and women so much is the flexibility, the technology to have flex time, shared jobs for people who are maybe lower on the economic scale. and so much of this could be lost by the kind of regulation that are very often put out there in terps of protecting women. host: next call, california. jane on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. you are talking a real good game but you're being very untruthful. because women have not been equally paid in the workforce.

and women are being treated differently. and to be a republican i am very squsted with you to sit this and act as if women are being treated there in the work place. and the issue about economics and birth control and putting everything turn everything around in the conversation when someone asks you a question and when you come back on a line and to give a response you turn everything back on the democratics. be honest and be forth right. you're supposed to be an intelligent lady the head of an organization. you make people look so bad, republicans and your opinion of view is so disgusting and women have been on the front lines for years. and the equal pay, we're still being underserved and we do need regulations.

guest: i'm sorry to have offended the caller. one is women are already protected under the law. i do believe that women and men ought to be treated equally under the law. we do not condone discrimination against any people. i also agree that there are bad employers out there. i think we need to make sure that the legislation that we put forth in the name of protecting women doesn't have unintended consequences. i think that's what happens with the laws like lily led better pay check fairness act. both would be problematic for women and limit the ability to eebter preely into a contract to recognize work product, their time in the workforce. they would be much more limited to what they would be able to pay someone.

so these are things that i think certainly affect me i'm sure affect your caller affect many, many many women. this is not because i believe that women should be discriminated against in any way. i think there are unintended consequences. host: you spoke about governor romney and the information he has put out. what's chief among that list? guest: we need to talk about government spending. if we're going to see massive tax cuts. a permanent. one of the things this economy needs is stability and certainty and one of the thing that is we haven't gotten in this current administration is that. we've been doing quick infusions of cash, wealth transfers but we are not seeing certainty and businesses are not investing. host: as far as tax increases should be part of a long term economic plan? uveragetsdz i disagree. one thing to keep in mind is that during the bush years --

again i am not an advocate for the bush administration, i think there were a lot of mistakes made. but despite of the tax cuts we still brought in from 2 trillion to $2.25 trillion. spending increased by 67%. so spending was still out of control but revenue was able to increase. that's something that we are not talking about. host: if you cut spending you could still keep the tax can you tell us in place? guest: exactly. host: good morning. and thank you for c-span. i take exception to something you said. women do believe that access to birth control is in danger. if you read what congressman ryan has been trying to pass into law this personhood amendment it would ban access

to some forms of birth control and the last thing we need is some white guy telling us what kind of birth control we should use and also inveetvo infertilization. so women need taupe find out what congressman ryan has been trying to pass at the federal level into law. and if we're not willing to have our taxes raised to take care of these children that we are going to insist be brought into the world, then i don't think we have anything to say about what women use as birth control. guest: i will have to look into the specifics of the legislation that you're talking about to respond appropriately. i do think that women do not believe that birth control is under attack, you are correct. there have been a number of state level laws that have seen rather extreme. but it's important to remember that none have actually passed. so i think popular opinion

suggests that people don't want the kind of rystrickses that some of the most extreme law makers are proposing. host: kimberly, democrat's line. guest: i totally agree. the house has passed what is the most drastic law regarding personhood. it is not passed the senate yet. but those laws are out there in ryan is a proponent of those laws and it needs to be out there. i think it's a very valid part of this discussion. host: i'm not familiar with the specific law and i can't respond to if ryan u.s.c. supportive of some of the parts of the law. i do think that we're looking at the gallup is doing polling on this very issue.

a small percentage of women see birth control as an extremely important issue and that's something to keep in mind that men and women have the same interests. women are saying that the combhi and job creation is their number one issue. host: as far as reaching out, what messages are you providing? guest: we are a c 3 so we are an organizational organization. but we are trying to push back on this rhetoric. all women, because i think it's very difficult to say. but all women do not want cradle to grave government policies that come at the expense of our economy and freedom. there may be some but i know that is not something that 52% of the electorate wants. so we are continued to help

push back. ultimately, risks our freedom. host: how do you get to the point where you keep 52% along the lines? guest: women make up 62% so i am sure we do not agree on anything. but i'm sure all women don't want these cradle to grave policies. host: hi. guest: good morning. caller: i just want to bring us back to what it's supposed to be about. we're talking about concerns of contraceptions and that and it being taken away from women. what we're talking about is the government paying for it and that's where people are objecting to it. if you want to take contra sept ions fine go ahead. but what you're saying is we want the government to pay for

it. and that's where other people are saying no we don't want to do this any more. for them to trot out sandra plautsdz and complain that i can't pay for my extra seppings is an assault to the tax paying people in this country. wake up. quit per vearting the issues and start talking about what it really is. we do not want to constantly be paying for things that we don't either agree with or that someone should be paying for themselves. with throw in all these other stuff, the republicans want you to die, breathe bad air, no. that's not what they want. they want you to pay for you can pay for your contraception. wake up, america. quit pir verting the issues. host: thank you.

guest: i appreciate there is one listener out there who agrees with me but this is exactly why this war on women rhetoric is so inflammatory and try to tone it down. the idea that there is one group of people hostile to 50% of the country is absurd. your caller is picking up exactly on the issue. we can't pay for everything for anybody is unsustainable. and when we try to negotiate these specific benefit for womens it comes at an expense. and there's a lot of opinion difference of opinion on birth control. host: next call from massachusetts. caller: good morning. just to follow up on the last comments. viagra are paid for so that isn't what i called about.

but if that's paid for then certainly birth control should be paid for. on a broader level, i think the whole thrust is to subgate women and women who want the meets needs of their fellow men. this is more of a philosophical point where women are the nurturers and we see what's happening in society and we want to make sure there is equality and that children are cade for. the so i think it's to subgate exactly this to suppress women. so that they cannot act on behalf of their fellow man. finally you were stumped when you were asked what does romney the f have to offer women. don't you think it's a rather late date to be stumped by this question? you were at a loss.

what is he afraid of? host: caller you put a lot out there. the most in women's minds what do you think about that? guest: about the economics? again, i think the aspect to curtail birth control rights and a women to decide for herself her own body that again there's the begger issue of this subjugegation of women. host: you had a chance to lay out some points. caller: sure. i am not a representative of the romney campaign. we are an independent organization. we focus on free market policy and returning government to its rise side. so that is my i want rest in this conversation. in determines of women as care

takers and as mothers i couldn't agree more. i think women have unique health care needs and are paying attention because in many ways we take care of health care pertaining to our children. we purchase the majority of prescription drugs. but i think where we differ is i believe that more freedom will make it easier for women to make those choices for their families. whether education or wh we're talking about health care and changing oured to so that health care is not necessarily tied to our place of empliment. so there's a lot of things where i'm sure we agree that women do need to be eable to have these choices but i think tilled go about this in a different way. host: good morning.

you say you're -- are you an independent? but c-span i would rec that when you have somebody that says they are independent that you have somebody different from her because she's not telling the truth. you can't say on one ahand that women should have rights but instead you know that paul ryan's been in congress for a lock time and you know his views and for you to sit there and say you don't quite understand where romney is coming from. let me tell you. if you want to piss on our heads and tell us what's raining. then that's what you look like. well thank you flt bye. guest: i'm sure sure what the question u.s.c. was. but the forum was created as a counter point traditional feminist groups.

there are plenty of feminist groups that are talking about abortion in a very robust polls quiz. in the we believe in economic liberty, we believe in less government and more personal responsibility, more choice in education and health care and everything in our lives. so i don't prepare to be somehow less supportive of one party or the other, although lerts we are not in. host: go ahead guest: i'm been gisting to this young latey talk and as a woman i can't believe some of the stuff that's coming out of her mouth. she's talking about if sme's speaking for someone did you

but definitely not speaking to wippt like

i simply want to be able to get back, work, and use my law degree. host: as far as the process is concerned, you talked about the application. what else goes into it that you have to put out there before you apply.

host: we have set the sidelines for you to call this morning.

because this is different from the dream act proposed in congress, where is the status of that act. what are your hopes for the future? guest: it is different. that is an important point. it is deferred action. it is only 40 of years. it is temporary. people who get it do not have an option to become permanent residents or citizens. the dream act is different. it would take the same group of young people. it would say, we're going to put you on a path to become a permanent resident and eventual citizen of the united states. where you end up at the end of the day with the dream act is integrated in a permanent way into this country. congress considered the dream act. it passed the house. it fell a few votes short in the

senate. did not reach the 60-vote threshold. it has been around longer than my youngest daughter. it is 11 years it has been introduced. it has been because of a lack of republican support. in the house, only eight republicans voted for it. a similar ratio and the senate. we need to have more of a bipartisan conversation. guest: it is also for those who have licenses or are in the process of attending law school. host: go ahead. caller: i am thrilled with the dream act. i was raised in texas.

we loved the mexicans. they helped us with our crops. i am very upset with my governor. she is not going to honor the dream act. is there anything that can be done about that? when the republicans get in, they will not [unintelligible] guest: i am from phoenix, arizona. i am familiar with that dynamic. the arizona governor issued an executive order which would prevent individuals from getting driver's license or other public benefit. one of the unintended effects of that is that individuals subject to new visas or other immigrants

in arizona will no longer be able to get new licenses because of that. one thing you can do to help is become active in the political process. i have friends and organizers trying to elect those who represent practical solutions by becoming involved in the process, he can ensure programs like to do not stay on course. host: is anyone concerned about the legality? this was not an act of congress. guest: it was not an act of congress. deferred action has been around for decades. deferred action has been used by democrats and republicans. this is straight out of prosecutorial discretion.

it is the ability for the executive branch to decide how they will use the enforcement resources, where we're going to go, who we're going to go after, the priority, how we will spend taxpayer dollars. there has been supreme court case law on this. democrats and republicans have used it. president bush has used it for a limited group of people. this is not some unfounded executive action. it is simply a determination by the department of homeland security of how it will allocate resources. host: david from kentucky is on the republican line. caller: if i go about here and break though wall -- if i go and break the law, and get punished. why is it illegal aliens come into this country and get free money and health care for free?

i cannot even get a loan or nothing like that. guest: that is a legitimate concern people express all the time. i want to tell you about meister. i never got free houses. i never got any sort of tax benefit. i pay taxes. i would be happy to show a copy of my tax returns. in terms of the legality aspect, i came here when i was two years old. i did not have much of a choice. i will not blame my parents. i believe what they did was courageous. when we start the discussion or debate by saying someone broke the law without looking behind the law and see whether it has a positive impact on our society, it is hard to have an effective discussion. i am not here to take your social services or taxpayer money. i have friends who have donated tens of thousands of dollars in social security and medicare taxes that they are never going

to see back because they're undocumented. undocumented immigrants pay state, federal, sales, and income taxes. a lot of that money we will never see back. the ims issues -- the irs issues in individual tax addictive than patient -- the irs issues and individual tax identification number to illegal residents. many of us who are here illegally to pay taxes. host: dann from california. go ahead. caller: this is so much to say. i think this is a one-sided conversation and propaganda for the illegal invasion that has been going on, not just from mexico but everywhere. the dream act is another incentive for people to come here illegally.

america takes in more immigrants every year than every other country in the world combined. this is such a one-sided conversation. we are being overwhelmed, our social services, schools, prisons, welfare system. there is a lot of abuse by people here illegally collecting all of those social services. to say some illegal aliens, not undocumented because that is not accurate. they have documents, but they are falsified. they're breaking several laws by being here and and having falsified documents. they use other people's social security numbers. it is so one-sided. no one ever gets on there who is

not pro-illegal alien. i believe obamas way of going around congress is illegal. and this is millions of people. host: angie? guest: the caller is raising concerns about how many people are here. effectively, we are at net zero immigration. people are not coming here because our economy is weak. i do not want it to notweak. -- i do not want it to remain weak. i wanted to get stronger. our immigration system has not been updated since the early 1990's. we have yet to get lawmakers to

roll up their sleeves and get common-sense solution so we have the right number of people coming to do the right number of jobs. in the absence of that, over many decades, because lawmakers have failed to do their jobs, folks have come without papers. there are only 5000 pieces a year for people to come to low- skilled -- there are only 5000 visas a year for people to come to do low-skilled work. do we start rounding people up? do we want to put government resources to rounding up 11 million people? undocumented people do not live in one apartment building by themselves. there are 16 million people that live with someone who with undocumented. there are 5 million innocent children who have one or two undocumented parents. we need to get realistic. it would make sense for congress to pass a law that gives people an opportunity to come forward

to contribute and become part of the american fabric. jose very much what' and his family want to do. it is not to get social services and pickpocket american taxpayers. this debate has not facts. the fact is undocumented people are not eligible for benefits. if they get hit by a bus and taken to an emergency room, we will take care of them. if there is a child here, they can get an education. that is really about it. you have states like alabama and arizona are doing everything they can to make life miserable for the undocumented. is it working? research shows it pushes people deeper underground or they move to another state. we have to get realistic about the problem. the american public deserves that. to say folks are abusing the

system and can force our way out of the problem the way mitt romney suggests is not an answer. host: florida, democrats learned, -- democrats line, hi. caller: what about the ones that come over here? they are working in the fields taking jobs from people already here that will work. they cannot work because they are working in the fields, taking other jobs. they come here and be racist against us. they do not like afro americans. we have more people being racist against us. we are peaceful people. you can see in california. they say they going to run the african-americans out of certain

communities and they gang banging. guest: what about his point about people taking jobs? guest: alabama recently passed a law. the entire agricultural industry of alabama collapsed because no one wanted to take those jobs. food was riding in the fields. i think is a perfect example of where these individuals are stepping in to do jobs other individuals may not want to do. i am not saying all illegal aliens should work in the field. i am getting an education. everyone from across the political spectrum will agree immigrants are entrepreneurs and enjoy a contributing to economic activity. you have them paying sales tax,

creating jobs, and being part of the economy. we can construe this as economic stimulus. an undocumented lawyer like myself to start a law firm and hire six or seven lawyers. that is a good example of how legalizing these into. -- legalizing these immigrants can contribute to economic growth. gangs are concerned in any community regardless of whether you are undocumented or not. they are looking at doing membership. even if you have not been arrested. if you have been in a game, they will can sitter that against you potentially tonight deferred access. host: stella from pennsylvania, hello. caller: i have a comment to make before i ask jose a question. our kids are coming out of high school and college in cannot

find jobs. that means they will be competing for this region these jobs -- that means there will be competing for these jobs. it is not fair to people who have been waiting to come to our country for a long time. it is bothersome that governors like rick perry have a policy of helping children of illegal immigrants get an education in texas. marco rubio has his own version of the dream act. they have pretty much got a free education in this country. they should go home and help to rebuild those countries. do you pay taxes? thank you. guest: i have an individual tax

identification number of which is a number of the irs gives out for undocumented immigrants. that is specifically so they can pay taxes. from the age of 17, a file taxes on record with the federal government. undocumented immigrants will pay more in taxes than they used in social services. we are not eligible for many social services at all. host: how many people total are we going to be taking in under the program? guest: they are not yet accepting applications for someone 15 or younger. they have to have been 15 by the

time they came here. the estimates are it could be 1.7 million people. it is hard to know for sure. we saw a robust turn out this week. thousands of people came forward and submitted their application. those applications will have to be processed. it will be a while before we see folks have their work authorizations and be able to work legally. we're talking about well over 1 million people. host: new york city, william, independent line. guest: thank you for taking my call. i am first generation american. my father was an illegal alien. he came to new york in 1925. when the japanese bombed pearl harbor, uncle sam said if an

undocumented aliens would step up and fight with sponsor them for citizenship. my father served. it is sad that this has cast a shadow on people coming from different countries. i feel like mexicans take a lot of garbage, blame for all kinds of stuff. beautiful, hard-working people. how did we get to this point in this country? we were built by immigrants. the people who came here killed the natives. we need to understand what respect for humanity is. i am praying for everybody.

host: we will leave it there. guest: this is an issue that is court to this country. we are a nation of immigrants. we have a weak economy and infrastructure that is not as strong as we would like. schools are not performing to the levels we would like. those are legitimate concerns. it tends to be easier to place the blame somewhere. sadly, we have a history of placing blame at the feet of immigrants. i do not think what the caller is reflecting -- the call is to have a civil debate. it does not make sense to drive everybody out. i do not want people like jose to leave. i want him to practice law and hire people. he will make this country stronger. not every immigrant is light

jose -- is like jose. let's find the jose's and maria's and help them grow and become americans. we should have a smart debate about it and not a hysterical the day. host: you would be made a citizen? guest: under this program, there is no path to citizenship. i can still be deported. one criticism is that this would put us ahead of the individuals that have been in line their entire life. the fact of the matter is there is --no line undocumented immigrants like myself can get into. when we're told to get in line, there is none. the dream act would create a path so we can apply like everyone else. it is incredibly hard and at

times legally impossible to obtain citizenship if you are an undocumented immigrant in the united states. if any of us have that opportunity, we would take it as soon as we could. host: this is for the line we set aside for those who identified them as illegal immigrants. john, hello. caller: i am calling to make a point. president obama had two years in his presidency. he did not do anything about immigration. we need policies to take people out of the shadows and bring them into society where they can be contributing to the american economy. this is an election-year move to focus on the spanish boat -- vote.

you can deport the parents. the kid is 15 years old. who is going to support the kid? what is is saying to defer action? any president can change the law or policies president obama put in place. president obama can decide to pursue it. the president appointed more immigrants. we cannot wait until the time of the election -- the spanish need to understand. the spanish voters has economical issues. we cannot do something just for

the election. host: thank you. something to please the spanish boat? guest: one point the caller broken his there should be a long-term, permanent solution. i agree. this is a temporary band-aid on a larger problem. one problem individuals in congress have faced is the unwillingness to have a rational debate about the issue. whenever the topic of immigration comes up, emotions run high and fox run low. --facts run low. have individuals that have historically engaged in the debate that are no longer at the table. without individuals from both sides of political parties at the table for debate, it is impossible to pass comprehensive immigration reform. president obama has deported more undocumented immigrants than any other president in the history of the united states.

he also actively tried to get the dream act passed into law. it failed by five votes in the city -- in the senate as angie kelley pointed out. republicans have not have the most immigrant-from the platform. that is a fact. we have individuals like governor mitt romney that advocates self-deportation. individuals white governor romney will refuse to sign and pass the dream act into law and refuses to outline reasonable ies oration policy i legalization policies for 12 million individuals. whenever an individual was trying to talk about a rational immigration platform, newt gingrich or rick perry, they would get savaged. they were knocked out of the contest because they have slightly. -immigrant use. until we have parties from both sides of the aisle willing to

talk about this any rational way, you are not we have a permanent solution. host: thank you for holding on the democrats in line. caller: this is a topic i have not heard anything spoken of yet. i feel for people who come here wanting a better life. i also think they come here and have so many children born here that are u.s. citizens. therefore, their children are entitled call all the benefits. you go from 11 million to 33 million. they do cross our schools. i live in new york city. -- they do crowd our schools. i live in new york city. my grandson was born here. he was told he need to be able to speak spanish because of the way the community is changing

and everything, you know. he used to go to college and work. he is now in my area. they cannot even get jobs here in those places like mcdonald's because you have a manager that is only hiring their own. they are not putting spanish and english. i feel that are discriminating against american citizens. you are telling me, do not go to your stores. host: what is your question? guest: my question is, there are so many activists for other people. they know all the loopholes. when they have had three or four kids, they can get schools and rent subsidized because of their children. host: any response?

guest: i understand the caller's frustration. it is true. born in this country, you are a citizen. it is part of this country. of the constitution, the 14th amendment. the idea of changing it so that if you are born here you are not a citizen would create a lot more problems than it would begin to solve. if we had common sense immigration reform, if all parents work required to come forward, to register, to pay taxes, to be part of the system, i think the anger would be subsiding. the frustration is you do not know. you do have 11 million people here without papers. it is not sustainable in a country where we get stronger if we pull together. if we get divided, we are weaker. our immigration laws are eating

away at our unity. i agreed with the frustration. i am sorry her grandson had that experience. i am married to a teacher. i understand how the education system works. that was appalling how he was treated. i do not think that is the fault of undocumented immigrants. i do think it is the fault the policy-makers in her school and at the federal level who are not stepping up and pass in common- sense immigration laws. host: tennessee, marsha, republican line. caller: it costs $10,000 a student for this county to educate. that does not count state and federal money. i recently had a new grandson. at the hospital, they recommended everyone in the family get the pertussis shot because whipping zukofsky is coming up from mexico. they are in mexico advertising

for people to come here. one immigrant we should never have allowed in this country is at george soros. -- because whipping zukofsky is coming up from mexico. one immigration never have allowed in this country is george soros. if americans went to mexico, what would happen then? guest: i am not familiar with mexican political policy. i have grown appear my entire life. if you want to ask me questions about america, i would be happy to answer that. i do not think the standard we should hold ourselves to is what another country would do. one of the great things about america is we paved the way in fighting for freedom for all people. we need to set standards based on our constitution and declaration of independence and the principles we hold dear and not what other countries do. that is what makes america great. minutes leftfive

with our guests. michigan on the line for independents. >> the broader question should be, if the united states is going to remain a sovereign nation -- president reagan gave amnesty. we're probably a byproduct of some of that. two wrongs will never make a right. the united states is going to have to figure out if we will remain a sovereign nation or if we will join as a continent like the european union. a lot of people think we're heading to that. kubla with everything you are doing, but to the bronx never make a right. i know you are in a sticky situation. it is not your fault, but we should have secured our borders decades ago, and we would not have these problems or have to worry about reform. either you are supposed to be here or not. good luck to you sir.

guest: appreciate your able to have a civil debate. thank you. it means a lot, even though we fundamentally disagree. one topic to bring up as the united states as a sovereign nation. i agree. one way to become a sovereign nation is to make sure you know who is inside your country. one way is to create a road map to citizenship for the 12 million individuals so we can have these 12 million people step out of the shadows and become productive members of society. along with that, have a conversation about immigration policy as a whole. instead of building a bigger border, assess what people are coming to the united states. is there a way to reduce immigration so it does not create hardship for families? but looking at these things together will help to make the united states a more sovereign nation. host: where do we go from here? what is the timeline? anybody that applies

automatically gets accepted? guest: there is nothing automatic about it. lots of applications will be coming in. they will be reviewed by trained dhhs officials. the person applying will have to come in and have their biometrics taken. there will be a careful screening. there will be careful examination of supporting documentation to make sure there is not fraud. after that process is complete, if the applicant is approved, they will get a work authorization valid for two years. then we will see what happens. we will see who is in the white house. we will see if it is extended or not. that is as far as it goes. we do not know beyond that. the caller is right. we have a mess. we have a broken system. rather than look back, we should look forward about what we should do. whatever the outcome after the election, i hope whoever is sitting in the capitol building can try to pass common-sense

reform that puts folks on the road to citizenship. it is to the benefit of our country if we know who is here. they pay taxes. they become american. it makes us stronger. host: when we have done the program, would it be hard to undo it? guest: it would be the president's decision. if we have president romney, he will have to make the decision to rescind it and no longer permit people to apply. he could make the decision to go after the people who have applied. it would be something to go after that in your presidency. but it is possible, he could do it. host: florida, jacqueline is on the democrats' line. caller: as a paralegal, i want to say that people sitting there. what you guys are doing is detrimental to yourselves and

people serving these forms out. i have seen the forms, these six-page forms. they're very detailed. i warn people from filling these out. this is a dangling carrot. this is just an election year gotcha. you have not only the irs and a department of social services. they will have all this information on you. when you get the so-called social security number, think about being a taxpayer with all of the bureaucracies coming after you and your paycheck. you might self-importance of knowing everything that comes after you. -- he might self-deport knowing everything that comes after you. you do not know what it is like

to have the bureaucracy come after you. it is not just knowing who you are and where you are. this is a two-your voucher -- this is a two-year of voucher. guest: i have no problem with the irs knowing i am here. being part of the bureaucracy is the price to pay to be part of america. i would be more than happy to do that. one thing she raised a concern about is the day going carrot -- is the dangling carrot. historically, things have been harder to take away than to give. we want to have people sign up. that will help to make the program permanent and make it harder to repeal. one issue the caller brought up is that this is a temporary measure. this is a temporary measure. we're hoping to have comprehensive reform to supercede this. that is the overarching goal.

host: what if you are turned down? guest: dhs will put you in deportation procedures. yes, this is a temporary program. yes, there could be so much more. it is still substantially better than living in the fear of removal of every single day. what the industry is offering gives individuals hope and a chance to improve their economic situation and the economic situation of their community. for the first time in 10 years, dreamers will be able to live in this country without constantly being afraid of being sent back to a place they do not even remember. host: jose magana and angela kelley, thank you. coming up, we will learn about

the treasury department and the 2009 auto bail out. the cost now to taxpayers is $25 billion we may not get back. we will talk to a reporter about that. we want to give you a live shot of the tampa bay times form where the republican national convention will begin next week. you are looking at a shot from the c-span sky box as they're getting ready for the convention that starts a week from friday. we're going to tell you a bit about it. the forum will be hosting the convention. about 670,000 square feet. there are three decks, seven separate levels involved in the construction. the building contains 3,400 tons of steel and 30,000 cubic yards of concrete along with 70,000 square feet of glass. when is together, c-span will

bring you gavel-to-gavel coverage of the republican and democratic conventions, tampa and charlotte, respectively. for more information about our coverage, go to c-span.org. we have laid out all of the things you will be able to see and experience at the convention. we will have a discussion about the auto industry when we come back. >> together, let's make sure our prosperity in rich is not just a few, but all working families. let's invest in health care, education, secure retirement, and middle-class tax cut. i am happy the stock market has boomed and so many businesses have done well. this country is richer and stronger. my focus is on working families, people try to make house payments, working overtime to college for their kids.

>> the last time taxes were this high as a percentage of the economy, there was a good reason. we were fighting world war ii. today, our high taxes fund a surplus. some say the growing federal surplus means washington has more money to spend, but they have got it backwards. the surplus is not the government's money. the surplus is the people's money. >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party convention since 1994. you can watch our live coverage of every minute of the conventions live on c-span, c- span radio, and streamed online at c-span.org. all starting monday, august 27. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we will take a look at the

auto industry and money spent because of the bailout. deepa seetharaman joins us from detroit to talk about this. good morning. guest: good morning. host: there was a report from treasury that takes a look at the money we spent on the auto bailout and what possibly we could lose as far as federal dollars are concerned. could you encapsulate what that report says? guest: the report from last week extended the loss on the bailout to $21.50 billion. that is an increase from the previous estimate at the end of february. a lot of it comes down to two factors. one is the loss in the value of gm stock prices. that is one of the driving factors. secondly, the diminished value of college financial during the second quarter.

the mortgage unit filed for bankruptcy. the treasury estimated what the investment is worth. it comes down to gm stock price, which has been hit by a variety of factors and falls far short of its ipo price. host: the potential loss of $25 billion, what could be potentially lose? guest: is significantly better. initially, the u.s. government estimated around a $44 billion loss. the total bailout totaled $80 billion, so over half. that was amended to around $30 billion at the end of 2009. the new estimate is not near as bullish as the estimate we saw last year in 2011, which went as low as $14 billion. it seemed to ebb and flow with the fortunes and enthusiasms of

the gm stock price. $33 a share and is now around $22. for the treasury to break even, it has to get to 52 t-- it has to get to $52. host: talk about what is happening at gm to cause stock prices to be so low. guest: there are a couple of different factors. the most significant -- it comes down to three. the first is your. gm has the opal brand in europe that has been faltering for close to a dozen years. it has a dozen years of losses. gm is aware of this. the ceo replaced the head of opal in an effort to turn around the brand much faster. in addition to that, there is

also pensions. that is one of these great legacy costs' gm struggled with for decades. gm has probably the largest pension plan of any company in the s&p 500 at the moment. the company has done a lot of things to undercut the rest and move some of the obligations of the balance sheet. it is not enough. it is still a large pension obligation. they have to make further inroads in mitigating that. there is still some question about whether gm has changed as a company, whether the cultural change has changed the companies bad practices. the bailout gave them a balance sheet makeover. in terms of how decisions are made and bureaucracy, gm still

has a long way to go. there seems to be investor concern about whether they have spurred that change rapidly enough. host: when you say culture, it does that mean that decisions about what kind of cars are built or does it go further than that? guest: exactly. it also comes down to making decisions rapidly, how quickly is gm making decisions? how many lawyers does something have to go through before it is decided -- how many layers does it have to go through before it is decided? one thing that has puzzled analysts and investors is the alliance with peugot in europe. gm says this would allow them to share development costs with the

french car maker that has gone through the same struggles as of the automaker in europe has been a lot of those things you will not see until 2017, five years out. analysts and investors were puzzled. this -- there seem to be more pressing issues now. gm was shopping for a long-term solution with peugot. things like that are not being clearly articulated to wall street. that is affecting the gm share price. host: we're talking about the treasury department report. the bailout could cost taxpayers about $25 billion. steve joins us from detroit for the discussion. if you want to ask a question, we have numbers to call.

the first call comes from nevada. the republican line, good morning. caller: i want to ask the woman he was having --you was having, what does she think about obama bragging about the bailout of $25f there's going to be billion we will not get back? we own 500 million stocks right now. it is valued at $20. until we get our money back -- host: ok, go ahead.

guest: this is a great question. the bailout has become fodder for political debate. with the obama administration taking credit for the bailout and calling it one of the unmitigated successes. the romney campaign is really criticizing it. i think the caller brings up an interesting point. the gm stock price has foundered since its ipo in the fall of 2010. we are looking at a $25 billion loss. it is important to remember the loss estimates fluctuate on the gm stock price. it is important to also way the white house response. that is the bailout was not intended to make money for u.s. taxpayers. it was intended to preserve jobs. the white house and senate both predicted about 1 million jobs

were saved by the bailout when you are weighing 1 million jobs versus a real risk to the economy, which is what bankruptcy of gm and chrysler would have entailed during a recession, the white house thinks it was worth it. they think about the 1 million jobs saved. they say it is worth it even though we will take a hair cut. the caller is right. we're definitely taking a hair cut. the treasury still owns 500 million shares. they wanted to exit by now. that does not sm to be practical given where the stock price is. they were looking to maximize returns to the extent possible. we will always be looking at a cost. host: a question about the vote and how that is going. -- a question about the volt in-house

sales are going. guest: this became the centerpiece of the ipo offering a few years ago. i do not have exact figures for sales, but last year, they fell short of expectations. it is hard with vehicles like the volt which embraces new technology. americans have been slow to adopt this technology. they're still expensive because of battery costs. they are out of the reach of most americans. they seem to ebb and flow with fuel prices. it is unpredictable. earlier this year, gm refrained from giving too many expectations on the volt. last year, they sold less than half of what they predicted in 2011. it is hard to say how they are doing.

we do not have the full year estimate or out what to compare it to. the fact that gm fell short last year and has refrained from giving any outlook this year on sales indicates they are starting to see this is still a burgeoning area for sales. will always bes tricky to sell to the american public. we're in the opening of this particular trend. host: john, go ahead. caller: about 10 years ago, and read an article about how the outcome of a pre-arrange bankruptcy with the government would be. the long and short of it is that this stock was a hybrid stock. the american taxpayers did get the shaft. i agree with the previous caller.

all of the congress got paid back 100% on their purchases. they were right on the money, barron's knew exactly what was going to happen. what happened was this was a hybrid. it was a debt instrument. stockholders were supposed to be wiped out. everybody but the unions got wiped out. however, that is not true. i expect there would be an examination and investigation of how this could have happened when a few people like myself do their homework, really got the shaft. host: go ahead. guest: the callers experience is unfortunately, across the board. a lot of people lost a lot of money. that is a hallmark of this particular bail out.

the pain is shared across the board. the caller brings up that everybody but the unions seemed to get the short end of the stick this time around. this is a common perspective. we hear is a lot. do we hear a lot. -- we here in a lot. people say it is not necessarily true. the unions did take a lot of concessions. they almost balked at the deal. some of the choices they have to make were really tough. you are talking about the elimination and closure of factories, the loss of jobs, the elimination of the jobs bank. that is one of the most significant concessions the uaw had to make during the bailout talks.

that is the policy that allowed workers to get 95% of their pay indefinitely if they were idle. anger.stand the caller's it is widespread. a lot of people lost a lot of money. currently, there are people frustrated because they bought into the gm ipo at $33 a share. they bought early on. they are seeing the value of those shares under water. the anger he is expressing is common and valid. a lot of people share it. host: $80 billion spent rescuing gm and chrysler. the u.s. currently holds about 500 million shares of gm stock. no sales are planned before the november election. this is king george, virginia, kenny on independent line. caller: i love to watch c-span

on weekend mornings. it is sometimes the highlight of my weekend. i have to make a comment about the last session about immigration. i would think with -- -is msnbc taking over this network? let's not do this again. thank you. host: bill, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question and like to make two comments. the first comment is about the volt. i worked at that plant and retired in 2008. the government forced them to push it out too fast. the second comment, thank you, america, for taking care of my pension.

i appreciate it. the steel workers and others will appreciate help. they did not get none. they did not have the political power, i guess. they offered bailouts to salary workers at ford and gm, do you think they will do it with the [unintelligible] guest: yes, i do. in the last contract round in 2011 that ended about a year ago, there is a side letter in the gm contract which opens the possibility of a discussion between the union and gm about ways to eliminate pension obligations. that would be to hourly workers. the caller is talking about a

pension buyout initiated by ford and gm earlier this year. the pension problem is an extraordinary issue for gm and ford, gm, ford, and chrysler, but gm and ford have been in the news recently. to offer one staggering statistics, for the 15 years that ended in 2006, gm put $55 billion in to worker pension plans and only paid $13 billion in dividends. it is true that the gm pension risk is the largest of any company in the s&p. earlier this year, both gm and ford made significant inroads in trying to get this risk of the table. gm did it with salaried workers, the white-collar workers, engineers and the like. they shifted $26 billion in

obligations over to prudential and offered buyouts to about 42,000 of those salaried retirees. about 118,000 retirees and their dependants were affected. they'll still get monthly pension checks, but they will be from provincial and not gm. the hourly workers represented by the uaw represent the lion's share of the pension risk. that is 440,000 people that get monthly pension checks from gm. it is a sensitive issue. workers joined gm because they thought they would be protected for life. a lot of them did not go to college because they decided not to take other opportunities because they were promised lifetime security by gm and ford. the idea of 30 plus years later having to -- being asked to

forgo that right and promise is tough to swallow for a lot of people. at the same time, these companies have a responsibility to investors to manage the company in a way that is fair and intelligent. the pension risk is one of the top risks to gm stock. the side letter in the contract last year between gm and the uaw opens the possibility of discussion that there could be buyouts. my understanding is employees represented by the uaw would not go for this.

at the annual shareholder meeting, this is something they would like to do. the former head of the auto task force says the same thing. this would be a smart thing for the uaw to consider. it is a conversation to come in years to come. host: off of twitter, consumers are the real job creators. speculation is fruitless. mark is on the republican line. go ahead. caller: my name is mark ewing. in december, i decided to run for congress. i withdrew in march because of the redistricting debacle we went down here.

my retirement plan, i had some investment in the ventures for gm. we got in low. i sold out of everything after the two-year holding period. when the issue stock, i got out as soon as i could. i recognized having the government in there was bad. one of the concerns i have is the priority system we have up in bankruptcy today. one of the problems we have is they put retirement first for that particular corporation. the problem we have is most of the common shareholders that were wiped out in this thing were from people holding it in their retirement plans. we are seeing a preference for the actual workers, the

corporation, the uaw workers with excession demand for wages and lack of concessions prior to the bankruptcy who drove the company into that position. host: thank you. miss seetharaman? guest: this is indicative of the anger we hear about the bailout and the feeling the union was given preferential treatment. it is a contentious issue. a lot of people share it. the consensus among analysts and people who track this is the union alone did not bring these companies into bankruptcy. it was not the union alone.

there are also issues of the quality of the vehicles they are selling. no matter what kind of labor agreement you have, if you are not selling quality vehicles, you will not be successful. that seems to be a common thread among the analysts we speak to regularly. the issue that the union got favorable treatment is a common one. it angers a lot of people. i would reiterate what i said earlier. the union did take some steep concessions. at the end of the day, they are the workers that build the vehicle. i think the auto task force has the responsibility to make sure that there was respect for the fact the uaw workers build the vehicles and work in the factories. there are no easy choices and

right answers. there is a lot of anger. it is very common. the previous calls are emblematic of that. host: our guest is deepa seetharaman from reuters out of detroit to talk about the auto bailout and potential losses, a cost of about $25 billion. detroit, michigan, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to thank obama for helping save the iowa -- the auto. more jobs were lost besides working for the big three. my husband was -- he did not work at the big three, but his job was saved because of that. other jobs were saved. they did have to make

concessions. he had to give up some health care benefits. his pay was lowered by $5 or $6. he lost vacation time. he started under the bush administration. he had no strings attached. he gave from between $7 and $25 billion to start the program. host: we're running short on time. what was the question? caller: mine was just a comment to say that i think obama -- thank obama. host: a question off of twitter. how much government influence does gm see? do they still consult with the government about how their business is doing? guest: gm says the obama

administration does not weigh in on business decisions. that is what we hear regularly. this week, gm put in a bid for to nationalncials' operation to expand their ability to finance the coast around the world needed to finance vehicles -- to expand their ability to finance vehicles around the world. it is a unique deal because ally was one of the companies risk nearly $17 billion in bailout money in 2009. the proceeds of the sale of the international operations will go to the taxpayer. gm is in the running, so it creates an ironic twist in terms of government influence. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania,

andrew. caller: what is the history and right of the u.s. government being able to buy private industry and spending u.s. tax dollars to buy these industries and then losing billions of dollars in them. to mark the end up having us on the hook for this money long term -- they end up having us on the hook for this money long term. the companies and up losing money in the long run and end up having us owe money. the taxpayers lose the stimulus money over the long term. guest: i cannot say i am familiar with an historical precedent of bailouts. i think this particular package is unprecedented. i am happy to be corrected on the. i think in this case, the losses

were expected. the white house weighed this against the fact that 1 million plus jobs would be preserved. that is what they take as a success, the loss of those 1 million jobs in 2009 during the depths of the recession would have been extremely damaging to the u.s. economy. it would have hurt any progress that could have been made. i think the bankruptcies were seen as a necessary evil. i do not think the obama administration wanted to do this. i do not think anyone wanted to bail out detroit, but it had to happen for there to be economic stability at that juncture. since then, you have seen all three u.s. automakers improve. they have steady themselves financially. they're pulling profit. they've added 250,000 jobs since

june. it is a question of jobs versus money. the money is real. the loss is real. it is something to be concerned about. the white house and other pundits believe that when balanced against the jobs saved, it was worth it. host: what is the difference between what is going on at gm and chrysler? guest: the bailout packages were sharply different. gm got cash. chrysler was laden with debt, dollars and 7.6 billion in loans from the u.s. and canadian governments. that matters because chrysler was paying exorbitant interest rates on those loans. when they were coming out of bankruptcy, it undercut their ability to post profit. as a results, they did not have

the balance sheet restructuring. chrysler had to make changes faster. chrysler had to cut even deeper. every executive seemed to have three or four jobs. they worked seven days a week. that is not to say that gm executives do not work hard. but at chrysler, they had a gun to their head. gm with the cash did not necessarily have the incentive to change as rapidly. i do not doubt for a second that gm feels the pressure, especially now that the stock prices in the 20's, far short of the ipo price. host: christian is on the democrats' line from ohio. caller: i hear this $25 billion loss. this loss would only occur if the government or to cash in the

stock early. we are reinvesting in america in one of the worst financial crises we have had in the long time. this would be a good time to get the money back. when you consider the millions of jobs lost, millions of employees that a state and local tax to support schools and property taxes. people would have lost homes. you are talking huge losses. $25 billion is nothing compared to that. if they had to take $135 billion pension in the government, that would have been worse than $25 million. we are reinvesting in america. that $25 billion is nothing compared to the billions that would have been lost. guest: i think that is an important point. the caller makes an extremely important point.

the u.s. government has not cashed in the 500 million gm shares. the ipo of ally financial is not imminent. they're still working on cashing out of ally. at the moment, it is the radical. the value of the losses seem to contract and expand the pending on investor enthusiasm for gm shares -- depending on investor enthusiasm for gm shares. we are investing in the economy. investing in an industry is important as well. the automotive industry put up an estimate of how much the lack of a bailout would have cost the u.s. they came to a figure of around $27 billion. that is two years ago. i am not sure if the updated the

figure. that is $27 billion and over 1 million jobs lost. that is what we're weighing this again. a $25 billion theoretical loss against a real loss of $27 billion and a loss of over 1 million jobs. host: is there a definite amount of time we can hold on to the shares? do we have to let go of them at a certain point? guest: there does not seem to be a timeline. the obama administration initially wanted to be out by now. they wanted to be out by the next presidential election. that clearly is not going to happen. treasury is saying we will sell shares to maximize shareholder returns and as soon as practical. that time has not come yet. host: here is hampton, conn., joanne, independent line.

caller: he gave this money to unions in the auto industry. it will be laundered and given back to him as the nation's. that is who he helped. we are supporting this industry. the only reason they are successful is because of our money. he is going around saying gm is number one. it was number one for six months because of the tsunami when the japanese had to shut down the toyota plant. now that the plants are open, toyota is number one. he is misleading and wind to the american people replying to the american people saying he saved the auto industry. the key is misleading and lying to the american people saying he saved the auto industry. guest: i think detroit would agree the only reason gm and chrysler are still around is because of the american taxpayer.

that is unequivocally true. everyone at gm and chrysler is very aware at that -- very aware of that. absolutely, the american taxpayer, the reason why gm and chrysler are still around is because of the american taxpayer. that cannot be disputed. if we're talking affect gm is the world's largest automaker, the caller is making a fair point as well. toyota was hit with the production facility. they could not make enough cars to meet demand last year. as the world's largest automaker is fortified and helped by the toyota market share losses last year. how it plays out this year will be interesting. the tally of the world's largest

automaker is complicated. there is not a unified way to calculate that. it tends to be debatable. host: liz smith says ford proved they did not need a bailout to succeed. guest: ford is an interesting case because they hit their crisis point before the other two. if you look at articles from the contract around four years -- round from four years ago, it shows how they went from the weakest to the strongest of the detroit three rapidly. reason for did not need a bailout is because at the end of

2006, they were able to take over $23 billion in loans to execute a turnaround plan. ford, two years later, they went to washington and ask for a bailout. they were able to look at the figures and realize they did not need the money the way gm and chrysler did. ford was able to do this. that is because they hit the crisis point earlier than the other two. important thing to remember is that ford does have federal money in the form of department of energy loans, over $5.6 billion that have enabled the company to develop fuel efficient vehicles. it did not take a bailout, but it does have a federal funds. i want to make sure that point is understood.

host: was there anything else from the treasury department report released this week worth noting? guest: i think we hit the highlights. it is gm's stock price, the uncertainty of the ally investment. all of that contributes to wider locks us -- wider loss estimates. at the moment, it is a theoretical loss. it is constantly fluctuating. only when the treasury shares the five entered million shares will we know the extent -- only the the treasury shoells 500 million shares will we know the extent of the loss. gm is aware of the fact its share price, it has a lot of work to do. dan ackerson has asked every

quarterly earnings and earnings report, they are working on it. they are working on things ouat opel and making moves with pensions. they are trying to show investors that are initiating a cultural change. host: is there a different tone in the auto industry in detroit than what we saw in 2009? guest: absolutely. in 2009, there was real concern and fear. in detroit, absolutely everyone -- it is night and day. there is a recognition there are a lot of challenges in terms of management and execution. there are a lot of changes that need to be made.

er