for women president, terry o'neil, and neil monroe. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] host: leading to a double-digit recession, a bigger national deficits. that is our topic this morning in the opening segment of "the washington journal." guest: the sharp reductions in taxes, sure reductions in federal spending is lead to a dramatic reduction in the federal deficit trimming a by almost $500 billion next year.

that would be a significant tightening of fiscal policy. it would probably lead to a recession early next here. specifically the baseline forecast showed continued modest growth in the economy during the rest of 2012. a drop in output during the first half of next year at an annual rate of nearly 3%. following that drop we anticipate the outlook will expand again in the second half of next year and beyond. the unemployment rate will rise to about 9% in the second half of next year and remain above 8% through 2014 through current law. host: the lead story deferring on the budget no longer an option. congress's scorekeeper warned they cannot continue to put off big decisions about the economy much longer and said i their path will be painful to

congressional budget office, which released the annual august updates for the deficit in 2012 is pretty much set at $1.10 trillion. that is a little bit from this article and "the washington times." we want to get your reaction. the fiscal cliff could lead to a recession.

>> this is the fourth year in a row in which the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. the federal debt held by the public will reach 73% of gdp by the end of the fiscal year. the highest level since 1950. about twice the share in measure at the end of 2007 before the financial crisis. as always, we are prepared -- we have prepared baseline projections that reflect current laws remain unchanged. those are designed to serve as a benchmark for lawmakers to use

in considering changes to laws. however, substantial changes to tax and spending policies are scheduled to take effected the end of this year at current law and whether lawmakers allow the changes to enfold or alter them will play a crucial role in determining the path of the federal budget and the economy. host: back to the washington times article, the government will run a major deficits over the decade leading the fiscal and imbalance caused by the spending promises the government has made outstripping the amount of money. we will be to adopt policies that require people to pay significantly more in taxes. with the bush ^ tax cuts expiring at the end of this year and the automatic spending cuts looming the, congress has for months to decide which direction it will go.

a couple of facebook comments have come in. we will start with edward.

he says -- our first call this from jury. caller: i am a long time listener. i just want to say that i think both parties better pay close attention to what this man is saying and get off their high hunches and grab simpson bowles and you better write it to the end. the way they're going about it is,. >> thank you. this is another independent from brooklyn. hi, kevin. caller: i am is a longtime

listener. i believe we should get rid of the bush tax cuts. i do not think we will go off a fiscal cliff. i believe if we go through this and take of the bush tax cuts and make the cuts to the military, i believe it will reset and our economy can come back. thank you. host: here is how the financial times played of the testimony yesterday. the next call comes from a democrat in florence, ky. you are on the washington journal. caller: into the center of the way up to 2007 there were talking about the war and iraq it. now it is time to pay.

the rich to doubt want to pay on the war. host: from the financial times this morning -- lisa is a democrat. good morning to you. caller: good morning.

i am tired of everybody complaining about obama. it really does not matter who the president is, bush has missed up everything so bad that nobody can fix it. i do not feel like it can be fixed. host: 2 are for calling in this morning. -- thank you for calling in this morning. i want to get your reaction to the congressional budget office pose a report saying the fiscal clip could lead to a recession. the middle class's falling income poses challenges for obama. the middle-class suffered the worst decade in modern history during the 2000's. wages declined.

median household income for the middle class fell from 72 -- 73,000 in 2001 to 69,487 in 2010. the first time since the second world war of the middle class ended the decade with a smaller income than it started with. all sectors of society experienced a decline in net income, the middle class was the only one that also got smaller. our next call on the fiscal cliff comes from robert and marion, north carolina. caller: hostwhy do they not comp with a graduated flat tax. anybody making $20,000 does not pay taxes. anybody making $20,000 to 50 does dollars pays 5%.

i mean, one quarter million dollars would be a 30% tax. they have the really talked about any tax reforms since the nine-nine-nine plan came out. that is about all i have to say. host: here is the washington post. it made the front page of the newspaper as well this morning. we will assure you that as we take this call from steven. caller: i am simply calling because one of the main problems is that the poor people are demanding too much. and never gives anybody a job in the new york city. if they reduce the tax rate for the rich people they will be

able to employ a lot more people. thank you. host: our next call from -- comes from cornell. caller: i would like to remind the viewers that the war in vietnam -- the soldiers -- we had to take care of ourselves. once they started this war and iraq, halliburton and the blackhawk -- we had to pay for that. now it is time to pay up. people need to pay up and be done with it. thank you. host: can i ask you about the convention coming up in your city? you looking forward to it? cabbies and a lot of activity? caller: it is and convenient for

the whole weekend. it is really bad. it is downtown. it is in a bad area. it has to be done, so it has to be done. hopefully they can get it done and over with. host: how much of the local news is focused on isaac? caller: all they can do is wait and see what it will look like. it usually comes about this time a year. hopefully nobody gets hurt. it is pretty bad. usually it hits directly in this area. host: do you think when i landed there, should i stop at a store and buy a case of water? caller: yes. [laughter] host: thank you for calling in this morning. benjamin, the fiscal cliff could

lead to a recession. caller: i am is a black american and and i watched the market a lot. i can tell you, i feel as if there will probably be a dollar crash between now and next april. i think we are all going to need to get some water pretty soon. thank you very much, and i appreciate your programs. host: from politio, 0% of blacks for mitt romney. this is an nbc wall street journal poll. if the republican convention does it held a in tampa, c-span will be gavel-to-gavel as we will with the democrats and charlotte. the convention begins on august

27. ever since 1984-1988, c-span has covered every single minute of every convention that has been held. we will continue to uphold the tradition on tv and online. there are so many platforms that are available. very quickly, here is the schedule for the republicans this coming week beginning on monday. the convention will run until 11:00 p.m. speakers include a ran the paul and ann romney. rick santorum and chris christie is the keynote speaker that night and on wednesday. condoleezza rice will introduce paul ryan. the final night is mitt romney's night 7:30-11:00. you can go to c-span.org for all

your convention in needs. there will be a lot of video there. live a video and articles. lots going on. back to your comments and calls on the cbo report, the fiscal cliff could lead to a recession. here are some of our facebook comments. sandie says, if we continue with austerity it will lead to another recession. look at the --

what is your reaction to the cbo report? caller: i believe we are in trouble. cannot quit bringing money and cared if i am having a hard time paying my bills i have to quit working so much. my deal is to go out and get another job. the big problem is, mitch mcconnell said, they have to do anything so obama does not get reelected again. i believe bill clinton was the last time the budget was balanced, and he left half a trillion dollars to george bush. the economy never went downhill really bad until 2007. even with his cuts he never paid for anything. he had enough money coming in. host: thank you for calling in. another poll from politico.

this says ann romney may not make prime-time during next week pose a convention. the networks are not during prime time coverage of the convention on monday, the opening night. that is the night romney has been scheduled to deliver the keynote address. you can watch it on c-span. kathy is a democrat. go ahead with their comment. caller: good morning. i just want to get some things clear before the media has a chance to spend at this and mitt

romney and ryan have a chance to spend this. let's be thought -- let's be clear on facts. the republican-led congress by john boehner, eric cantor, paul ryan, mitch mcconnell and all the rest of those nuts have done nothing but be on vacation for two-three years. they have done nothing. they have collected a nice prepaid check. we are paying for their health care. the only thing they have focused on, especially in the last two years has been taking away health care for women. brutalizing women. they have had a job at bill after job a bill setting their to be worked on and passed. the senate passed their version of the infrastructure bill that would have put millions of people back to work.

it will turn it around and spend this and say obama did this or obama did this. he has put out his hand. every time he puts his hand out mitch mcconnell, paul ryan, mitt romney and all the rest of the nets to bite it. the wonder why we are at a fiscal cliff. we keep electing the rich get richer. i am barely hanging on into the middle class. this is ridiculous. i refuse to let the media spin this again and let the republicans get off scot-free. they have done nothing. if people were smart they would have a lawyer and sue and it tax money back for their benefits. sorry not paying for their salaries. host: we appreciate you calling in. nate is an independent and the maryland. caller: good morning.

i heard the cbo yesterday on c- span -- my biggest issue on this is that looking at some of the numbers, this has been a real shift in the in come in the quality of in the country. there has to be some additional tax revenue. unfortunately based on what i heard in the report, a lot of the tax increase has to go through the top. they are stockpiling money. the money is not going to be spent on the economy. some of that money is offshore. the middle class in order for us to do anything to, we will have to have all the money we need to spend on the economy based on the way it works. i think the only solution is what obama says. there has to be some cuts.

there also has to be some revenue. as one of the biggest problems we have had. thank you. here are some of the twitter comments. john in the north carolina. here is a little bit more of the congressional budget office the the golden door from yesterday. >> the key issue is not whether to produce deficits relative to those that would occur under policies. the question is when, and the

question is how. if lawmakers did not reduce the deficit in 2010 -- 2013, they will need to reduce it later. at some point we will need to adopt policies that require people to pay significantly more in taxes, accept substantially less in services or both. >> a couple of e-mails. if congress continues on the same path the country will go into a recession. congress has to put its spending breaks before they reached the point of no return. here is mike in texas. the next call on the fiscal cliff comes from lloyd and

montrose, virginia. caller: i think they should let all of this fiscal gloom and doom -- it is ridiculous. i think they should let all the taxes expired. they should remove a lot of the loopholes the rich are enjoying. they are enjoying all the benefits of america, but they do not want to chip and on helping the country. it is ridiculous. why does congress not do the responsible thing that? all the taxes respired -- expired. everybody will pay more. get rid of the loopholes the rich enjoy. host: do you think you pay enough caller: in:i am disabled and i still put on my taxes. every paycheck they take federal, state, social security

and i am a disabled person. i still pay into the system. they need to uncap where you pay social security. why should the rich only have to pay up to a certain amount? let them continue to pay until they die? why is there a cap? host: from the national journal this morning.

again, this is from "the national journal." and from "the hill." we will discuss this issue a little bit later in the program. right now we are talking about the fiscal cliff and what you think the nation's fiscal policy should be. caller: high, sir.

i am calling the -- my boyfriend it died in afghanistan. one of my other best friends did it, too. all of these guys, they just -- the democrats preach about free- speech when it only applies to them. they can say all they want. they attack us. that is pretty much what i have to say. i do not know. go mitt romney. go paul ryan. thank you. host: robert is an independent and columbia, maryland. caller: i listen to the cbo report is today, too. there are three things that come to mind that really are not -- they were not discussed. i am shore the cbo is looking at it. there are factors to the deficit.

libor is one of them. the scandal that has come out of london -- there are a banks here in the united states -- bank of america, citibank a, j.p. morgan involved in fixing interest rates. the daughter of frank legislation, almost every big piece of legislation that comes through waters down dodd-frank. the other thing with the economy, workers are going to get pushed over the fiscal clef when the the partnership goes through. it is both the republicans and democrats that will be pushing for this. their meeting and leesburg, va. this coming september before the elections. president obama is leading this. this is a huge factor. the outsourcing that will come out of the partnership will just be -- it will make nasa look

minuscule. we will shut down some and a factory's and the after effects of its them coming back into the country were shut down some of the small businesses throughout the 1990's. i think we will go through that again. host: nancy pelosi has an op-ed this morning. she concludes her op-ed with this. the democratic house passed more than 230 measures when she was speaker. president bush signed 460 laws passed by the democratic congress. thus far written on the city same by about 106290 laws in the current republican house. the congressional inaction is a republican leadership that cannot or will not government

that will not put aside partisanship to work together. that is a little bit from nancy pelosi today from the new york post. that is in in the new york post. this is from the washington post. the economic model predicts mitt romney will be to obama. it shows mitt romney emerging as

the victor in 2012. they announced wednesday there state-by-state analysis shows the republican capturing a majority of electoral votes. based on our forecasted model, it becomes clear the president is an electoral trouble. the results showed president obama winning 218 votes and in the electorial college, will short of the 270 required for victory. professors are predicting that mr. romney will win 52.9% of the popular vote to mr. obama's 47.1% 1 considering only the two major political parties. that is a little bit from this article in the washington times. from this tweet --

just to let you know, on c-span 2 and c-span 3 there are alternate universes being broadcast. book tv will be on the air 24-74 the next several weeks during the convention. if you are not a political person but you enjoy history and nonfiction books, go over to c- span 2 where you can watch but tv for a couple of weeks. on c-span 3, american history will be on tv for a couple of weeks as well. a lot of past programming that has been on -- this is a new channel for c-span -- about one year or so old. it is on 24-7.

we are presenting alternative universes for those not interested in watching the convention. paul is an independent in washington, here. what are your thoughts on the cbo report? caller: to work for taking my call. i want to express my rigid a little bit of this made them both sides seem to be missing out on the critical basic law of economics. there is no such a thing as a free lunch. neither one of them seem to be talking about the fact that no tax anywhere can create a job without taxing something more valuable of the system. i do not think we should be afraid of the fiscal cliff. we need to make huge cuts. both in the federal government of what they do and what it

costs for those things. from an economic perspective, everything we are carrying is the cause of our economic problems right now. we're paying people to do nothing. it should not be a surprise if they do a lot of it. host: what kind of work do you do? with the government or a private firm? caller: private firm. host: to work for calling in this morning. -- thank you for calling the and this morning.

that is a little bit from the "washington post," article. the fiscal clift to -- could lead to a recession, john. caller: the audience will recall dick cheney sitting deficits do not matter. you have to look at the macro picture. the the recession is being

foisted onto the american people by an inactive congress. they have always favored helping out the least of these. they know the only way they can make massive cuts to the welfare programs -- the common good program -- without the huge amount of money from ores and other things that the george bush and administration brought us, we would not be in this situation. the right sees people as either dead weight as the last caller part it or a fellow capitalist. capitalists need workers and also need workers that are in enough money to buy things. the way to save the economy is to increase the taxes on the wealthy who have more money than

they can spend and to give more money to the poor who can buy the products the wealthy would like to produce. people should also -- a big picture show on rt if they want to know what is going on. host: next call, ran the on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a comment on the article nancy pelosi wrote in. people get confused. the house of representatives, they have passed a lot of bills. harry reid it will not bring the bills up. he does not want his people voting on a boat of my give them a chance to be voted out. when this congress, there are combining them both.

they should really sick the democrats and the senate will not pass these bills so we can get this country going. i would like to speak a little bit about the tax. if you buy something, you pay tax. if you do not buy it, you do not pay tax. if you get your pay check, you get your whole paycheck. can do what you want. that is the way it should it be. kathy who called and and complied with all the democratic talking points, she says she is hurting right now. vote in barack obama and you will really be hurting. host: next call, greensboro, north carolina. we are talking about the fiscal cliff leading to a recession. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think the report is accurate.

it does seem there is a fiscal cliff. i think the economy falling off to the recession is highly likely. i am an independent. i voted republican and democrat since i was old enough to vote. i would like to appeal as an independent who mostly votes democrat -- i would like to point out to obama supporters, you might take this into consideration. the commander in chief is related to congress. it is congress that makes a lot of decisions that actually controls us. government is an enormous thing both federally, statewide, citywide, and countywide. i think as much as i am having to hold my nose to support mitt romney, i realize my problem

with mitt romney is he is a republican and i do not like a lot of things republicans a. however, one must admit obama has failed to lead it. if i may continue quickly, ronald reagan used the bully pulpit with tip o'neill as the speaker in the '80s, he was able to get things done. likewise, president clinton was also able to get things done. there is no peacekeeping -- i will wrap it up. there is no is skipping the president obama has failed to lead. he has led us. i love what he says. i voted for hope and change four years ago. now, i find myself for the president who is not able to call people into his office, make phone calls, and say, let's

work something out. i think mitt romney is more likely to be able to actually get things started. host: we appreciate your time this morning. here is the lead story from "the globe and mail."

mitt romney, a obama struggle to sway the nation's voters with his running mate in place and his convention of looming -- mitt romney naturally trills obama. ronald on the democrats' line. you are on the air. what are your thoughts about the

caller: fiscal: -- fiscal cliff. caller: it is mind boggling to say obama fails to lead it. i remember they were putting him on the back, you are doing a good job. nobel peace prize. the second tee began to say we have no interest in using resources to iraq, everything went haywire. if so wait a democrat. i hold a more independent status. i was looking forward -- i respect the new presidential presidential candidate and his running mate. i was looking forward to -- i might have even voted for him.

he refused to represent himself. we really do not know about mitt romney. we use taxes and things like that to get to know him, his background, his track record. as far as the fiscal cliff, i welcome it because i believe if obama did -- i am not sure i will be voting for him. i am trying to give romney a chance. i believe obama will have a good chance to set the record straight. > host: what do you do? caller: i work and sanitation. host: how is the economy? caller: i really do not see a difference. i am about one hour and a half

away from atlanta. host: we appreciate you calling in. mitt romney to outline a new energy agenda. on thursday he will outline a plan that he thinks would achieve energy independence by 2020 by opening new areas of offshore drilling starting in virginia and the carolinas. c-span will carry his new mexico announcement. you can watch that live on c- span.org.n c-spa

the front page of the arizona republic this morning. denver, and jerry, republican line. what are your thoughts? caller: thank you for taking my call. i am not sure i can be as eloquent as many of these callers have been. i see it as an opportunity.

we probably will have a recession. we will put some bandits on it. that is the way of congress and the way of government to do things. -- we will put some band aids on it. tax the wealthy more, give to the poor. i do not consider myself with the at all. i am a in the 35% tax on the federal and state tax and colorado i am in the 40%. with my small business i sit on the sidelines, said on my hands. i do not have a large enterprise. i have some gainfully employed employees. there are some contractors are support. host: what kind of business? caller: is joy in the oil and

gas business. -- i am in the gas business. >> we have had some callers talking about taxes. you say you are in the 35% federal tax range. do you get to the reduced through expenditures or through house mortgage or any of -- i am losing the word loopholes' loosely. caller: that leads into my next comment. i utilize them. for over 50 years there are tax considerations that anchorage me to put money back into it and throw more wells. those are huge incentives for small, independent producers across the country. this is a family-owned company near my wife. also there is a depletion that

it would lower it from 35% to 30%. it does help. on the the whole issue of tax reform, i think that is probably the and the game on this too good to all people, reduce the rates all across the country. i think republican candidate and his group have a 10% for the lowest rate. 25% for the highest rate. take out all of the loopholes and lower the corporate rate down to 25%. i think you see the economy take off. that is a huge step when the target but the cuts. especially when the target of the fact that 49% of citizens again to this country do not latexes.

host: robert is an independent. caller: good morning. i want to say -- first of all, i totally agree with that woman 100%. she had read on the nail. what most americans do not realize is that eight separate times our economy has almost been driven off the cliff by the greedy rich in our history. from 1792 until the latest one in 2008. each time it did not matter what political affiliation the greedy rich have associated themselves with. sometimes democratic, sometimes with the federation. sometimes with the republicans.

during the civil war, during jackson's time, in the 1890's we had a great depression. we watched during george washington's time during the 1920's and early 1930's, and during this time. each time they used patriotic for white americans to do their dirty work while they are cleaning house on our money. >> we are running a little close on time. jason says the fiscal cliff is an illusion. this is the tweet.

last call on the fiscal cliff issue comes from a democrat in the new jersey. caller: there have been a lot of callers that agree with the way i feel. the only reason president obama has not been able to get us out of the debt we are in and put people to work is because the republicans have folded their arms and refused to work like stubborn children. it is time to put mature adults

in congress that are willing to compromise and are not afraid to come off as being seen as weak by compromising from a president from the opposite party. i think we could avoid going to the fiscal cliff of the could just do that. host: that was made. thank you for every body calling in. we have three more segments coming up with guests. and about 40 minutes or so terry oniel will be here to take your call. of next is nela richardson of the bloomberg. we want to talk to her about the issue with homeowners and a refinancing and what the government has or has not done to help. the washington journal continues.

c-span2 [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> democracy is a difficult subject to measure quantitatively. there are measures of competition and participation, they must of this measure of participation is a voter turnout. voters are far less likely to show up at the polls until the united states than in other wealthy countries. we had a far lower performance and the rest of the competition. voter turnout below is an indication of many things. it may be voters do not trust the system that works well for them. there may be higher barriers to show up to vote and in other countries. it may be other issues about the process itself. symptom andhat as a democracy. we know we have a datapoint here.

the other day to points will talk about come from the world bank. the world bank has a series of measurements of democracy. in each one of them there is consistency. countries like australia come out at the top. the united states consistently comes out in the middle. there are measures from freedom house and once again countries like australia and canada are near the top. the united states is somewhere in the middle. this is very interesting because just like and health where we used to be a leading country, if we think back to democracy, we created a declaration of independence. our constitution was a leading document at the time. we were a leader in representative democracies. if you think about it we have not made a tremendous amount of change to our structure. the way we elect people has not evolved much overtime.

in these other countries, they have used more modern of voter technology. >> see howard freeman talk about how the u.s. measures up on a number of topics including health care and criminal justice. watch the entire event tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. joining us now is nela richardson who is a senior economic analyst with the bloomberg. dr. richardson, bring us up to date on what the obama administration and congress have done since the housing crisis began in 2000. guest: beginning in 2009 the obama administration offered a stimulus program for people who are wanting to buy homes to

incentivize them to come into the market. maybe earlier the they expected to in order to pump up the decline in prices. that was the first step. the second step was to help people who needed to -- if fell behind on their payments modify their mortgages. the third step was to tackle the huge problem of underwater mortgages, people who owed more on their homes than the actual value. the final step was to push this program not just for government owned loans but for freddie mac and fannie mae. the step they are working on is to increase the program for all mortgage owners. to take a advantage of the historically low interest rates reverse seeing right now. >> how much money has been spent on federal tax dollars and how many people have been helped? >> and other politically charged question.

under a tarp which is the same program responsible for the bank bailouts, congress allocated $60 billion to help with the foreclosure crisis. only a small fracture of that has been spent. in terms of money allocated, only a small fraction has been spent to help the foreclosure crisis and housing crisis. a about 1 million borrowers have been held under the modification program set up by the administration and about 1 million people have been refinanced into lower interest rates through freddie mac and fannie mae. host: the congresswoman from california had this to say. this is a quote from "the new york times." she is chair of the democratic

caucus. that comes from this article in of the new york times." >> the obama administration put their finger in there, but they did not fix the dam. it is very difficult for the average person to get a mortgage to buy a home. we still have a elevated delinquency rates. people are 90 days behind on their payment. we still see pockets in which the home prices are declining. we have yet to see an increase said a national level on home prices. prices have declined 33% since their peak until 2006. homeowners have lost about $7 trillion and in home equity since the foreclosure crisis began. we still

although these programs are helping, they are not enough. host: we want to put the numbers up in case you want to participate in our discussion with nela richardson of bloomberg. we will talk to her about the president's latest proposal. we have set aside our third line this morning for those of you who may be under water in your mortgage. we want to hear your experience, would you have applied for the program or just to hear your experience. nela richardson, why has so little been spent so far of this $50 billion? guest: the cautioned you

mentioned earlier is a dedicated on the fact that the economy would move forward a lot quicker than it has. tied to the problems in housing is the unemployment rate. we are now about 8%, which is too high and people don't have jobs to pay for their mortgages. we have a slow economy and banks that are hesitant to lend. all the traditional mechanisms that the federal reserve for fiscal administrators used to stimulate housing are not working. the problems are to substantiveo and they are not really addressing the fundamental problems in housing. housing is usually responsible for pulling the economy out of recession. that through new construction and residential investment. housing has failed to do that. for the last five years it has been more of a labyrinth that a stimulus for the rest of the economy. host: the president had this to

say in new hampshire couple days ago. [video clip] >> we have put forward an idea that i think a lot of americans feel makes sense, which is we have had historically low interest rates now and the housing market is beginning to pick up again, but it's not at all where it needs to be. there are many families whose homes are under water, they owe more than a house is worth, because housing values dropped precipitously. they are having trouble refinancing. we are going to be pushing congress to see if they can pass a refinancing bill that puts $3,000 in their pocket for the average family who has not yet refinanced their mortgage. that's a big deal. that $3,000 can be used to strengthen the equity in that person's home, which would raise home values. that is $3,000 in people's

pockets so they can spend it on a computer for their kid going back to school or school clothing. that would strengthen the economy as well. host: nela richardson. guest: based on an estimate that about 50% of mortgage holders would be good candidates for refinance, they would benefit from these historical low interest rates, yet we are not seeing those numbers in the refinance numbers. there are big hurdles to refinancing, putting money upfront. the obama administration has done a first couple steps in trying to remove some of those barriers. most of the programs to date have only required a voluntary participation of lenders and servicers of these mortgages. is vastly different than an aggressive action, a blunt instrument of really tackling this problem, taking these loans off the books at the banks, refinancing them under a government program, and then

encouraging banks to lend to home owners who want to purchase. host: where's the bottleneck? is it because lenders don't have the money or they have higher standards, because the money is not available, forms to be filled out, homeowners? guest: yes to all of those, and the fact that banks have a lot of distressed property is still on their books. the link with the rates are high. foreclosures are still on their books. we have yet to see the pipeline or foreclosures moving through the market to clear completely. when you are facing these kinds of costs still on your balance sheet, you are very reluctant to make new lending programs and very reluctant to reduce principal for mortgage holders on a massive scale. they could do costas things, cautiously refinance mortgages. but there's not been a massive program by the government or banks to deeply attack the

problem the housing market is facing. that is what was required a four years ago. host: a tweet -- guest: we hear that time and again. this is a person who has substantial equity in his home and yet it's hard for him to take advantage of the lower interest rates. there's a lot of problems. one of the facts is the banks still have a freddie mac and fannie mae. if they refinance the loan and for some reason person loses their job or falls short on the pavement by, they don't know if freddie mac or fannie mae won't require them to purchase back that loan. even though it may seem decent on paper, the candidate, the

bank is still worried about what would happen to the mortgage overtime. that uncertainty is a hurdle for this particular person. host: nela richardson has a ph.d. from the university of maryland, a master's from the university of pennsylvania and indiana university. she is a proud richmond, indiana native and a senior economic analyst with bloomberg government. it means you are journalist, correct? guest: i am an analyst. i don't consider myself a journalist, but i have deep respect for journalists. bloomberg government is willing a research group targeted at tackling the intersection between business and government. the questions we ask every day of the week is what is the business impact of government action? the modification program, refinance program, everything the fed has been doing in terms of buying mortgages.

we look at those programs and we say what is the effect on lenders, banks, homeowners, stakeholders? we do that not just housing but across a variety of industries like energy, health care, regulated industries, and on issues like tax and trade that businesses are interested in. host: first call comes from maryland. george is on the underwater line. caller: hello. i applied some time ago for the the hamp program. the bank last in my face. they were prepared to foreclose on me. they were in different because it was voluntary. what the people in the financial community have done to this country, what wells fargo did to

the black and brown people on the west coast and all across the country, bank of america, citigroup, and these huge organizations, they pay their salaries andant watch their country and individuals go down the drain and they cheer. the financial community's view their own personal self-interest and short-term profits and don't have any sense of patriotism or cooperation. guest: i think the disparity in treatment between banks and households is a problem. we saw the government take very aggressive action toward banks and bailouts and yet we have failed to see that same kind of decisive action with homeowners and households and housing. that is a big voting issue going forward. while the programs are voluntary, banks will always look at self-interest. as shareholders, that's exactly

what you would expect. it falls on the best of the government to take massive action. they tried with the modification programs such as the one you applied for. but as we have seen it is just not enough for some people. host: you have created a chart for the home affordable refinance program. you say that more underwater bar workers are being helped by harp than in the past. guest: it was revitalizes at the beginning of this year. they expanded the program, they tweaked the program so that more seriously under water homeowners would qualify. again, it's not a massive change, but it is a change that has degenerated more refinance activity. let's hope going forward we will see more progress in that area. host: we have another mortgage under water caller from nebraska, sharon. nela richardson is our guest.

caller: good morning. i take advantage of one of the programs that was initially offered when we first got into this economic catastrophe if where the government gave us the credit that we would have to pay back in order to buy a home. i took advantage of that. then i'd walk home. i do have to pay that money back, but i bought a home and then lost my job. i got behind in my mortgage. subsequently i was able to refinance, but they took the money that i owed and put it on the back of the mortgage. what i am thinking is, is there any way out of this mess? no matter which way you go, you still come up with problems. there's no way you can dig out from it. guest: this caller seems to have gone through all the upstages of the government programs, starting with the stimulus that

help you by the home, being impacted by the economy that caused the job loss, and now getting a term extension on a mortgage or some of that principle that was owed put at the back of the mortgage. so i completely understand a problem and the question. i think it's going to take not just a recovering economy and to help the situation, but also some changes with the way the loan was modified so that it helps a homeowner stay in the home and to build equity instead of put this person in quicksand in which they are trying to keep their head above water. at this point i don't think there is an assertive effort on a massive scale to help these particular issues. right now it seems that you are treading water. i don't want to put words in your mouth, but i would think that the whole market is treading water. we have those that are under

water, owing more than they are worth. so it really -- we really need the government to help people swim to shore instead of continuing to tread water, which seems is currently the case for many people. host: this tweet -- guest: i don't think it was an either/or option. i think there was money in tarp set aside, a fraction of which has been set. during the great depression the government bought distressed mortgages from the banks. it was not a voluntary program. they refinanced them on better terms and council homeowners to help them get through this process. people sometimes defaulted any way. there was a 20% default rate. but at the end of the day they took decisive action during the great depression. it totally revived the housing market. 15 years later the loans were

sold and the government and taxpayers made a profit. what we are looking for is the same sort of action for today's problems. host: a tweet -- question.t's a good it did make it easier. it blew up the prices for sure. banks lowered their lending standards and the typical traditional underwriting criteria that was used and kept the housing market held before long time failed. regulation failed to limit products that were dangerous to homeowners. culpability can be applied. all around the applied. but the past is the past. we're left with a problem. the question is how do we move forward? i am all for the statement that you don't want to reward people who misbehave. but since housing is so fundamentally tied to the

economy, a drag on housing keeps us from achieving that economic growth that this country desperately needs. so fixing housing fixes the economy. we all benefit from that. host: next call comes from john in illinois. caller: hi. i love c-span. i'm going to help this lady help people move forward. brian on c-span a few weeks back on the author named gretchen. if you read the book it's clear and obvious that clinton had this goal and it probably was a democrats goal to put everybody in a home. that has turned out to be really reckless endangerment in that we have too many people should not

be in a home. moving forward, i know it's fine to try to hold on to these things, but people probably need to be thinking probably more along the lines of what they can afford, even in this low interest-rate environment. i know loans are tough. people cannot qualify for loans. people don't have jobs. i'm just saying to everybody would learn from this book as to how this has brought down a country. guest: that was quite helpful. the push for home ownership began with clinton, but it was extended by george bush prosy administration. the idea was that giving people a stake in america through home ownership would also increase their stake in the outcome, the economy. it was consistent with democratic and republican platforms. policies are pursued that may

have artificially -- did artificially pushed up the home ownership rates, extending credit to people who cannot afford it. therefore, what we are currently seeing is a decline in homeownership. the homeownership rate now is the lowest it has been in 15 years. we have swung up and swung back down. the problem going forward is how to have a market that is sustainable, that actually encourages homeownership for people who save and can afford it through responsible lending practices and good regulation. that's what we are trying. to trying host: here's the july 2012 foreclosure rate. this is by realtytrac. the darker the red, the worst of foreclosure. you can see the midwest was hit. georgia and florida and

california and nevada and arizona are still the worst. mitt romney was in reno, nevada, talking about how to help the housing market. [video clip] >> there's no question, but this housing market should have rebounded. the president's policies have not led to a circumstance where it did hit bottom and then started coming back. that's what should have happened by now, but his policies have not made that happen. the kinds of things we have to do is to get the hundreds of thousands of homes that are owned by the federal government and its agencies sold, keeping them empty will not help housing. second, we have to make sure the alternatives to foreclosure are more readily available to people who want to take advantage of those alternatives. this is a time for us to get the economy going, to make sure more people working with better take all they are able to buy homes and move into residences that right now are empty. the president's plan for housing, now 3 and 1/2 years

running, has not done the job. people can tell that across nevada. host:. : guest: >> let's take his question, it's important to get the house is sold. i cannot agree more. the problem is we need banks to lend. there are not a lot of cash buyers. some investors to have money, but what is needed to get the house is sold is a financial system that lends. so we need to get banks lending again first so the houses can be sold. second, foreclosures are very costly. it costs lenders about $50,000 to foreclose on a house. so you want to avoid that caused by any means necessary. we have heard about deep releases where the homeowner voluntarily turn over the key to

win back the house from the lender. we have heard about an uptick in short sales where the bank goes ahead and allows the homeowner to sell the house. these are all options that should be pursued and extended where they work. finally, getting the economy growing again, that is fundamental. employment and housing are so correlated. during the boom, housing was responsible for creating one- fifth of jobs. after that bus, all the jobs went away, a lot of them. -- after that bust. housing is important not just in terms of people having a nice place to stay and schools, but it really providing structure for the economy and for job creation. host: ron tweets -- guest: some degree.

you can assign guilt and responsibility across the spectrum of programs and tokeholders, but this push increase home ownership was really disastrous in terms of t of too far -- too far out. there was a time you did not even have to have a credits or to get along. you could get along on a six under thousand dollars house with a $40,000 income and no assets. no one wants to return to that type of business model. host: how did we end up in that model? guest: there was this group think that house prices would never go down nationally, ever. that belief is what people bought into as homeowners. maybe i cannot afford this house right now and maybe the terms of

the mortgage are suspect, but i know the price of this house is a great investment and i can sell it at a future time. but that only works when house prices are going up, and they did not. host: next call from st. cloud, florida, thomas. caller: good morning. all you are doing is rewarding the losers. the people that should not have been in the house in the first place. now we're going to reward them. all you are doing is promoting losers and punishing the people that live within their means. that is a real left-wing deal and you are in the minority. all you want to do is bail them out. it's going to cost us all. let them sink or swim on their own. guest: everyone loses when there's a foreclosure or of vacant property on the street. you lose when your next-door neighbor goes into foreclosure. i lose when there is vacant properties in my neighborhood.

it is a loss for the economy and housing market -- when the housing market does not recover. there are many reasons people go into foreclosure. you are correct but some go into it because they simply could not afford a house. some go into foreclosure if because they've had a hard luck story because of unemployment, which is the biggest reason people foreclose, or because of a health problem, a divorce. a lot of reasons. my issue is not bailing out people. i'm all for it, on the taxpayer. i don't want to give people money to support a million- dollar house they cannot afford. but i recognize the link between housing and the economy, housing and the price of equity for these homes, and the importance of housing as a mechanism for the middle class. as long as housing is broken, the middle class suffers, whether they are current on their mortgage payments or not. host: chris in woodbine, maryland --

guest: right. adjusting interest rate is one of the options the banks have under these modification programs. they're also willing to do that on their own. the federal reserve has worked hard to keep mortgage rates low. that provides some sort of salvation for many homeowners and for many of these programs. principal forgiveness in which part of the debt is forgiven is more controversial. there has been evidence that it may not actually help in terms of -- a person may still the fault even after the loan is forgiven. an interest rate reduction is a good way to make sure that pavement leaves, even if principal forgiveness is not. pursued host: carole is calling from illinois and she's under water.

caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm a first-time caller. i'm 68 years old. i have worked 25 years and now 11 years as a teacher in illinois. so i am very angry. i purchased my home in 2007. i put 100th -- i purchased it for $175,000. it was a condominium. i put down a $32,000 for a down payment. fannie mae had blown. -- had the loan. they want $3,200 more in cash, so i'm very angry. that's my position. guest: this is another heartbreaking story. it is one thing when a person buys a home and puts very little equity into than home. it's quite another when people

invest their personal savings in a home and then they see prices decline. so this idea of removing the cost of refinancing so that people like yourself can take advantage of a three%, 30-year fixed rate is vital. more government policy is needed to address these particular issues. what you are hearing is pockets of discontent that it's just not enough, what we are currently doing. host: you said more government policy is needed. is that because the banks are hesitant to lend or the money's not there? guest: banks are not innocent in august. they participated in some of them and underwriting standards that ran amok, and they created financial instruments based on mortgages that or unfathomable. they were far too risky. they have a problem as well.

they have the inventories of foreclosed properties. if they write down the mortgage, they take an immediate hit to their balance sheet. they are thinking uncertainty in terms of dodd-frank regulation. the uncertainty caused by the government, freddie mac and fannie mae. the government right now provides funding for 99% of new mortgage originations in this country. they have seen their markets dissolvent crumble. they are loaded down with these foreclosed properties. and it's an uncertain market going forward. so we can see they are stuck between a rock and hard place as well. so really the government is our last resort in terms of getting landing back on track. host: tom as a comment -- guest: i am sensitive to that

argument. we don't want to reward bad behavior. but we also don't want to be stuck in a bad economy. so long as housing is a plank in that economy, we need to start reviving it. host: james is on from greensboro, north carolina. caller: part of the problem, people blaming some people that cannot afford some of the houses, the main problem came from upper income people who bought five houses, houses, and then tried to sell them and could not sell them. blamed on middle- class people that pay their mortgages. the banks are one of the biggest problems, the banks and lenders. i get tired of people trying to make it out, partisan, democrat, republican, they all played a part in it. but the banks should help out with foreclosures. guest: i honestly believe the

blame game is counterproductive. let's work forward five years from the crisis. investors and speculation did play a huge role in driving up housing prices, making them unaffordable. then when they could then when they could not flip the houses, they bailed on them and many of the houses stayed vacant, in foreclosure. we need to move past blame to programs that work. that is going to take assertive, aggressive action. host: camille tweets -- guest: it's a band-aid argument. do you rip it off quickly? a lot of economists and analysts

and business leaders are saying let's just allow the markets to clear. let's allow people to get foreclosed. let's move these properties off the markets it. that is an argument i am sensitive to, but it goes back to the way real estate is local. the foreclosure process differs from state to state. some are judicial, which takes longer. it's a very expensive process. so there's bureaucratic hurdles to rip off a band-aid that were not removed by government action. as appealing as that may be to some to take the bad medicine now and get over it, if there are still significant hurdles that prevent the economy from doing that. and you cannot sell homes. selling and clearing distressed properties sounds like a great idea if you have banks willing to lend money to people to actually buy them.

t --: a twee guest: and to highlight that comment, it was also overbuilding. home builders themselves got caught up in. the in and so, they built these homes before there was accurate and substantive demand to support new construction. places like florida, nevada, arizona, california, you're really saw the bubble, the increase in home construction, which led to speculation and problems those states are facing now. host: just to conclude, i want to bring it home with bringtweet -- -- with this tweet --

topt: i don't know if i can that. i feel that he has kept the housing at a plateau, but we need more than a plateau moving forward. we need a complete revitalization of that market. that's what i'm hoping to see. but host: nela richardson, senior economics analyst with bloomberg government has been our guest. please come back. but guest: it was a pleasure. host: two more guests segments coming up on the washington journal this morning. terry o'neill is the president of the national organization for women. we will talk with her about campaign 2012 and women, from virginia beach. if we will conclude this day's show with our weekly series on online media outlets, neil

monroe from the daily call will be our guest and on the quad 15 eastern. first we want to show you, you know the republican convention starts on monday. much of our coverage has already started. we are introducing our new web site. today it is being unveiled. jeremy will introduce it to us. >> c-span has covered every convention since 1984. this year will be no different. but this year viewers can really engaged with c-span content and with other viewers during the convention. if you go to the homepage, c- span.org/campaign2012, you'll see live video and feature video. we will show live video every day and it's all archived in the

c-span video library. but if you scroll down you'll see some new things to. the first is user-generated clips. everything in the video library and every video before the convention you can just clip certain segments and shared just 30 seconds or two minutes of a five-hour session on various social media networks or on your blog our web site. below that you will see two twitter streams. these come from two sources. one of them is the viewers. tweet using rnc, the stream will end up on one side and the dnc will end up on the other side.

next week when the democrats or the week after next we will have their tweets from their delegates as well. host: people can watch the conventions live at c-span.org and watch speakers who have already spoken on line. they will see the tweets from the delegates and from fellow viewers, political tweets as well. what about facebook? >> all this will be able to be shared on facebook. there are infographics that might include quotes and links. all this will be easy to share on facebook and other networks. host: where do people go? /campaign2012.012

host: when people go to c- span.org it will be front and center? >> exactly. host: jeremy, thanks for giving us an update on the c-span website, campaign 2012, and everything related to the conventions will be on this web site. republican and democratic. if there's something we have not thought of, e-mail us. you can go to c-span and what all of our coverage, watched the past coverage and watch what people are saying from tampa and from charlotte, and gavel-to- gavel coverage on your tv set and online when the republicans kick off on monday and when the democrats kick off the following monday.

jeremy is with our social media and the digital media team. now joining us from virginia beach, virginia, is terry o'neill, the president of the national organization for women. thank you for being with us. guest: thanks for having me, peter. host: what have been your election efforts so far? guest: our goal is to really get the word out about what is at stake for women in the 2012 elections. it is a hugely consequential election. i'm sure that your viewers are very much aware of the enormous scandal going on around todd akin's comments suggesting that women who were subjected to rape cannot get pregnant. this is used as a justification for making it impassible --

impossible for women to terminate a pregnancy that results from rape. these are issues that are very serious for women. my job and my organization's job is to get that message out. it's not just about women's reproductive health care that is at stake this year. women's economic security is very much on . we know that the middle class is struggling to in this country. -- women's economic security is very much on the line. women, and support over half of the middle-class families in this country, the romney-ryan budget brings medicare down to about your program that has an enormous and disproportionate impact on women. it sets up social security for benefit cuts that congress could

not slowdown. very disproportionate impact on women. the cuts to medicaid proposed in the romney-ryan budget would have a very disproportionate impact on women and would force thousands of nursing homes around the country to close. the proposed budget would slash an entire range of social programs that women rely on and that employment as teachers and nurses and nurses' aides and child care workers and social workers. so there is an enormous amount of stakes. this is an election in which i think the positions are very starkly different between the obama-biden ticket and the romney-ryan ticket, so women have a clear choice. host: the todd akin controversy, what has that done to your efforts, to your fundraising, but to people interested in

your? aspects of the your guest: i think what's happening is women around the country are paying very close attention. they will now be paying very close attention to what the republicans say in their convention, but they will also read carefully the republican platform. the todd akin controversy has put a spotlight on these issues. , issues. -- issues, i think. we need that controversy to help us with our fund-raising because we need to get the word out, and that takes resources. i think the latest polls are showing an increasing gender gap between republicans and democrats. i think that japan will grow. i think it's a good thing for a national spotlight to be on these very important issues. -- i think that the gender gap will grow.

voters will really know what they are voting for when they go to the polls. we're working very hard. we are partnering with other women's organizations to get this word out. i think moderate women, independent women voters, they are the ones taking a close look at this. they will be voting -- my prediction is they will be leaving the republican party in droves and voting for democrats in droves. i would like to say that my organization is a non-partisan organization. i think there's a real problem for the republican party to be so dominated by a very thin slice of the extreme faction in its party. the party leadership policies, the shutting down of family planning clinics, and cyber control, anti-abortion even for victims of rape or or for women who need to terminate their

pregnancies for their health, those types of policies are not shared by the vast majority of voters in this country and are not shared by mainstream republican voters. i am hoping that this election cycle will demonstrate to republican party leadership that they need to come back more to the center and be more in tune with the mainstream of what voters really want in terms of policy. host: here are two articles that are related to what terry o'neill has been talking about this morning -- female voters in campaign 2012 is the topic. terry o'neill is the president of the national organization for women. she's joining us from virginia beach, virginia. that does not look like a

virginia beach behind you. guest: i am here visiting friends and family. host: the numbers are on the screen in case you would like to dial in,/political association. mike is on our independent line from minnesota. caller: good morning. there was a study that i saw on one of the learning or discovery channel's that had to do with some lady, i believe she was a member of now that wanted to find out whether males dominate in the animal kingdom like in the human species. they strutted apes, and ducks, baboons, -- they studied. they also did a study in england where they are much more sexually inhibited -- uninhibited. question?'s your

caller: the question has to do with women are going to find out that they control life itself. and legitimate rape has to do with pleasure vs unpleasure it. host: we will move on to ron on our independent line. caller: i have been following this thing very closely. no one wants to really admit that race is at hand. from the time that gentleman called the president a liar, it seems that the democrats talk to their tails between their legs. the republicans have gotten away with every sort of thing imaginable.

it is very disgraceful that we are in a time that we are with the rest of the world is going forward. america is stuck in racism and sexism. it is very shameful. thank you very much. i'm a first-time caller. host: thanks for calling. terry o'neill, you said that there's a real gender gap when it comes to voting, men going more republican and women going more democratic. what is your view of that? is that a good thing or a negative thing? guest: i think it is an indication of how the republican party is going in an entirely the wrong direction. women are over 50% of the voting population of this country. you would think such a large proportion of the country would be a little more evenly

distributed across the political spectrum. i think women are more or less evenly distributed across the political spectrum compared to the entire population. what is happening is that the republican party leadership is leading mainstream people behind, men and women. that said, it is true that women tend to vote more progressive than men. some studies show that. but i think the enormous gender gap we are beginning to see is a reflection of how out of step with the mainstream of american society the republican leadership has become. that's a terrible pain. we have a two-party system in this country. we rely on both parties to provide options for voters, to provide choices for voters that actually would reflect the voters policy preferences. right now the republican party

leadership is pushing policies that don't reflect what the majority of people in. this in. that does not mean they cannot get elected. -- right now the republican party leadership is pushing policy that don't reflect what the majority of people want. people we don't respect or reflect the views of the majority of people in this country, those politicians can still get elected. one of the reasons you are seeing this enormous gender gap is precisely because of with a lot of money coming in, in 2010, many politicians getting elected that don't reflect what the american people want. now women and men are looking and saying what to you mean, you are opposed to birth control? the blunt amendment in the senate in the springtime and the companion bill in the house, which vice-presidential candidate paul ryan from supported, which would block women's access to birth control.

that's way out of step. i think the gender gap is a symptom of something that is going very wrong with politics in this country. host: the next call from terry kara in comes from ca massachusetts on our republican line. caller: i would like to make two quick comments. number one, this election concerns more than just the women's movement in this country. second, the remark about todd akin absolutely blows my mind. she knows and i know and the country knows he was referring to the thousands of men who are sitting in prisons today who were wrongfully convicted of rape by vindictive woman or spouses looking for a favorable results in court. that cannot be denied.

they areg and that taking that out of context. host: any comments? guest: that is -- i have frequently heard that, that somehow women who say they have been raped are lying because they're being vengeful against the men they have accused. two problems. first, the studies are very clear that rape is a seriously underreported crime in this country, that it has begun to be treated seriously only toward the end of the 20th century in this country. the violence against women act has brought us a long way toward preventing raped and stopping it from happening, but we have a long way to go. rape is a surge in this country. women do not claim they have been raped lightly because very

often they feel the system then betrays them. many women report they feel raped a second time when they make the accusation and try to bring the perpetrators to justice. so that's a problem. but i do want to say something on what the caller said about individuals being wrongly convicted. the good news is that we do have dna testing that and much more accurately identify a rapist. the dna process has resulted in freeing a number of individuals who were wrongly convicted of a number of crimes. so that needs to go forward. rape kids around the country are languishing for lack of resources to process them. -- rape kits around the country. we need to get serious about processing those and putting

resources into them to make sure they are processed. because of the violence against women act and because of dna testing and appropriateness forensic rape examinations, we have learned that although one- quarter of women will be raped in her lifetime, it's not all the case that one-quarter of men are perpetrators. rape is very much a serial crime. it's a small minority of men committing a large number of rapes. dna testing can help us find them and put them in prison where they belong. host: on july 11, 2012, now endorsed president obama and vice-president biden for reelection. . here's . -- here is the announcement. a tweet -- g

guest: before the republican party took the equal in rights plank, now use to support republican candidates. somebody sent me a republican who is in favor of women's rights, who supports equal marriage for same-sex couples, who understands women's needs for the whole range of reproductive health care, who understand women's needs for economic security, who understands women still today don't have equal pay for equal work, and is willing to take a leadership role in changing that fact. i believe at the state level and at the local level there still are some republican policy makers that now chapters can

endorse. we are nonpartisan and we are for women. president obama and vice- president biden are hard choice for this year's election because they have shown themselves to be supportive of women's rights. they are putting us on the right path toward equality. so that is what we look at. last week's sabrina schaeffer of the independent women's forum was our guest. she talked about paul ryan. [video clip] >> paul ryan is seen as a true fiscal conservative. when he was elected by governor romney it was a nod to conservative voters who want to see him standing up for free market policy prescriptions. when he selected paul ryan, that was extremely helpful to him among his base. but it was new blood for the left to say look how bad he is,

he's going to be one of those conservatives who hates women. policiesul ryan's cannot be worse for women. i don't know how he personally feels about women, but his policies are devastating. let's look at what he's most proud of and what he really wants to highlight as his policy prescriptive. that is the right and budget, which is really now the romney- ryan budget. that budget devastates women. women actually cluster in a very small number of job classifications. only in 25 out of over 50 hundred job classifications recognized by the bureau of labor statistics. women have 50% or more of the jobs in those. women are two thirds of minimum- wage workers. paul ryan's policies would devastate low-income workers by

taking away things like food stamps and headstart and bell grants and after-school programs. these are all programs women disproportionately rely on. a woman who currently is benefiting from an after-school program in her community, sheik innkeeper job because she knows if battered child or children have a safe place to go after school. but if that's good program is shut down, which under paul ryan's plan it would be, she's going to lose her job. -- a woman who currently is benefiting from an after-school program in her community, she can keep her job because she knows her children are in a safe place after school. i don't know if paul ryan hates women, but i know the policies are fiercely anti woman and

that's a fact. host: an independent in fairview, oklahoma, you are on. caller: good morning, c-span, and thank you, terry for the work you do. i've been a big fan of c- span3 retired. i watched the house and the bills they're passing. why we got into this mess is the republicans are all about saying one thing and doing another, which is evidenced by the bill pass. go to the government web sites and see what they've done this year. you'll be amazed at three- quarters of the bills they passed concern abortion, controlling women's right to choose., choose it is just ridiculous. i don't know if the public is being fooled by what they say on television, but caring organizations like hers need to let people know what's going on so we can stop being fooled by

these pretenders who are not what they say are. host: terry o'neill. guest: thank you very much. i appreciate those comments. i have heard from other corners not within the women's movement expressing concern that in the media there is an effort to be bipartisan as opposed to nonpartisan. i think it's really important for everyone to reflect on the difference between being bipartisan, where you say the republicans have one view of it and the democrats have another and they are equal and we are going to present these two people views. that's my view of bipartisanship. on partisanship is telling the truth. tell the truth about a particular policy even if it turns out that the truth about that policy makes the person who was pushing that policy look

really bad. if it's a bad policy, it needs to be identified as a categorically that policy. to say that paul ryan is a fiscal conservative really does not capture paul ryan's policy agenda. he is a radical transferfer of wealth. the romney-ryan budget has been described by an economist, a well-known economist, as being the single largest wealth transfer from middle income and low-income families to the very wealthiest in this country that our country has ever seen. the romney-ryan budget, by the way, it is not fiscally conservative in the sense that it does not reduce the federal budget deficit. it simply takes money from one sector of the economy and ships it to another sector. all the savings from cutting medicare -- i'm sorry, converting medicare to a voucher

program, cutting medicare, cutting social security benefits, cutting all these social programs, all the savings from that goes to increased military spending and enhanced tax breaks for millionaires and corporations. there is virtually no deficit reduction. if you want to be non-partisan, you really have to be reporting that the romney-ryan budget shifts money to the wealthy even though they feel that makes them look bad. if they are bad, the need to be reported as being such. that's not a failure of neutrality. i think it's a conversation that is beginning to be had within journalism circles and in the media about how to report something truthfully even when the side that feels it been made to look bad does not like the truth

host: our next caller is on a line from virginia, annie. caller: i'm glad i got in with terry o'neill because i like what she is saying. if i'm opposed to how they say a woman can ms. carrier when she is raped, i know how it feels to be raped. my other statement is republicans should be uncovered for what they have been their whole lives. mitt romney never had to want for anything, never had to wonder how he was gone to take his children to the doctor, always had money to do that. i am so appalled at how they

disrespect. are disrespect i think they only do that because he's a man of color. they respected president bush. they cannot even say "president obama." thanks for speaking up for women. it is sad when they try to take us back to where we came from. thanks for listening. guest: 15 about the restrictions on abortion are troubling. -- one thing about the restrictions on abortion -- on abortion are troubling. to outlaw abortion in cases of rape or incest is exactly the same policy the paul ryan is

very aggressively in favor of. todd akin justifies this policy. paul ryan has to about the justification. for his anti-abortion policy. paul ryan, on a number of occasions, has voiced the opinion that women live. that women cannot be trusted, that women are deceitful about their health, and whether they have been raped. for example, paul ryan was a sponsor of a bill in congress that restricted women's access to abortion care with a rape exception but only if the rate was "forcible." the reason for having this

qualification on the rape exception is the belief that a woman will lie about having been raped. she has to show broken bones or cuts on her body. to believeonly time her when she is raped. that is deeply disrespectful of women. that is something paul ryan himself has supported. he was on the floor of the house of representatives on tape for the complaints about how women are deceitful and a lie about their health status. he does not want any exceptions to abortion. in cases where the abortion is needed to protect a woman's health. the reason he does not want any exceptions is because he believes that women will be deceitful and the lie about their health status in order to have an abortion. women who have breast cancer,

whose birth control fails, are dealing with breast cancer that affects the entire family. she needs to terminate the pregnancy to insure her help. this policy of being anti abortion even when it is necessary to protect a woman's health minister family has to come up with 5-$10,000, the entire oncology team needs to be involved. paul ryan would allow that woman to suffer that way because he believes that women generally are deceitful and would lie about their health status. there's something very wrong with that attitude. i think the caller really brings that up. look to your left and look to your right, someone you know has been sexually assaulted. it is a trauma and what society needs to do is provide services

for survivors and accountability for perpetrators and not sharing the victim -- and not shame the victims. host: guest: i think party loyalty is a very strong thing. i am glad there are women who are staunch republicans. some women share the views of politicians like paul ryan. i think there are a large number of republican women who have worked in the party for a very long time and are determined to make a positive contribution to their community through the republican party. my hope is that those women will be allowed to come up into leadership and bring the party

more to the center and have a republican party that is more in tune with the policy preferences of women of this country. host: next call, we have about 10 minutes, houston, texas, sandra on our republican line. go ahead. caller: i would like to tell this woman that i am a staunch republican and i am anti abortion. i believe in certain circumstances but all of those women out here in america -- are concerned is aborting little babies. you are so interested in saving the well and the seals and saving the world but to don't care about a tiny infant baby. there is something wrong with you people.

one of these days, you're going to pay for it. the good lord is not going to let you slaughter the little babies and not pay for it. how in the world can you justify going in there and ripping that little thing out. there is something wrong with you and i will always be a republican as long as you democrats are slaughtering millions of little babies. guest: yes, that very passionately held view does exist. i have talked to a large number of women over the years. i lived in louisiana for 20 years teaching at tulane university. many women have told me that they think abortion is wrong. they think it is a sen. --sin but sometimes a woman has

to do something that is wrong some women have said when her daughter had her abortion, we thought was wrong but we were glad was available. sometimes doing the wrong thing is the right thing to do. it is astonishing how difficult this issue is. i have to tell you the truth -- my view of abortion is that it is health care. it is part of women's reproductive health care. one in three women will have an abortion by the age of 45. it is an extremely common and necessary aspect of women's reproductive health care. the rate of abortion would probably go down if we had better birth control which thanks to obama care, women have now much better access to reliable and safe birth control. the reality is, abortion this health care and everyone has the

absolute right which no one can legitimately take from her. no one can legitimately take away a woman's right to be in charge of her own health care. host: here is a tweet -- guest: absolutely, the push to get women into the agusta golf club was the brainchild of the national council of the women's organization, a coalition of women's organizations from around the country when martha burke was the chair of the national council. she proposed that augusta national golf club should come into the 21st century and start telling women. it has been well over a decade but it has finally happened. i am very happy for condoleezza

rice and marla moore, the two women who have been admitted. i look forward to the time when half the members are women. i think that is appropriate. host: do you think a private club like that should be able to maintain its own policies whether or not hutu had met? guest: absolutely not. augusta is not a private club. that is not a book club. is a place where business gets done. it is a place where the ceo's of the top corporations in the country do deals, talk business, and that needs to be open up completely to wittman. if the augusta national golf club wants to change its position in the country, if they

want to become a small little book club or a small little golf club, fine, but they are not. these are clubs where people of color and women need to be openly admitted on the same basis as anyone else. host: here is another to read -- tweet - guest: abortion care generally is a safe outpatient procedure and it is not appropriate to have medical procedures done in one place when it is more appropriate to have them done in another. some abortion are purportedly done in hospitals. one of the most unfortunate things that has ever happened in the last several hundred years is the demonization and politicization of abortion care. abortion care, like all other

aspects of women's reproductive health care, should be dealt with as health care, as medically appropriate. we need to have ongoing research so that madison -- medicine provides women with health care they need. we need to do more research, provide better care overall for women and that includes abortion care. over 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester at a time when most appropriate facility as an outpatient facility. host: from annapolis, maryland,- caller: thank you so much. i am a naturalized american citizen. this is a great country but it has not yet gotten past racism and sexism. a violation of a woman against her wishes is plain and simple unacceptable and an advanced

country like america. i happen to be an independent. when a woman is raped and she gets pregnant, it should be plain and simple as her taking the appropriate steps to protect her body from the ongoing reminder of her ordeal. i don't understand why this is even being debated. no one should be telling a woman how she should handle for situation especially after she has already been raped. she will continue to be reached for the rest of her life? that is ridiculous but it is being discussed. my point is that a woman should be allowed to abort the child. if that's what she chooses to do. some women may not do because of their beliefs but if a woman wants to report a child, i don't understand what this is a discussion. thank you so much. guest: the ongoing issue of

racism as well as sexism in our country is important. there are troubling studies that show extraordinary disparities across racial lines of wealth. it has to be dealt with. the median net worth of white families so far exceed the median net worth of african- american families and the median net worth of latino families, it is mind-boggling. we need to address that in this country. that correlates directly with health outcomes. studies show a huge racial disparities in health outcomes among women. that is something we desperately need to address. the other thing the caller mentioned is what a woman decides to do after she has been raped. women need to be told by every single hospital she goes to after she has been written about

the availability of emergency contraception that can prevent pregnancy after rep. hospitals should be required as a matter all lot to not only provide information but provide the emergency contraception after the rape. beyond that, there are 31 states in this country that, believe it to not, allow rapists impregnate their victims and exert fathered rights. that legal right has been used in a number of cases to avoid prosecution. he will trade off his agreement to stop trying to have access to the child in return for her agreement not to hold them criminally responsible. it is completely outrageous. there are 31 states that allow this to happen.

that needs to change. host: last call comes from winona, new jersey, a democrat, you are on c-span. caller: when my daughter was 13 years old, some animal broken to my house, rape and sodomized her, he was caught and had done many rigs before and my daughter was brought to the hospital and given something to make sure she was not going to get pregnant. i did not want the little baby of that animal inside my daughter. and pray on her for the rest of her life. it is ridiculous to tell somebody that after an animal rights and an innocent girl -- rapes and as a girl that they should carry the baby to term. paul ryan is in favor of that. watch out. thank you very much. i want to reach out

to the caller and i thank you for calling. i am so sorry this happened to you. when a rape happens, it happens not just of the woman but it usually happens to her entire family. it is traumatic, deeply traumatic, and my heart goes after you and your family and thank you very much for speaking out about it. it is important for us to hear the stories. host: terry o'neil, the president of now, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you, it is wonderful to talk with you again. host: we have one segment left and that is new munro, --neil munro, from "the daily collar." -- the daily caller. we want to take you live to

tampa, fla. inside the tampa bay * form. you can see a lot of construction going on on the floor of the tampa bay * forum. times forum. give as a wider shot. you can see all the different things going on down there. that will be completed by monday when the convention starts. the entire form will be red white and blue. we will be doing the same thing in charlotte when the democratic convention starts. the tampa bay form in downtown tampa -- this is the third convention being held in florida. it is the first in tampa and the last two, 1972, the democrats and republicans met in miami

that year. the republicans, 2286 delegates and 2125 alternates will be there. they are the ones allowed to vote 50,000 people will be attending. there will be lobbyists and people interested in all of this. the mayor of tampa said this is the second-largest media event in the world next to the olympics. about 13,000 test 15,000 members of the media will be attending. i'm sure we will be hearing about hurricane isaac or tropical storm isaac as the day progresses. monday is when the convention starts. cspan, of course, live ever since 1984, every minute of

every convention has been on c- span. this year, nothing different. the republicans' august 27-30, democrats' september 4-6. everything will be live on tv. , on line, and you can hear it on a mobile device. monday, 2:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m. and ann romney will be speaking. along with rick santorum. rand paul is one of the highlights on tuesday along with chris christie. he will be doing the keynote address. 7:30-11:00 p.m. on wednesday as the night that paul ryan accept the nomination as vice presidential candidate. condoleezza rice will also be speaking that night. finally, last night of the republican convention is

thursday, august 30, 7:30-11:00 p.m.. mitt romney will be accepting the nomination that night. hopefully, isaac will boil down a little bit and everything will go on schedule. this is the place to go for past conventions, current conventions, news, features, everything about tampa and charlotte you could possibly want. go to c-span.org/campaign 2012. we will show you one last picture of the tampa baytimes forum. that is a live picture of the construction going on in tampa. we will be right back.

>> what do we see women look at the dead in antietam. they describe those bodies in great detail and then often stopping in the middle of that detailed description and and saying it is too horrible, i cannot put this into words. words cannot convey this. >> this weekend on american history tv, antietam paused dead. 's dead. that is saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern. also this weekend -- >> maris will stand up for the ideals that we believe and when we are operating at our best and who want to see this country, perhaps above all else, return to the path of peace.

>> more from "the contenders," our series looks at key political figures that ran for president but lost the changed political history. this week, 1972 democratic nominee george mcgovern. that is sunday at 7:30. american history tv this weekend on cspan 3. "washington journal"continues. host: we want to introduce you to neil munro of "the daily caller." today, neil munro of the daily callers joining us. what is the daily caller? how long has it been around? >

guest: it is very new and is a free market publication designed to give news. it has been very successful and growing faster than projections. host: you say it has news for a variety of people. what kind of articles do you do? guest: politics is the main draw but our readers are not full- time political fans. we do articles on culture and guns and the economy. we to politics. host: what do you do? guest: i am the white house correspondent and that keeps me busy these days. there seems to be a lot of trauma emerging from the white house. -- drop of merging from the -- drama from the white house.

i have been doing this a little over two years and i used to work for "the national journal." i did a lot of different stories from different angles as a science reporter and communications reporter. host: what was it like going from a national journal-type publications to a more opinionated publication? guest: i am shocked. it is a breath of fresh air. subscription publications are very different. the reporters and editors said that headquarters and a day each think of what the readers would be interested. in the on-line world, we know precisely what they're interested in. we're in much closer contact

with our readers. that means we focus on what they want which is true interest and stuff. we're not in the fake a drama business. we focus on true political news. our readers don't want unballasted information. some will say we are biased. publications with subscriptions, the reporters sit in the newsroom and they don't feel the customers' interests. they don't feel the owners and shareholders desires. they tend to be on their own. if you're on a major publication, you take your shoes of what is important from each other -- you take your cues from what is important to

each other. the interest of the reporter guides' those publications in a way that does not happen in online publications. online is more fair and more accurate and more concerned with giving the reader is what they want. it is a breath of fresh air. for example, i was a science reporter ed "the national journal." when it came to political matters, the tea party group started bubbling up and i noticed on line a map showing planned meetings in april of 2009. i showed my editors and a couple

of weeks later, there were more meetings planned for april, left about this. the instructions were no, that will be taken care by someone else. by sheer luck was in south carolina on april 15 and the road to an article and it was an accurate and true and very balanced article that was cited for two years after. it was the first "national journal" article on the tea party. i was a science reporter and i wrote the first national journal article on the tea party. the editors and reporters guide each other what is important. you see this all the time in " the new york times." host: you talked about getting about cues from each other. is the white horse press corps a

groupthink mentality? guest: there is a common interest among reporters in the white house to report drama which means more exciting news. fine. the white house beat is a terrible, awful beat. most reporters do not have the clout or independence to argue and push and fight with the white house. if you are a major publication and you put up a fight, the white house can simply turn to somebody else and that makes you look bad in front of your editor and major editor look bad in front of his boss and makes the boss look bad and from the donor. it is hard to fight against the white house. this happens all the time so they are very constrained. they may be good reporters but

very few of them have the clout and the ability to argue back. beyond a few of them, it is just terrible. host: you've got the president's attention on june 15 and we want to show that. [video clip] >> it is not a permanent fix. this is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely was giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. it is the right thing to do. excuse me, sir. it is not time for questions. not while i am speaking. precisely because this is temporary, congress and the answer to your question and the next time i prefer you let me finish my statement before you ask that question -- this is the right thing to do for the american people.

i did not ask for an argument. i'm answering your question. it is the right thing to do for the american people and here is why -- this is the reason, thank you very much >> what about american workers who are unemployed? and you employ foreigners? host: when you were watching that, you were reacting a little bit. was it uncomfortable to watch? did it make you angry? guest: it is on comparable to watch. the thing that amuses me still it is as the man never taken a question on immigration? it is astounding and what he said was 800,000 workers can into the country and they will get a work permit. that number has drifted up to 1.6 million. we have record unemployment. he did this on their wedding

plans as his own authority. -- he did this on his own authority. this was an amazing move. how many questions has he taken on it? host: did you interrupt the president while he was speaking? guest: when his voice went down at the end and he talked about young people -- before going into that in the morning press conference, they would not take questions on the record. they were trying to get this announcement tour without much fuss before the weekend, before the summit in mexico. sometimes someone asks a question when he walks away from the podium. it was an amazing news event.

i thought i would get him but he turned away. otherwise, we would not get anything from him that day. his voice went down and i thought would be a fairly short speech. he is announcing a 800,000 people when it was being rejected by congress. it was a campaign trail pitch. it had to be short. his voice goes down as he says young people. i asked the question. i shout about the question why you prefer foreigners to americans. it was a dramatic question that farmers can easily s because americans are very court. -- that foreigners can easily as

because americans are very coy. he still does not answer the question. host: what was the reception you got from your fellow white house correspondents after that? what is the reception you get from the white house? currently? he walked away and the video appeared on the campaign site very quickly. it appeared on the spanish- language side for several days. i turned around to walk. reporters crowded around me and asked who was. i was surprised. then i walked quickly away. i never expected any of that

from a large crowd of intern's. s. i walked back to the office. when i got back to the office, i found i was stranding more than lindsay lohan. -- trending more than lindsay lohan. i explained that sometimes arrested question too early. it was not an interruption, it was just a mistimed question. i wrote the story and it was a good story. 50% of young african-american man, it is an extraordinary story that he should bring in this many guest workers when his core groups are so amazingly damaged. by the economy.

why does the white house press corps reporters, why do they not see what is going on here? you have to go back to what makes journalism. people ask the media is right wing or left wing. the answer is we are neither. we are pro ourselves. we love drama and excitement. we love war for a while and scandal and shock. we are for us. that is our primary by a spirit bias. which part gives us more drama? it is pretty obvious. the republicans are small government and they would reduce their footprints in washington. they would move power out, lower taxes and make business more important. that's less interesting with

less drama. the majority of reporters and irrational interest to snuggle up to democrats. the make government bigger and make us more important and increase our status. democrats are our allies. in the same with the general motors loves cars. people in hollywood like a video. the majority of the media naturally is pro-government. here we have this amazing story of which there are many amazing stories in washington that keep getting ignored. my colleagues are not terribly interested. the president had a press conference the other day and

there was nothing about this. host: neil munro is our guest and i wanted to have a chance to chat with him. he is the white house correspondent for the daily collar which was started by tucker carlson. our first call is from new york, on our republican line, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to thank neil munro for coming on the program especially following the previous guest. i want you to know that the -old that if you believe what i'm telling you or you believe your lying eyes? -- is something i have kept in mind for several years now. i think the daily caller, when you put clips of what is going

on on the internet, how is anybody able to believe something else? the daily caller puts videos up of politicians and other elites saying things and you got the media denying that they said those things. guest: we provide true and interesting stuff you will not get elsewhere. host: i want to show some of your stories.

this is the front page of the daily caller, the website. is this your story? guest: yes, partly. host: presidential debates. guest: the commission on presidential debates picks the moderators. in so many ways, it is they flambe of special interests. the two guys in charge are former clinton spokesman and business-related lobbyists. what are reporters allowing this group to pick people for the presidential commission? it should go for the board members.

let's be serious. this allows business interests with politics in washington allow them to pick questions. there are three or so republicans and they're not considered very prominent in the party hierarchy. host: these of the interesting stories that neil munro has won and they include -- guest: the story has not been picked up anywhere else. host: do you think if you have put this in "the national journal, "it would have been picked up elsewhere? guest: it might have been.

in "the new york times" that would have been a democratic confession. host: here is another -- our son, robert on our democrat line. caller: thanks for listening to my comments. the moderator and your guest. democrat in many ways. i would like to have your guest

listen to my views on government and politics. my first point would be the ongoing wars that we must all pay for. at the end of world war two, corporate taxes or 93%. everything was paid for and people had jobs and their programs put in by the democrats because we had been relieved from a depression caused by the republicans, i believe. all would like to have you critique that. i would like to have you critique and answer to me how it is that abortion got to be such

an issue considering that abortion laws got to be under a republican administration. do you know much about the voting on that decks host: we will leave it there. any response? guest: i could talk about various aspects of that. public memory of many things is distorted. for example, the great depression. you are an american. you get to go out and decide under oath. you can read the daily caller if you want to get a different perspective. you will find some interesting stuff. you are american enough to make up your own mind. host: mobile, alabama, independent line. caller: good morning.

you are a breath of fresh air. i saw you asking those questions to obama and i was so proud of you. you don't know how proud i was. the deepck person from south -- please don't let them intimidate you by using the race card. they would do that to silence you but we need you. if we don't have people such as yourself, standing up asking real questions and hopefully getting real answers, we will lose this country to obama. that is what i am so afraid of. afraid to even look at him on television because he is trying to take this country down. thank you and keep up the good work and again, please don't be

intimidated. do your job. you have been doing it. host: is it intimidating to stand there? guest: thank you very much, this is our job, to inform and provide to with information that you make up your mind. you don't have to rely on the washington reporters with their own interests and thank you for saying that. i have to pay off my green card and that is the thing i would like to work for. the more people say that, the better as the daily caller will work. host: is it intimidating standing in front of the president? guest: [inaudible] you try to ask questions.

host: has he called a new voluntarily? guest: it would not make sense for him to do so. if the ast " the new york times" guy, he will get a better question for his friends. it is rational for him to do what he does. he is a rational guy. tweet -ere's a twist guest: what turned was there? did he take any questions? nonetheless, having asked a question, i thought if he had heard that i wanted him to answer. it was an important issue.

i fell into this having mistimed the question. there is no way you can calculate this or work it out. forget it. i just made a mistake. host: the couple more stories neil munro by. guest: you have no idea -- host: that is the headline. if you are curious, you can go the daily caller to.com. we don't have enough time to discuss every story.

guest: that is a lovely question. i have had a share a typos and messed up for its. the worst thing i ever did was i wrote an article years ago and i got called up and said the article was wrong so i wrote a correction and we printed it and he turned out to be right. alas. host: how big is the step the daily caller @? guest: we have 10-15 reporters and many independents. host: democrat, good morning. caller: two quick comments and the question -- your statistics about unemployment in america a specialist in new york -- it has

always been much higher than the standard national unemployment rate. it was like that before president obama went into office and you are using it as a lightning rod. the same thing about imported workers in this country. over the past 100 years, how many imported workers have been under every regime? why are you making that an issue under the obama administration? when you were disrespectful and i am upset about the way you'd to spur respect the president of united states. i have never seen that in my 53 years of living. when you were disrespectful to the president of united states, was that of your own volition or did the managing editor put you up to it? guest: no, the top guys were not

happy at all. they did not want us to behave badly or to be rude. it was straightforward. it was a mistake. my timing was wrong. i did not wish to disrespect the president or the office. is a perfectly good question and your point about african- americans is per irrelevant. should we care less because the president is also african- american or care more? eventhat the rate is higher and immigration has continued higher? we will see more and more ways of robots coming in and displacing workers. this is not the time to be important low-skilled workers to compete with the existing surplus of low-skilled workers

who are having difficulty getting jobs now. as for the disrespect, it is a perfectly relevant point. host: santa cruz, california, republican. caller: how are you doing? maybe you can help me out but i believe it was president bush who would keep getting questions from -- he finally just quit calling on her because he refused to answer any of her questions. are you associated in any way with rupert murdoch? you meth? guest: i would make a joke meth but it would be in bad taste. no association with rupert

murdoch. comparing me to helen thomas , you wound me. host: use a don't compare me but she would stay point of view in her quest and guest:. ok -- there is a firm line between the fact. or questions. all questions tend to imply a perspective. i try to be pithy and direct and clean as possible. my last memory of helen thomas is for the jews to go home.

i am not like her host:. a republican from oklahoma city, go ahead. caller: 90 neil munro you, for what you do and we know that obama only cares about people -- he does not care about people who are not working. he only cares about people that don't make him money like solyndra and gm. seven out of 10 gm jobs went to china. he has to pay back tax money. the labor for ask why some women are republicans and it is because we can't afford to take care of 10 kids that you should not have them. thank you again and hang in there.

host: guest: that's sweet. what planet is he on? we try to stick to facts. we asked direct questions. we try to come up and find interesting news so likelyndra, fast and furious, political decisions and the white house, national security and spending. host: fayetteville, n.c., our democrats line. it helps if i push the button. please start again. caller: he is sitting there

making all these remarks. we all understand where he was coming from. he is a republican. that is what republicans do and have been doing for years. we understand he probably won't be reelected because he is a black man and the white people don't feel he should be able to run this country. i know i will be cut off but i just have to speak the truth. they don't think a black man should be able to run this country. i think he is doing a good job with that and he was dealt. when he took over this country, it was bankruptcy. guest: i don't want to argue but for a minute, try to imagine mitt romney with a -- was a black guy.

do you think the republicans would be jumping for the life that they have a black guy? they would love it. this is not a racial issue. when you have blocks voting for or against people based on color, that is a racial issue. like the president's policy, it is not a racial issue. host: an independent from brooklyn. caller: neil munro is an

immigrant and i've also noticed that in the media, there's a proliferation of people who are not native americans. you are wanting to attack the president for taking away jobs. there are hundreds of thousands of educated black people able to take your job. that does not -- does the irony of that affect the attack and your president? guest: there is no irony there. it is a useful thing to explore. americans are sensitive about emigration. many washington reporters are reluctant to say anything disagreeable or point to any problems about immigration. when i signed my paper, by force

what loyalties to foreign potentates. i am an american now and i like being an american. i write about american issues that are important to americans. it is not a color thing. it is just news. it is true and accurate and interesting news you will not find in many establishment publications. we exist to provide interesting stuff, true stuff that the others don't want to produce. host: did the daily caller have any trouble getting white house credentials to guest:? no. host: were the easy to get? guest: yes and no. if you work for an established and recognized publication and use on up to go to the white house frequently, at some

point, you could argue with the guys at the white house and have a permanent pass to walk him. in. when we want to go to the white house, we e-mail in. sur saye. i don't particularly have a press pass. i am a reporter with press identification. to get into the white house, i am let in as the same terms as everyone else. if you work for publication and you come to the white house, they let you in to cover the president. the area you go into is a small little room. there isn't much room to wander around. you cannot walk levels of the white house. when i covered the pentagon 20 years ago, you could walk around theithere. that has been shrunk down. that has been shrunk down.