looks at what is ahead for congress this week. and then bob woodward talks about his new book, the price of politics. and later, jessica donzee black discusses the new nutritional and dietary guidelines for public schools. washington journal is next. host: good morning and welcome to the washington journal on this monday, september 17, 2012. president obama traveled to ohio today to continue touting his efforts for the u.s. auto industry. he will make an official complaint with the world trade organization alleging china is undercutting the american automobile industry. former massachusetts governor mitt romney takes its campaign to california today to speak?

the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce. the anti-muslim video sparking debate in this country and others about whether government can or should control internet content. we want to get your take on that question this morning. the white house asked google to review its policy on the video. some calling it an unusual step and perhaps unprecedented from the u.s. government. what are your thoughts on best? -- on this? tweet. a or contact us on facebook. or e-mail us. here is the front page of the business section of the new york times this morning.

a similar article was also in the washington post on sunday -- excuse me, on friday.

harold is a democrat in ohio. should the government be controlling content on the web? caller: i don't think so. the religion -- i don't think they know what kind of world it is today in some of these countries. y fly off the handle for no

reason. host: not the propaganda can be found on google.com -- now to an independent in north carolina. should the government be controlling certain content on the web. gil? not.r: >absolutely iny don't care about the web the middle east. the only westerner they ebert respected was alexander the great. and that was before the moslem

era. the government should not be controlling content. host: even if it might help with t preventing the violence in the middle east? caller: no. they are still living in a pre- modern era. host: global has decided to block the film in some countries. here's a story posted this morning. they decided to block it in malaysia. what you make that iof that? caller: they should try to block

it if they can, but that will not stop people from getting what they want. we're not responsible. host: so you think that it's ok in some countries but not in ours? caller: its freedom of speech. i believe in freedom of speech. i believe in free trade. i think the government is oversprinting -- overstretching its power when it tries to regulate this. host: in grid in d.c., you are on the air -- ingrid. caller: in certain instances it is appropriate. but youfree-speech, cannot cry fire in a crowded theater. people already stated it was their intention to provoke and to cause trouble. they succeeded in doing that. i have a second question. , the former to know

education secretary, what is the role of a journalist interviewers on c-span? when he said something in direct contravention -- contradiction to the troops, do you just accept it? yesterday the gentleman made a statement that iran said there were going to nuse nuclear weapons. he has a right to say he does not believe iran when it says it does not want to use nuclear weapons, but they said their religion does not allow them to and they don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons. host: the role of a hostess to be a moderator of the conversation between our guests and the viewers. time we ask follow-up

questions, but it's a balancing act because we want to get your voices in through streets and e- mails and comments on our facebook page as well -- through tweets. the beauty of the show is you as a viewer can challenge a guest over the phone or elsewhere. in the "new york times this morning it says --

memphis, tennessee, carl, a democrat. what do you think? caller: how are you? i am -- it should be a limit to freedom of speech, especially if it causes a public uproar and other problems. you've got a lot of people that have intelligent input, but you have a lot of people that don't. for people to just try to create trouble, that is crazy. so, it needs to be a limit on what the media picks up and sends abroad. the computer is international, so everybody gets an eye on what some radicalist might see

as freedom of speech. host: is it not all subjective? caller: the thing is, you have so many, just like america, we are very diverse. therefore, something needs to be regulated. we just cannot get on the internet and say anything. what type of country are we to allow people to do that? host: we will keep the conversation going this morning, but i want to give you other headlines on some other topics. here's the chicago tribune on the teachers' strike --

and in the tallahassee democrat, the front page of their paper -- she is expected to speaker around 7:00 p.m. the u.s. is to file a complaint with the wto over cars. it accuses china of providing 1 billion worth of subsidies --

and here's the story posted on "politico" last night -- and a new "new york times" --

so mitt romney to reset this week. putting out new ads boastinfocug on the economy. and this in the wall street journal -- and the washington post -- so those are some of the headlines on romney's campaign. here's another from the washington post --

those are the headlines this morning. we will have more as we continue our discussion on whether the u.s. government should control the content. now to a republican in englewood, florida, jean. caller: absolutely not. by the way, good morning. freedom is basic in the united states. the web is . is we have freedom on the web. tois parents' responsibility turn off the internet and make sure things they are looking at on there are poor. . -- are appropriate. we have a right to anything that's on it. that part of our freedom. if you do this, where do you stop?

suppose something else comes and someone does not think the poor. but someone else does? there are many things attached to religion that some people find appropriate and other. people that other it's up to the individual. if you take that right away, it's wrong. host: what you make of facebook walking links to the video in pakistan -- blocking links? caller: the question is kind of tricky, because if you are going to put things on the web, it has to be done in an appropriate manner and then let people make their own decision. that's the true journalism. when your reports things, when you see things, it has to be done in an objective way so that people can make their own decisions. just putting it on and let us

make our decision when we see it, that's the part -- that should be part of that question. a lot of times, things get put on the web with different people's opinions that put it on and it tricks the person that is theit. when you report something, it has to be reported factual. -- interest person that is seeing it. host: now call from maryland. caller: i love your program. the u.s. government should not be able to sanction. and google has a responsibility, especially being an american company in how it chooses to project. jefferson taught us about freedom. all of it should be put out there so the best ones can be

differentiated from the worst ones. because this has not been sanctioned in other countries because of religious laws there , google should understand is a very inflammatory piece and is something they should just pull. host: look at the front page of the orange county register. caller: it's because google represents america even if it has its own face in each country. the president is right. but it does represent america. people in those countries with their own agenda, this gives them something to use against

america. google need to be more responsible. they should pull it in the u.s. since they have pulled in other countries, because we see it's not a good thing. i believe in freedom of speech, but at some point someone should say enough. say enough is -- enough. host: susan rice on the press talking about the attacks in libya last week that killed u.s. ambassador stevens and then the new president of libya was on cbs and he gave his take on the attacks. [video clip] >> there is an fbi investigation ongoing. we looked to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. putting together the best information we have available to us today. our current assessment is that what happened in benghazi was initially a spontaneous

reaction to what had just transpired hours before in cairo. almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in cairo, which were prompted by the video. >> these territotraitors, the wy they acted, them choosing specific dates for this so- called demonstration, i think this leaves us with no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined. host: here's the headline in the washington times -- on facebook, getting some of your comments on our questions on should the u.s. government control web content?

an independent in pennsylvania, walid. caller: how are you? i think they should pull the video. host: why? caller: it's not about freedom of speech. we are supposed to have all these type of freedoms. by the same token, what are you seeing as far as cameras on everything? it's just free any more. it's ok to intrude with the patriot act in our phone calls and things of that nature. i don't have a problem with -- they don't have a problem with

that. but people have a problem with not pulling inflammatory content from the internet. it's not good. host: --

that was the new york times. paul, what do you think? caller: all the other countries outside the christian countries disapprove of anything that's not their own religion. we should remove ourselves from all the muslim countries. that way they would not have an

excuse to kill us just because of our religion. they don't need an excuse. host: all right. here's the opinion section of the wall street journal, the editorial page -- eddie, an independent in oceanside, california. good morning. caller: house it going? -- how is it going?

he might want to regulate certain things like pornography because the kids have access to the internet. but in this instance, the video has some truth to it. that's the whole thing. people get mad at the truth. from what we know about history, it was partly true. host: your point is that sometimes it is objective, so did nothere should not be controls over the contents. caller: yes. host: berkeley springs, west virginia. caller: when i see a baptist church next to a mosque in the middle east than i would say they have reason to complain. host: john is a democratic

caller in albuquerque, new mexico. we will move on to wisconsin, randy, a republican. . good morning. caller: i don't think the government should regulate anything on the web. people can watch anything they want to. the government is trying to take more of our freedoms away. as far as the movie supposedly up,ing the muslims waound susan rice made a fool of herself yesterday on television try to take up for the u.s. and how obama has handled things in the middle east. he has incited this all because of apologizing to the moslems. when you read about mitt romney on the campaign, did you read anything from the washington times on what they said about

his campaign or did you just read from the democratic papers? host: i read from the wall street journal as well. there was not a story in the washington times this morning specifically about that. let me give you this headline from the financial times -- so that the world news section of the financial times this morning. here's the front page of the washington journal this morning -- the washington times --

in louisiana, a.j. is an independent.

we are talking about whether the government should control the content like this video? caller: thank god for c-span. no, the government should not. it is amazing that this government is now concerned about censorship on the web when it is a moslem problem. aboutsay this was a movie catholics or baptists or something like that, you think they would be out there doing that? absolutely not. it's all about free speech. the u.s. government does not like christian religions. host: all right. now on our twitter page -- if you want to send us a tweet.

and on the "washington times front page -- west palm beach, florida, mark, a republican. caller: i'm sorry, i am an independent. republicanism is not what it used to be a and neither is democratic. people should be aware some things are put up just for the purpose of being inflammatory. it should not be censored.

when people buy into the hate speech, they are feeding into the intended purpose for people to have horrible feelings. it just feeds the fire. so we should all take a step back and when we read something, investigate and don't allow emotions to ruin lives. no matter what religion we are. there's plenty of angry questions out there, too. so everybody should take a deep breath. host: what does that mean as for our question? caller: it means we all have to learn to exercise objectivity and not just think whatever we see is the opinion of millions and millions of people. it is the opinion of a small group. we have lots of neo-nazis in this country and lots of crazy people over here. what we do as intelligent americans ignore those people. that's what everybody needs to

learn to do, just ignored the inflammatory things that people say that are just intended to stir up hatred. host: brian is on the democratic line in chicago. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you. over the past 10 years to 12 years, there's been more of a liberalizing attitude toward speech on the internet. there was a time maybe five years to eight years ago when any kind of inflammatory speech or even four-letter words or george carlin's seven words, people would request that others in chat rooms not use certain speech and the threatening language could be reported to officials. i don't remember if it was the

-- the fcc. regulations aer's while ago. i'd think that used to be across-the-board. now i think the users are the ones who regulate, who complain. or complain complain but there was, -- i was on a chat room about eight years ago when someone threatens someone and someone else threatened to report it to the sec, i think. so i think it is the users who ourself regulating now. -- the fcc. host: and this article --

the constitution turning 225 years old. chris is a democratic caller in charleston, west virginia. caller: how are you? i was just thinking there's nothing wrong with being critical of other religions. but when you take it too far, but it starts to run into other people's rights. if you don't agree with it, that's fine, but there's no reason for people to get so critical. everyone is looking to just try to fight with each other about things. i don't feel the president was being too apologetic. it is his job to say those views

don't represent our country's views and people don't really need to be attacking him for it. it's not like he is falling down to their beliefs. he is just saying that's not the way our country sees people over there. host: al is a republican in ohio. caller: there is such a thing as the constitution. it definitely should be looked into. after obama better get serious on this. this was a terrorist attack on 9/11. that movie was three months ago. this was planned. they are walking around with bin laden pictures. this was a terrorist attack. this is presented by. we have to take this seriously. i hope no one else gets killed over there.

the president needs to buckle down. host: in the arizona republic on the front page -- springfield, missouri, billy joe is an independent. we are talking about whether the u.s. government should control web content. on friday the white house asked google to reconsider its policy on the anti-islamic video. google has not blocked viewing. caller: i don't think the federal government should control anything more. they should cut some stuff loose.

everything they control, they screw up. host: chris is an independent in fairfield, minnesota. caller: you should big book to say whatever you want on the internet, but you should be prepared for people to call you a moron. i've seen something on line but said president obama is an alien. you should be able to say whatever you want, but you should be prepared for folks to not buy your products or to call you a moron. host: this in "usa today" --

will freddy is a republican in minnesota. go ahead. caller: this is clifford from minnesota. host: sorry about that. caller: our government borrows money from china. i'm starting to think that parliament wants to be like china and blocking content they don't appreciate. host: grim, michigan, mark is an independent. caller: hello. it is terrible on how all the violence around a world is being blamed on a video. severe mass distress syndrome moves across our

nation, you get the violence. that's the way the human mind works. it is erupting around approached because of what the global lead are doing. -- global elite. mankind is fighting back against their greed. host: the new york times this morning with this domestic story --

we will talk about congress in a few minutes with jonathan allen of "politico." congress is in this week for a short legislative session before a recess until after the election. we will talk with him next about what is on the agenda. i told you earlier president obama travels to ohio today, one of the battleground states, for 2012. he will talk about the automobile industry and will announce an official complaint with the world trade organization against china, alleging they have been subsidizing their automobile industry and undercutting u.s. auto suppliers. mitt romney will travel to california today to talk to the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce about the economy. his campaign is set to release new ads on the economy.

we will have coverage of the two campaign events. go to our web site, c-span.org. rocky is an independent in charlotte, north carolina. caller: good morning. my opinion on it is america is a special country. it was born special. to keep religion out of our government. i got that back court. it was really to keep government out of religion. if we what the united states of america to rturn into china or russia or something like that, let these people keep being bamboozled by our politicians, i believe they are trying to move us towards a one world religion. free-speech is one thing that keeps america. a special america i with my to know c-span's

opinion. host: we don't have an opinion about it. that's why we want to hear all of your comments. we are letting you know what washington is reading this morning on this issue and other issues. ed is an independent in baltimore. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. the first action of the violence was an organized protest stemming most likely from 9/11. we found a video made over a year ago to put the blame on it. it is a reactionary congress here in the u.s. that all of a sudden wants to do something about it or reactionary administration. these were planned protests, not grass roots outbreaks of violence. we have blamed it on a year-old

video. eventually we will lose some rights because of its. host: the occupy wall street movement is one year old today. this is the question put forth by "usa today" -- arkansas, john, a republican. caller: good morning. this particular question raises another interesting question. who is this u.s. government that will control free speech? is it the same u.s. government that allows illegals to access

our education, medication, housing, employment sectors? is it the same u.s. government that limits the futures of 1 million aborted babies each year although 50% of the people are against it? the same government that forces health care on its citizens when over 50% of the people oppose it it? the same one that allows teachers unions to withhold education from citizen children? host: ron is a republican in oklahoma. go ahead. caller: they should not, because a lot of this started when the video was translated into arabic. the person who is at fault is

the person who did the translation, bonot necessarily the people who made the video. host: what should be? done? -- what should be done about it? caller: i think the government should stay out of the web. where are they want to stop as far as what they will try to control? host: we asked whether the u.s. government should control. in this piece it says -- that the new york times this morning. jonathan allen will be with us next to tell us what's left on the congressional agenda as both chambers get ready to recess. and later will speak with bob woodward about his new book.

we will be right back. >> ♪ >> i think the fourth amendment's can be construed to being a privacy amendment and against search and seizure in your home is due process. i strongly think that the privacy protections that our founders took for granted in the internet and telecommunications age you cannot take for granted. you have a legislature to make. it make the short answer is i

feel very strongly that the information about yourself is yours unless there is a law enforcement reason or some overwhelming public good reason to go around that privacy screen. >> the question of technology and privacy with congressman joe barton tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with jonathan allen of "politico." . senior . let's start with the store you posted last night about the campaign. some internal struggles at the romney campaign. it's likely there could be a shake-up in his campaign at this stage? guest: pretty unlikely you with the major shake-up in his campaign. mike allen jim, my colleague, the palace intrigue story.

the dissenters usually try to preserve their future careers. they get behind a couple points in the polls and all of a sudden everybody is trying to take down stored stevens as the head strategist for romney, the complaint being he has taken on too many roles in the campaign. the speech writer, a strategist , and he has an eclectic style. people don't have the same kind of faith in his discipline and as some others high up in the campaign. mitt romney bears responsibility for the functioning of his campaign and the way that his top aides are working or not working, as some suggest george stevens is not. not. host: the front page of "politico" this morning --

guest: the odds are long almost like the odds of the redskins' winning yesterday's game after the final whistle sounded. democratic leaders have through say to their supporters that they have a chance to win. if they don't, all the money will dry up. the outcome would be worse for them. when you talk to democrats privately, they throw a bone to the idea they could still hang on to the house. moving back from we can win the house to we can pick up seats. host: let's listen to nancy pelosi, house democratic leader, yesterday on cnn on this. [video clip] >> i would have said to you back then we were dead even. momentum is very much with us. we are the messengers. we have money and mobilization

and an excellent chance to take back the house. host: an excellent chance of taking back the house. guest: nancy pelosi is a better political strategist and i and a better communicator and spinner. they do not have an excellent chance of taking back the house. there's no independent oddsmaker who thinks democrats have an excellent chance. they have a very, very, small chance. the republicans would essentially have to fall off a cliff. host: there is this fiscal cliff coming. congress was in last week and now what's on the agenda this week? guest: not much. they have to pass the continuing resolution in the senate that will fund the government through march. so that has to get done.

otherwise they could have problems at the end of the year. the government would shut down. so that has to get done. you have the jobs bill making its way through the senate. the house has a host of suspensions, lesser bills going on. so there's not much. they pretty much decided to call it quits and go home until after the election. host: on the veterans jobs bill, here's the new york times editorial page -- what is the fate of this legislation? guest: i think we will have to watch the votes this week. i try not to predict. sometimes there is extra energy for things. there are efforts by republicans to block it. they have the ability to do that. there's a lot of messaging going on. democrats are messaging to veterans that they would like to

help them find jobs. their messaging beyond veterans the idea they're helping veterans come back. you are seeing votes in the house this week on coal production, on energy production, and on some other issues that the republicans would like to hammer democrats on. the health and human services department has ruled that has come out that relates to waivers for the food stamp program. you are born to see an effort to undo that will buy a house. that's not going anywhere in the senate. a lot of messaging this week before they skipped town. host: you have this story on friday along with your colleague -- you got a sneak peek at the sequestration report that the white house put out, detailing where they would cut its automatic spending cuts happen. guest: i did not learn a lot. the white house essentially said here's how we interpret the law in terms of which ofare subject

to sequester -- which accounts are subject to sequester and which are exempt. that was not a surprise. what republicans are saying they did not get an answer to was how, within the broader categories that the white house applied a sequester, meaning which activities or programs that need to get funded. funded. the white house took congress saying details would happen and they turned that into an opportunity to message on congress failed to act again. they turn congress' message back on congress. host: one of the reports may be saturday morning said that one part of the cuts could come in embassy security around the world. what you make a bat and how congress react to the report this week? guest: anything is potentially

7%r game when you're talking to 10%. you will still lot of discussion on just how american defense its people abroad. this is not just a situation. renewed situation -- this is not just a situation where we have seen protests. an american ambassador was killed. the reaction has been tamer than i would have expected for seeing an american ambassador killed. i think you'll see every to cut off funding from some american allies or people we thought were american airlines. the consulate in benghazi not guarded in the way one would expect an embassy in the capital city to be guarded but even one might expect a consulate in a hostile territory to be guarded. host: we are talking about the

congressional agenda in campaign 2012 with jonathan allen. now to a democrat in south carolina, john. caller: hi, greta. i want to disagree with the chances of the democrats taking back congress. i believe the people are beginning to know that the republicans have taken upon themselves a strategy of withnance by black mmail the help of citizens united. it seems to be their choice of action. the rest of the world is seeing what's going on. they have decided that they too could enter the game and manipulate the government through influencing our election. i believe that's what happened in the planned terrorist attack in libya. i believe the prime minister of

israel, benjamin netanyahu, is using the election for israel's best advantage. it's terrible. guest: as far as what's going on with the house elections, a lot of things going to those, including redistricting, which has happened, including funding for campaigns, including the quality of candidates on both sides. parliamentary election where you essentially vote for one party and everybody in that party wins, but it does not work that way. as far as benjamin netanyahu getting involved in american like american not politicians don't use israel as a political football, themselves to it when they think it benefits them. we have seen foreign leaders address congress. they come into a joint session.

the prime minister of israel gets the greatest response from congress. in this case it's benjamin netanyahu. he gets the warmest reception. american politicians have been getting the same in israel over the years. host:? what about:? -- what about this and te senat? guest: it's on the razor's edge. democrats had a lot on a line in the last cycle. republicans were not able to take it panted of an advantageous environment. in the current cycle we are seeing republican candidates not tearing as well as the party would have hoped. in some cases they got a nominee they did not want. todd akin in missouri is a perfect example. he ended up making controversial

statements and putting that race in doubt. claire mccaskill is about as popular as hillary reid was from nevada in 2010. harry reid. and we saw harry reid win because his opponent was too controversial. host: the front-page story on the "washington times" -- guest: yes, i have not conducted any polls, but most of the polls suggest republicans had an advantage, but now looks like

claire mccaskill has the advantage. if todd akin want to be competitive, he must find a way to communicate to independent women. any one who does not identify with him was offended by his comments. he has to find a way to recapture the electorate. host: in north dakota here's the story this morning from the associated press -- guest: my good friend from "politico" would be happy to see all that money going to help that.

you have an interesting race. heidi heitkamp running for the democrats. and a first time a congressman for the republicans. they had a history of electing democratic senators. conrad, dorgan. heidi heitkamp surprised people with how good she has been as a candidate. it will be down to the wire. host: back to phone calls. a republican now. thanks for waiting. caller: thanks for taking my call. why did "politico" put out a statement about -- not put out a statement about romney campaign?

he came out this morning as if he knows all the inner workings of the romney campaign. i doubt just about anything he says. guest: i appreciate the vote of confidence. the romney campaign is making an analysis of where to spend their time and money. look at the auto bailout position. his argument they should lead detroit go bankrupt was harmful to him in michigan. the company still emerges and that is lost as the headline, " let detroit go bankrupt." there was a story done by my colleagues and i trust there

reporting. they are both fine reporters. that is what happens in campaigns. they start talking to reporters about how bad the other guy is. if you're in the obama campaign, nobody is doing that. host: charlie in new jersey. caller: i saw that a bill was passed in congress that will change our contributions to israel from $3 billion a year to roughly $10 billion to $12 billion a year. the price of gas in the united states is almost $4 per gallon. we have cut off the ability of i oil.o sell

guest: i'm not aware of that bill. you can go to the library of congress website to get a report of where that stands. that doesn't sound right. that is an authorization measure. people spend up to that amounts. the funding for israel has been relatively stable over the year at about $3 billion. so you will not see a fourfold increase of foreign aid to israel. host: the house passed a continuing resolution to keep

the government funded through march and the senate is likely to take up this week. guest: the senate has cleared a way to take that up. there could be some discussion and debate. they will kick this cannon to march. i hate using that phrase. this was a big yield by house republicans who wanted to see a smaller number in the six month funding bill. probably smart to not get into a government shutdown fight right before the election. they been trying to get a little more spending cuts. host: olivier in allentown --

olivia. caller: i would like to know how " does their polling. host: do you do polling and "politico"? guest: george washington university does some polling for us. poll.'t designed to there is a science behind it. you talk to a fairly small portion of the population and results that looks like what you would have if you talk to more people. there are assumptions about polling. use the it is methodology --

usually it is methodology. "how many women did you talk to ?" if you're calling about level, you would've gone a different results. a lot of it is what goes into the assumptions. host: woodbridge, new jersey. carol? good morning. caller: why the main media is so pro-obama. they never say anything bad about him. he is doing a terrible job. the jobless rate is up. the people that do not have jobs

are looking for something. i do not believe that the wealthy that work 18, 20 hours a day should give us their money. guest: if you read newspapers and watch television, you will see stories that are helpful and harmful to both candidates. there is a perception of liberal media bias and a pro-obama by ias. that is true of obama since 2008. intoot sure what feeds that. all i can say is when i find a story, i go after it. most people are looking for good stories because good stories

sell better than biased stor ies. host: lansing, michigan. caller: i am a democrat. how come the new bumper sticker -- 1 million businesses are closed. 24 million americans are unemployed. really? host: taking issue with the economy is not doing well. guest: a very long bumper sticker. the caller from michigan has a point. saving one company -- is

calling for michigan -- she is calling from michigan. if you saved gm and all the other jobs disappeared to thailand, i would say gm would not be such a big deal. you have to look at the economy as a whole and make a judgment about whether the president deserves to be reelected. host: headline on the front page of "the wall street journal" this morning. host: richard is a republican in mississippi. caller: good morning. why "politico" is nothing more

than an arm of the democratic party. why they think they can get away with supporting obama? every story, if there is something bad about him, you will get to something good. general motors owes the government $25 billion. you people to amaze me. "politico" is a left-wing organization. you're supposed to be an expert. host: how often do you read their website? caller: two or three times a week, for amazement.

guest: thank you for your support. we are not the things that you suggested we are. in terms of gm and the gm.ernment's stake in m people are uncomfortable with the government taking stake in a company. that is something that can be uncomfortable for proponents of business being somewhat independent or completely independent of government. that is a situation --like if you borrow money from your in- laws and they worry that the money is tied up and force you to sell the house because they

want their money back. that is the situation that gm and the government are in right now. they need to work for the best possible solution. host: we have a question on twitter. cliff.urn to the fiscal you wrote a story last week. guest: there is no intellectual honesty in washington right now about the fiscal cliff. nobody is talking about how to solve it with the exception of a group called the gang of eight.

they have made it very little progress and trying to set a new process that would allow for them to get deficit reduction in the future, sort of like the super committee. you hear people talk about how the bush era tax cuts expire and it would be terrible for the economy. you hear about the spending cuts from sequestration being devastating the pentagon. you hear the 16 trillion dollars in debt. if you won a deficit reduction, you let the sequester go into effect and let some of the bush era tax cuts expire because then you would shrink the deficit. it could also hurt the economy.

politicians decry everything that is going on. people are upset about the pentagon cuts, so they talk about that. taxes are not going up, so they talk about that. this is a model that is essentially ununderstandable. that is why you see no progress. host: the gang of eight. autism members people would recognize -- are there members that people would recognize? guest: mark warner, tom coburn. you have the former governor of

nebraska and secretary of agriculture, i believe. michael bennet from colorado, a democrat. this gang of eight has a lot of familiar faces. host: we will talk about gang of six when we talk with bob woodward about his new book. the gang of six, the role that they played. it is all in his new book. may from new jersey. go ahead. caller: over the time barack has been in office, i do not understand why there's so much

hatred for him coming from the gop. why did you hate barack so bad? host: hatred coming from where? caller: i said why does the gop hate barack so bad? he is doing a good job. mitt romney went to israel over the summer. with everything going on now with benghazi and libya, and then we saw netanyahu, on tv talking about what is going on. something is not right. .his picture doesn't seem right host: referring to the prime minister on "meet the press"

yesterday. given what happened in libya last week, this is at the forefront of the presidential race. guest: everybody thought that everything in this election cycle would be about the economy. we're seeing foreign policy thrust into the forefront. mitt romney that jumped on for criticizing a statement that came out of the cairo embassy at a time when they were under siege. he said there were apologizing instead of criticizing protesters and the u.s. ambassador to libya was killed. the longer this goes on in north africa and the middle east and the longer we're seeing protests

and violence, there is a political risk for barack obama. is awe're seeing questioning of his policy with regard to the arab spring. which countries did the support democratic revolt in? did the united states back the wrong courhorses? those questions are beginning to be raised. this has a bigger possibility of backfiring on president obama if this continues. this dovetails and people want to see this stopped. people do not want to see any

violence anywhere. the protests are a little more tame. if this quiets down, obama will probably emerge without too much political damage. there are legitimate questions about whether his policies have been beneficial to the united states. host: anthony from michigan. good morning. caller: i want to thank you, c- span. i want to go back two years ago. the democratic party voted in -- they got on the floor and said they will do everything in their power from stopping obama from being elected.

two years later and they are still doing that. i am in the military. they do that. how do you feel about that behavior of somebody doing something unamerican? what is your standing on that? guest: mitch mcconnell, i believe he made that statement at the heritage foundation or washington think tank and not on the floor. host: bob woodward reports him into national journal and there was more to the statement. guest: it was not made on the

senate floor. there was an equivalence here. go back to the bush administration. you had democrats screaming and yelling to impeach george bush because of the war in iraq. you had the senate majority leader: him all sorts of names, not necessarily on the senate floor -- you have the senate majority leader calling him all sorts of names. this is something that has gone on in terms of the coarsening of our politics. there's no room is seems the summit to say, "i agree with the other guy and lustral the lines and fight about that."

we see is a stance where, "if the other guy wants to do something, it has to be wrong." parties and that tripping all over themselves. if you go back in time to the eisenhower administration, lyndon johnson decided that their best energy was to agree with them on foreign policy and quibble on domestic policy. they said eisenhower is a strong leader. let's not play footsie with this well-respected general. the republicans were more opposed to eisenhower then the democrats were.

the public looked at them and said, they are doing well and supporting the president on the foreign policy stuff. sometimes that is lost in politics. now the other guy is wrong no matter what he does. caller: i think mr. allen is fair and has some humor and i like him. i take umbrage take umbrage3/4 of your calls. they always play the same old saw about mitch mcconnell. do they think the democrats do not want to defeat the republicans? so much hatred for obama.

republicans did not like his policies. i hear that so much on c-span. we love conservative. am voting for allen west. he is my congressman down here. he is great. i love clarence thomas. condoleezza rice, etc. i take umbrage with the hate. they have short memories. george bush was in office and video - they wanted to try him for war crimes. hate is a two-way street. caller: i think he is done a

balanced job this morning. if politics was the main and horrible, what would you write about? that's all you do. use politics as a way to enflame the population. you said he needed to back out because he lost michigan because of a statement he made even though you said, that is not what the man to. why don't you publish that? eant.t is not what you ma host: i want to ask you about the role of the campaign committees, the ads that are put out by the campaigns.

caller: they can't parse through? it is just rumor and speculation and piling on. it is crazy. why don't you just go back to reporting? we want to hear the truth. guest: c-span1, spc-span2 -- please send links to your friends. reporting has been done on that. i read that somewhere. look, the application happened because the political campaigns want to amplify.

i don't know why mr. romney is not campaigning as much in michigan except for the poll numbers. that is an extrapolation. you have to talk to every voter to get an idea. it is his home state and he has a good of ae's not chance of winning their instead of wisconsin. host: a couple of ads. this one against a democrat in iowa. [video clip] $760 billion. what does it mean for us?

washington bureaucrats making health-care decisions. our congressmen could not find even one. host: that was an ad against bruce bayler. here is another ad. [video clip] >> only in washington with this happen. she voted to increase taxes. where does the money go? it is paul ryan's plan and she voted for it. outreaches, even in

washington -- that is outrageous. host: your thoughts about the ads and the contents. guest: read the fine print. look at the sourcing. go to some of the fact checking websites. find out what is going on. if you're making judgments, you're making ill informed judgments. this extrapolates lot from what is happening. what would happen if a republican was elected and it doesn't add up. host: gail from michigan.

caller: thank you for being honest and stating you have to read the fine print. it is not true they want to raise taxes on the middle class. mitt romney does not plan to raise taxes on the middle class at all. we will have around 24% increase on the average citizen if brooke obama is reelected. people will be paying quite a bit of taxes. it is the health-care bill that class. win the middle i am 61 years old and i taught school. i taught in the public schools

because i believed in them. 18 came time to decide but my high school student was going to do, we home schooled him. communism is not communism. my older daughter said communism is not communalism. i think obama with this health care bill and some of the things he has done, like $1 million from health care, if he had done some of the things he did towards libya, he would be considered a traitor in my day. i learned history as history. he is doing all these things that are bringing down the middle class. he has some statements that will

lead us straight to socialism. host: you'll be our final word. thank you for talking to our viewers. up next, bob woodward on his new book, "the price of politics." later, jessica donze black top of the changes to the school lunch program. >> president obama campaigns today and he will talk about china and exports. it is with his 12th visit to ohio this year and the 28th of his presidency. mitt romney is in california today. leon panetta says the united states and japanese officials have agreed to put a second missile defense system in japan. the raiders system is aimed at protecting the region against the threat from north korea and

is not directed at china. radar on ships in the region. the speech is scheduled today before the in added nation's nuclear watchdog group. teheran has been ordered to stop the activity because of fears it might use it to produce nuclear warheads. those of some of the latest headlines today on c-span. [video clip] >> new biofuels. our construction workers can build new homes and factories and retrofit old factories. >> i will take evanish of our oil, gas.

we will be energy independent years.a yeeight >> watch and engaged with c- span. the first debate will be wednesday, october 3. a town hall format on tuesday, the 16th. also, watch the vice presidential candidates' debate. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and online act c- span.org -- and online at c- span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: bob woodward is the author of "the price of politics." what is the story you're trying to tell here? guest: the daily reporting is

exceptionally good or the long pieces capture a lot but we run by history and we do not know what really happened and i have the luxury of time and can dig back in and this is an examination of what obama and the congress have done for this paul period -- for 3 1/2 years, from the beginning of the administration to the summer. host: what is the central part of this story? guest: the drama is this affects everyone. get control of the spending instead of -- we are on a binge

now, a spending binge. we cannot keep borrowing all of this money. it describes in painful detail the meetings and phone calls and the internal discussions. a lot of discussion inside the white house. you see what they are doing. last summer on the effort to get congress to increase the authorization for spending and borrowing. the president has a private meeting with his senior staff. it is called by the people in the white house the king solomon moment. the president says that he is like king solomon. he cannot divide the baby. he has to do something to stabilize the economy. he has less leverage in these

negotiations. that realization is accurate. you can see his reasoning and the debate within the white house. host: the role of john boehner last year. guest: he went to the president and he proposed tax reform, and the president said he was willing to go along with the entitlement reform. half the book is this 44 days, and economic cuban missile crisis where they are trying to do something. the end result is to push everything off, all the tough decisions to 2013. host: they come up with the sequestration plan. where're at a point automatic spending cuts go through january, 2013.

we went back into the c-span archives to illustrate your coverage. president obama comes before the cameras and so does john boehner. the reaction to that. [video clip] >> i did not see a path to a deal if they do not budge. if the basic proposition is, it is miley or the highway, we will probably -- it is my way or the highway, we will not get it done. if in fact mitch mcconnell and john boehner are sincere that they do not want to see u.s. government default, they have to compromise, just like democrats have to compromise. >> the president continues to

insist on raising taxes. they are not serious about entitlement reform. i want to get there. i want to do what i think is in the best interests of the country. it takes two to tangle. >> this will take political capital on both sides. i am willing to take my fair share of it. let's step up and do the right thing for the country. host: what is going on behind the scenes? guest: so much. they having meetings. he goes down to the white house. they have a meeting on the

patio off the oval office. boehner is having merlo and having a cigarette in the president is having ice-t and chewing a nicorette. they start the process. politics intervenes. the politics is the president cannot control the democratic party and boehner cannot control the house republicans. it is fascinating to hear their internal debates in the capital and then down in the white house. you see them coming together and i have elaborate notes from meetings and discussions. you can see there is a level of thatousness and engagement

no one had the stamina to do the details and make sure that this worked. it was convenient for everyone to put off until 2013 so it would not be an election issue, so no one would be having advance or enacted a law that involved pain. host: fast for 11 days later. president obama comes out before the cameras. take a look. [video clip] >> this was an extraordinarily fair deal. if it was on balance, it was on balance in the direction of not enough revenue. but in the interest of being serious about deficit reduction, i was willing to take a lot of

heat from my party. i spoke to democratic leaders yesterday. they were willing to engage in serious negotiations. despite a lot of heat from interest groups from the country to make sure that we dealt with this problem. it is hard to understand why speaker boehner would walk away from this kind of deal. look at the commentary out there. a lot of republicans are puzzled as to what it could not get done. host: speaker boehner has his own response on the same day. [video clip] >> we have but plan after plan on the table. we had our plan out there. house passed the cut cap and

balance. never once did the president come to the table with a plan. we were always pushing. sometimes it is good to back away from the tree and take a look at the forest. i came back away from the tree to take a look at the forest. i consulted with my fellow leaders and others about the way to go forward. i want to tell you what i said several weeks ago. dealing with the white house is like dealing with a bowl of jell-o. guest: the back story is an laws. six senators propose more revenue for tax reform then

obama was offering. it was house decided -- it is fascinating how this all occurred. the former campaign manager deciding that the president should offer at least as much revenue as the six senators had, and that includes three republicans. the president picked up the phone and called speaker boehner the day before what occurred here. he said, let's consider $400 billion more. speaker insisted it was a demand. no one else was present.

monumental communications lapse. it broke down on this day. the president was waiting for a call from boehner. boehner would not call him back. he said he was trying to work out a deal with the leaders. the next day, the president calls the congressional leaders to the white house and saturday morning, 11:00 a.m., the congressional leaders asked him to lead the meeting -- leave the meeting. the president said he was not going to stand on protocol as they tried to work a deal at the white house. it work for a while.

harry reid backed away from the congressional deal and joined forces with the president. it is in the details that the decisions and the negotiations hung. host: lydia from illinois. go ahead. lydia, are you there? go ahead. caller: good morning. it was noted that reporters -- i think that's what you're doing. it is out there. newt gingrich devised the strategy of transforming the

house as a way to drive the national agenda. it was outlined in a book in 2009 when newt gingrich was part of a group that met and devise a process to obstruct. mr. boehner was one of the key lieutenants. his following the process. i'm waiting for you. i want you to identify it now. we need information to understand the process because -- guest: i get your question. it's a good one. i assemble all this in a book at present before the election so

people can make an evaluation. it has the details from what occurred over three and a half years. if he do it daily reporting of this, you cannot accumulate the information. i have found this to be the case over 40 years. the reactions to who obstructed or who did not do what was necessary. people had different opinions. this was politically neutral presentation of what occurred. some people will say the republicans were awful, they not unified. speaker boehner had the tea party which she could not control. others say the president was not aggressive enough and could not control the democrats. i point the finger at everyone but make the point, it gets

down to presidential leadership. the president is the one that has to work his will or find a way to do that. in this case, he did not. you asked about the past and the future. the future is we're back in this mess again. the exact issues will come before us in a couple of months. congress authorized expanded borrowing up to the point -- we will be there in january of next year. the white house, whoever is there, has to go to congress and say, "we need more borrowing authority to the tune of trillions of dollars."

everyone acknowledges this. host: we have a tweet on our twitter page from rightwing. guest: potus is president of the united states. you can see exactly what happened. it explains it. it has the back channel conversations, the notes of the meetings, and the interviews with people. just to take an example. part of the solution of last year would be setting up a super committee to come up with one $0.20 trillion -- $1.2 trillion.

everybody said this would work. harry reid said it was a sure thing. mitch mcconnell expected it to work. committee met. the mechanism was to come up with this deficit reduction. and if you don't, we'll have sequestration, means forced spending cuts immediately in 2013 in a way that is decided tchet, soth a hachet everyone gets cut. the super committee failed. james from louisiana. caller: who do you think is

calling the shots in the white house? the thing it is valerie jarrett other end of the chicago machine. guest: the president is calling the shots. he is heavily influenced and the man who ran his successful campaign in 2008, the senior adviser and has the office closest to the oval office. jogger free is very significant -- geography is very significant. when there is a decision to be made, he ways and with the

political angle. i would say his influence, valerie jarrett plays a role. there are many other people. the congressional liaison plays a significant role in all of these. i layout exactly what happened, what we used to call the best obtainable version of the truth and it is often emotional. at many points it is complicated. host: the influence of joe biden in these talks. guest: biden is critical on all of this. going back to 2010, after the

democrats lost the house, obama center by president biden to negotiate with mitch mcconnell. in the west wing, joe biden is known as the mcconnell whisperer. he has the decades-long relationship with mcconnell to work out a deal. deal inked out a 2010. they extended some low income programs. the philosophy is kind of old school. "you get some and i get some." that is what happened in 2010. in may, 2011, they came up with

lots of cuts. there was a private talk with joe biden and eric cantor. "if we were in charge, we would be able to work this out." they identified hundreds of billions of dollars of potential cuts but they didn't carry over the finish line. host: joe biden admits he does not like the budget. guest: he starts out saying he is not a budget guide. --guy. he declined to become chairman of the budget committee. he brought in a deputy and said, you are going to be there every

day and giving me a to toward -- tutorial an affirmation. you read those notes and the presentation i have and the book and joe biden mastered the issues. the problem as joe biden sought the republicans would not give on revenue. no tax increases. ove by and crazy -- this drove biden crazy. caller: that is pretty funny. i was struck with how you went with, "this is the obama er a."

what stood out in your book was speaker boehner's office did not return the president's phone call and a lack of communication with the president. it is almost like there is a personal weakness to have somebody to dinner so what should we even do witit? guest: relationships need to be billed tuuilt. i think president obama is right when a complaint that boehner would not return his phone call for almost a day. that is unheard of. the white house chief of staff goes swayback when he was an aide to tip o'neill in the 1980 's. he was appalled at the speaker

will not call the president back and made the point internally at the white house that when ronald reagan called, the phone call was immediately returned. boehner's argument was that he had to put together a congressional deal. he thought it would affect the financial markets. that is his excuse. president said, "why didn't he just call and say, i am working on tit." it was the silence that offended the president and the white house staff. boehner did call and said he was backing out. one of the aids who work with them for years -- one of the

aides said he was spewing coals like a furnace in the oval office that day. the worry was the president was so furious when he was on the phone that he would literally break the phone. scott pelley asked if he was in a phone-breaking mood. the president said he was very angry. host: you write about it lack of deference on the democratic side, too. why do you think that is? guest: a lot has to do with harry reid, who goes to a meeting with the president on a sunday night at 6:00 p.m.

go to the meeting and you can see what happens. one of the most interesting meetings i've ever reported on. harry reid has developed a plan with the republicans. he turns it over to his chief of staff who sits in the oval office and reads out the president and said, i'm disappointed in this white house and in you, that you did not have a plan b. they did not have a plan b. afterwards, there were arriving back from the white house and said, you did a good job. the president needed to hear it that. nobody was telling him that. the president knew he did not have a plan b.

there was a scramble to get control of the situation. host: chris in missouri. caller: you are an insider -- guest: i'm an outsider trying to report what happened. caller: they had all these guys on c-span the other day trying to explain how to get past the political roadblocks that we have had trying to come up with these 6 or whenever. i noticed one thing true that conference. they always talk about the g.d.p. it seems like those in washington, they forget that outside of washington people are working. that's what really drives the

american economy. through that, i see that they also fail to understand that this country seems to be going through a technical logical -- technocological change. we have seen changes in the music and the computer industry. guest: if i may quickly answered? there is a disconnect between washington and the real world when you refer to g.d.p., gross domestic product, which is the total of goods and services in the economy. the problem is it's not enough. there's too much unemployment, none of the growth. people are not hiring. we have a come to this fiscal cliff, as they call it. it is actually misnamed. it is a financial crisis.

you will have a government- induced recession if these tax cuts are eliminated so taxes will go up and these cuts and program in for 2013 will affect everyone. in the book, treasury secretary timothy geithner argues with the president of the him in in these discussions -- vehemently that if we do not straighten this out in the short run, hopefully the long run, that the impact on everyone is going to be giant. it will affect confidence. it will affect employment levels. anyone who has any money or anticipates getting any money that they have invested in their home, bank account come any kind of investment is going to be

impacted by all of this. -- bank account, at any kind of investment, is going to be impacted. we are living on the sharp edge of a razor blade. this all explodes. not this week but in two, three, four months after the election. if there is no fix, we are really in trouble. host: first cannonballs and alice simpson were on "meet the press -- erskine bowles and alice simpson were on "meet the press." [video clip] >> i'm frightened that we are going to meet this fiscal cliff and see this debt to country. it could lead to very horrible economic results. i met with the president.

>> you took the ax. >> i did. >> we were not looking to do that, but i'm confident talk of the election that he's prepared to negotiate with the republicans and come up with a plan that falls within the framework of what we talked about. >> i believe that, too. host: mr. woodward. guest: i ask the president about this two months ago. he said the proposals by the simpson-bowles commission included in eliminating some of the tax deductions are cutting back on the charitable deductions, health insurance deductions, and the mortgage insurance deduction, the president told me that those would be "wildly unpopular."

they would never pass congress. i think he's right. you need some sort of serious tax reform negotiation that would take months, maybe a year, maybe longer. reagan did it in his presidency in 1986. they were able to lower the rates and are virtually get more money for the federal government. it's harder now, but it's possible. this expression of confidence, erskine bowles and al simpson deserve a medal of honor for survival in pushing on the issues here. the problem is politics. this book is called "the price of politics" because when it comes to political calculations,

they say we should not do something painful or, to use the president's expression, "wildly unpopular," he wants to get reelected. people in congress have the same feeling. we have not had this rolling up the sleeves engagement of stamina that is required that will become absolutely necessary in the coming months. host: middleton, new jersey, thank you rating. caller: all the tax credits they wanted to eliminate happen to be focused on people who work for a living. that is the problem. the last republican president that had a balanced budget was nixon. we listened to eight years of a vice-president, dick cheney, telling us that deficits don't matter.

we had $3 trillion in debt spending that was not put on the books that this president inherited. he had one year of working with the last president's budget, which was insane. he was handed a nation losing 800,000 jobs per month. he had a mountain and a shovel. the republicans say you did not shovels fast enough. guest: ok. i think that's a fair point. i point out that the president was handed a floundering economy and a very recalcitrant republican majority in the house, at least for the last two years. at the same time, step back. speaker john boehner in one of the clips of their ran here talks about stepping back and looking at the forest step back and look at the

forest. this country has an economy which is in trouble and his bald, but compared to the other economies in the world, including china, we have got a lot of things going for us. if this were able to be fixed in a way -- you cannot do it all at once. you're quite right. you cannot put it all on the backs of the workers alone. you have to spread out the pain in a way that democrats and republicans will not like. if you did something like this, you would get a sense of coherence to taxing and spending policy. it is the incoherence of those that causes ever want to say, i don't know if i should buy a new car, of expand and hire a few more people in my business.

we are on the edge here when we would have come to use your analogy, -- we should have, to use your analogy, attack the mountain with the schauble. i could sit here with 20 expert for a day and come up with a general outline of some of the things that needed to be done. in the end, it is about political will. if you do not have the political will to get up and say you're going to have to get their. the background music to all of this is the memory everyone has, particularly democrats, when walter mondale in 1984 ran against reagan and said, "i'm going to raise your taxes."

mondale got slaughtered in that campaign. no one wants to tell the full story or the truth. the government's going to have to get revenue in the government is going out to cut back somehow. host: independence in st. louis, missouri. caller: in the end, mr. woodward, it is up to pays for the campaigns. i think you know that. first of all, since the tea party republicans took over the house in 2010, congress has its lowest approval rating ever. after four years of obama, he is going up in the polls. secondly, i'm sure if the republicans controlled everything in november that they're going to make a voucher system out of medicare. this was before it was ever passed. they're not going to raise the taxes on those who pay for their election.

guest: if the republicans take over everything, it will be on their backs to come up with some plan. you make some good points there. there is a way. simpson and bowles were on the road to some of that. where we are now is in trouble and in peril. what i have tried to do is come in a way, in the end, for a reporter, it's not about the politics of it. it's not about a partisan position. it's about trying to figure out exactly what happened. the things in this book that democrats do not like it, republicans do not like it, it's what happened. you can look at it and you can save you should enrich your own

conclusions. that is the reporting tradition that i come from. host: on our facebook page, -- guest: because the president is the leader. the president has this power. there is a phrase george uses in his diaries. he is the famous diplomat who came up with the containment policy. he talks about the treacherous curtain of deference. in the oval office, there is that treacherous curtain of deference where people will come in. my god, it's the president. he has an aura.

he has the capacity to do things that no other leader does. you cannot say that it is the guy down the hall that is a staffer or the person who is the speaker of the house who does have immense responsibility for this. there is a way to lead. i have cited this before. go to december, 1941, pearl harbor is bombed. the united states entered world war ii. it looks really grim. it looks like we possibly can not win this war. franklin roosevelt found a way to do it. leaders have to fix problems. i do not think it 1% of the people will remember who the speaker of the house is during world war ii.

it is in the president's grasped. the president has that responsibility. what's interesting, i think president obama realizes that. i would expect governor romney, if he becomes president, would realize that, too. that is where the buck stops, as has been said. host: on obstruction, we get a lot of people talking about what mitch mcconnell said, the republican's main goal after obama wins. your reporter about what he said and the full context of what he said. guest: he's a tough guy. his goal is to make sure that obama is a one-term president. my assistant dug in to that interview. we wanted to find out when

mcconnell said that and exactly what he said. it turns out what he also said in that interview was, "i don't want obama to fail. i want him to change. i want him to be like bill clinton." that change of least puts that in context. i was on morning joe this morning and he said, "we have strong him up for this time and time again. i think i owe him an apology when you see the context of in." whether there will be an apology, i don't know, but mcconnell was saying that he wants to work with this guy. he wants change. of course, change in his direction. host: a question off of twitter.

guest: that's a very good question. ryan did not play much of their role. i have seen where he meets with cantor and they talk about boehner being off the reservation in negotiating things with obama that week, republicans, are not going to like. the ryan budget was something that was held off on because it had passed the house. obama does not like it. democrats do not like it. it's interesting. there is a meeting where president obama calls harry reid and nancy pelosi to the oval office to lay out what you trying to do here. nancy pelosi, the democratic leader, is deeply concerned and worried that the president is going to cut medicare. she says, if we have a plan and actually cut medicare and

democrats to go along, it will make the republicans hold in the rye and budget. it will eliminate a very clear distinction, at least in her mind, between the democrats and republicans on the very important issue of medicare. host: in other twitter question for you. guest: you don't know. different personalities. different circumstances. when i was in the oval office a few months ago having interviewed president obama at great length about what happened and the key points in all of these negotiations, he just said to me, "if bob dole had been the senate minority -- the senate minority leader as he was in the clinton administration, we would have been able to work this deal out

." whether that is the case or not, certainly, the president has a very strong argument that there is less flexibility in the house republicans now than there was during the gingrich era. host: is a piece, ""the price of politics" is much to do about nothing." guest: i guess this person did not read the book. you repeatedly have scenes. where speaker boehner is considering whether to except more revenue as the president has proposed. he calls eric cantor and his

chief of staff down to his office on the second floor of the capital. canto ofr has ties to the tea party. boehner lays out this proposal for more revenue. the chief of staff for cantor, who is in touch with the tea party, to say the least, asks the speaker how many votes he thought he would get for that additional revenue. the speaker says about 170. the chief of staff says to him, "you're crazy." that is something you do not seem very often wear a staffer tells the speaker to his face that he's crazy. cantor essentially agrees and

they conclude he would only get about 50 votes for the additional revenue proposal. this was when boehner essentially calls of any further negotiations or deals with the white house. the force of the tea party is explicit and real. host: democratic line, institute, west virginia. caller: in west virginia, we had a governor who had a house and senate who would not work with him. therefore, he was not able to do anything in the state of west virginia. what i have seen is a duplicate of that with this congress. this congress has failed to do exactly what they have sworn to do. that is to support the constitution of the united states. when you're making laws, it is

not your prerogative to put your party first. host: mr. woodward. guest: that, as i point out, in the book, there is a scene after scene where the republicans show that they're not going to budge on some of these things. in their view, they are adhering to the constitution. in their view, they're doing what is necessary. the key point here is that speaker boehner is the nominal leader of republicans in the house and opened these negotiations last year with the president. there were all kinds of offers and discussions going back and forth on this. you can see the detail. you may blame obama. you may blame the republicans. you may blame me for writing about it. whenever it is. this is, if you will, the

performance review. this is what we always used to call the best obtainable version of the truth. host: 1 last phone call for you, republican line in south carolina. caller: thank you, sir. please let me state a few facts. don't cut me off. host: we don't have time. caller: let me talk. i want to complement mr. woodward on his book. i watched him on morning joe. here is a very intelligent man. the fact of what you get over this is, first of all, congress -- that want to remind everyone that for the last six years, they have had a majority of the senate. for four of the last six years, the democrats have had the congress. for only less than two eight years, the republicans have had a majority in the house of

representatives. guest: that's true. at the same time, the problem has increased. as we spend $1 trillion per year more than comes in. i guess the point of all this is that it's just not over. we're going to revisit all these problems in the coming months. host: that point, i just want to show this picture from your book of the speaker and the president right there. the look on their faces. if you could just speak to what happens next and the likelihood of these two coming together to talk again and relive what they did last year. guest: ok. i see the picture. yes, there are not happy. this is when the president, i believe, outed the meeting in his own house.

sometimes, political leaders rise to the occasion and do things that are not in their personal political interests, their party's interest, but in the larger national interest. you're always looking for those leaders and those moments when they will say we've got to do something here. if something is not done -- i hate to be an alarmist, but i'm going to be a realist. you just cannot keep doing what we've been doing. the problem is you do not know when the debt crisis finally rises to the surface and people out in the world and in this country say, at $16 trillion -- i emphasize trillion -- in i know you's out there, maybe the

united states is not able to make good on them -- the i.o.u.'s out there, maybe the u.s. can't pay. . get a cascading explosion that can happen in financial markets when you have stock market crashes, bond market crashes. people will say they do not want unlesse those i.o.u.'s they're paid more interest. the interest rates are very low. if they went up, but we could have to pay hundreds of trillions of dollars more in interest that would just add to the problem. something to say it was only last year. it is this minute. host: bob woodward, thank you for staying at our table and talking to our viewers.

i appreciate it. next, turning our attention to the federal school lunch money -- lunch program. first, an update from c-span radio. >> hundred of occupy wall street protesters have gathered in wall street financial district marking the anniversary of the occupy movements of lining up from zuccoit park where they had been -- zuccoti. rallies are being held around the world to mark the day. violent protests continue in the middle east as people in pakistan torched a building in the northwest sparking clashes with police leaving at least one person dead. in afghanistan, protesters burning cars and throwing rocks at a military base in couple slain -- kabul saying "death to america." some say this video has sparked

the violence. myanmar's democracy leader will be honored in washington this year and be presented the highest award, the nobel peace laureate and his 17-day tour includes meetings at the state department and likely the white house. this comes as the obama administration continues easing its remaining sanctions on myanmar, or burma. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> i think the fourth amendment can be construed against -- construed as a fourth amendment, the right against search and seizure in your home. i strongly think that the privacy protections that our founders took for granted, in the internet and telecommunication age, you cannot take them for granted. you have to legislate it to make it happen. the short answer to your

question is i feel very strongly that the affirmation about yourself is yours unless there is a law enforcement reason or some overwhelming public good reason to go around that privacy screening. >> the question of technology and privacy with congressman joe barton tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> i want people to find the unfiltered truth. what they are saying and why they are saying it. i see it as a thermostat for what's happening in the country. sometimes you get so caught up in the beltway. one show what i really enjoy is "washington journal." the calls are uncensored and really get to know what the people are thinking and it makes my job earlier. c-span talk about the same topics that i'm going to look at. i know what conservatives and liberals are thinking and allows

me to get my argument before i even walking in the studio door. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979 and brought to you as a public service by your television provider. host: every monday on "washington journal," we take a look at your money. taxpayer dollars and what programs they're going towards. today, looking at the federal school lunch program. our guest is jessica donze black, the kid's safe and healthy food director project for pew health and group. the national school lunch program in 2011 cost $11 billion. at lunch is served, 32 million per day. what is the school lunch program?

guest: it is a federally funded program that makes lunches available to students all of the country on a daily basis. and actually started in the 1940's so it's been around a very long time. the standards for recently updated this past year. host: how did it start? what was the reason? guest: our children were relatively malnourished and there were concerns about national security. during the truman administration, they decided to do something to ensure that our children were actually healthy. as a result, they started the lunch program so children could have at least one solid meal. host: there have been recent changes, but how does it work? guest: it works in different layers. depending upon a children's ability to pay, they reimbursed the school at varying rates.

the department of agriculture has always been responsible for setting nutritional standards and the update them every five or so years in accordance with updates in nutritional science. the last updates and in 1995 prior to 2012 so there is a little bit of catching up to do. in january, the department of agriculture issued updated nutrition standards for the first time in 17 years and it sets the floor for what the n lunches need to be. host: this is what the usda gives for each launch served. the federal government reimburses $2.86. a reduced price lunches, $2.46. those who pay for the launch, the government reimburses 27 cents. does the school dictate what is served for lunch? guest: the actual decisions

about what to serve happen at the local school district level. the usda says how much nutrition needs to be in the launch. what types of foods need to be there and the nutrients provided. beyond that, it is absolutely a local decision. host: the government reimburses only to a certain amount. after that, you have to pay for it on your own? guest: the have to be with children's family and come and how ever many qualify, that is how the school gets reimbursed. this year, as a medium dated nutrition standards, they get a little bit more money. they get 6 cents more to help compensate for additional costs. host: because healthier food costs more? guest: potentially, yes. there may be a little bit higher costs and thus more money associated.

host: look at the requirements. increases in whole grain-rich foods, limiting calories. reductions of saturated fat, trans-fat, and sodium. how are these changes going over? guest: in general, it has been positive. they are seeing similar things, to what have seen in past years. it may have gone from standard to all grain, using different cheeses come other things to tweak the calories or fat. they're seeing bigger portions of fruit and vegetables. we're finding that a lot of kids are eating them as the go forward. host: as part of the "your money"series , we're talking about the school lunch program. parents, 202-737-0001.

administrators, 202-737-0002. who qualifies and who does not? guest: they define income levels. there are different ways to qualify. if they qualify for food stamps or medicaid, they can require -- they can apply for free or reduced lunch. host: 1 other support does the usda provide for the school lunch program? guest: the school lunch program is not the only thing they provide. there is a breakfast program, an after-school snack program, and in addition, there is training and technical assistance provided, grants available to states to help with nutrition education or farming in school programs. there are a lot of wraparound programs that help the make this

accessible to the students. host: are they primarily taken advantage of in urban cities verses rural? guest: it's pretty ubiquitous. we see it all around, pyrrole, urban, suburban. it varies the number of qualified, but there are many children who buy their lunch at school because it is still a pretty economical option in most cases when the lunch is $2, which many would say is a pretty good deal compared to what they might find buying it in other places. host: $11 billion spent on the school lunch program. how does this impact this on the state side of the ledger? weather problems for them to come up with money for the school lunch program or was a totally funded? guest: it is self sustaining to a large extent. lulz

-- whether it be breakfast, lunch, they get money from the federal government and there are kids to pay in to the program. they do additionally supplement those bonds in order to keep milk costs in order to provide more access. host: it is provided by the school in school. we look at chicago and the strikes happening there. it is going into its second week. guest: the have set up places where kids can still access lunch. for many kids, that is the meal they count on. there is also the summer feeding program at schools, camps, other

programs can apply to help meet those needs in various situations. caller: good morning. my children went through the st. louis public school system from pre-k through high school. they are starting their first year of college now. the meal quality had gone down from the time they were in elementary school to middle and high school. when they were in elementary school, i was able to buy a lunch and it was enough to satisfy me, the calorie content and the value of the food. yet, by the time they were in late middle school and throughout high school, they were getting, i would consider to be, some standard meal. breakfast would be a breakfast bar and a four ounce glass of orange juice. that's not what i schooler needs

to start the day with. -- high schooler needs. we were partial subsidy due to low-income. even if they had been painful price, but this was not an adequate meal. the quality, as i said, went down. host: jessica donze black. guest: they're very few things we should be thinking about. -- there are a few things. what the usda sets is just the basic nutrition standards and the school determines how to move toward. we have been hearing about this as the usda has set standards on calorie limits, that is only this year. they set that to keep portion sizes more reasonable. in some cases, they may look smaller to people than what they perceive as the right portion

size to be. it's important to note that portions are aligned to meet with the regulations for the dietary guidelines of america which sets the nutrition standards for all of us and it's based on what the average child needs. there may be kids who need more or less, but it is designed to meet with the average child needs moving forward. host: a parent from atlanta, georgia. caller: midmorning. i was listening to some of the financial aspects of the school lunch program and i saw the $11 billion price tag and the 32 million lunches served. that comes down to $343 per meal and you said the cost of the meal is about $2? that is $340 per meal unaccounted for. i and just wondering how much of that as labour and distribution. it seems like it's really high,

administrative costs, and you look at a lot of non-profit grits and a lot of times ordinations is looking at how much of your donation is actually mission dollars. how much is the administration. when administrative costs are in the 90% that's a red flag. so i'm just wondering. guest: i'm going to be honest and say i'm not an expert on usda economics and exactly what's included in the numbers. it's possible that is inclusive of things far beyond the direct service of the meals and other things involved. we would have to look in on that a little bit more to get the specifics on that math. caller: next caller from texas. robert, good morning. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: can you bring your own sacekd lunch?

guest: there is nothing about the usda standards that prohibits a parent pack a lunch and letting their child bring whatever they want to school. host: a question off of twitter. guest: in the past few years, we are hopefully seeing obesity rates plateau among young people. much of that is likely due to the increase. philadelphia just came out with research. new york city has had a research to show that with multifaceted intervention they have been able to reduce the obesity rates among children. we are potentially moving in the right direction. we will have a little bit more time to see that play out. host: what stops a child avoiding the lunch and going straight to the vending machine? guest: the rest of the

environment is a really important conversation. the usda sets standards, but there are lots of other things available. school stores, vending machines. some districts have set standards for those so that the snack environment is just as healthy as the meal environment. others have not. to the extent that they are less healthy and potentially more appealing, children may be more likely to go and get these snacks. the usda will be issuing a baseline for the rest of the school food environment in the near future. many times, it's a place for parents to get involved in their local schools. host: another parent. jason in dallas, texas. caller: i drop my daughter off every day in school. these school kids are getting fat. they need to get this to the

state level. they're spending way too much money on crap. a lot of these kids come straight from mexico in my state, texas. we're subsidizing their launch. host: the role of the state government verses the federal government in this program. guest: it gs to state agencies to work with the local districts to administer the program. at the federal level, this of the basic standards, but in terms of what food they are served and which programs they participate in, breakfast, lunch, after school, those are all made of the state and local level. if host: debbie in houston, texas. caller: i know because i have had a family who works in her school lunch tepid jury workers that they actually throw out food every day. this row without.

they do not doted to the food banks or even send it home to the kids. we take care of these four children. we supplemental lot of a food for the illegals. we do not have school buses, but we have food for the illegals. host: the comments on wasted food, one congress, wrote a letter about being concerned about the new guidelines and if they would do a before and after cost analysis worrying that kids are not going to like the more nutritious foods or they're not going to read it. guest: there are serving carts and vegetables. there are certain situations when things are new to kids, many times they have not been

unnecessarily exposed to all the fruits and vegetables out there. this may be their first introduction to those. like any child, it can take a while to enjoy those new foods. there are some great examples out there and districts who have been putting the standard and place long before they were required. you can include them in the process, offering free samples, have a taste tests. they can ultimately eat more of the things that they do need. host: off of twitter. guest: beginning of the school lunch program started in the 1940's in the truman administration and then the usda has had authority to determine what is appropriate in terms of what our tax dollars go to for lunches. congress looks of that legislation every five issuers to make sure we're on track and

the most recent update was in 2010 and is referred to the healthy honegger-free kids act and it is passed unanimously from the center of a nutrition standards for the rest of the school environment. host: our next parent caller. caller: we pay like $3 for lunch. we have never taken subsidies. i can pack a more nutritious lunch for less. my daughter tells me that in the mornings when they serve breakfast, they eat the pop tart and throw the rest away. host: ms. donze black. guest: they determine what the cost of the meal is. they get a standard subsidy, but they can charge variable amounts

depending on the district for the full price meal. people are concerned about the specifics, that's a great opportunity for parents to get involved locally, join your local well as counsel, talk to the food service director. a lot of those decisions are being made on the local level and it's a great place for parents to match a work with the school and help them figure out if they need help overcoming some barriers, accessing healthier foods, with the challenges are, and help them address it. host: off of twitter. guest: let's take a look at wednesday.

guest: the usda laid out that this was the typical for and this is what we came to be to go after. keeping in mind, these guidelines just went in place these balls. some schools have embraced it wholeheartedly and other schools are getting up to speed and we have not seen the changes yet. there's going to be a bit of an evolution to the process. another thing to keep in mind is that the menu does not necessarily reflect the changes that are there. some changes have been made it sort of behind the curtain. this is an opportunity to talk to the school food-service director about what is going on and if we are happy with the the menu. host: let's go to an administrator in florida. caller: i'm a retired teacher and a parent's in miami, fla. let me just say first about the man who called earlier with his

numbers, he forgot that the 32 million lunches are per day, not total. multiplied that times 180 school days and the numbers become a great deal more realistic. i know of many schools where the best food these kids eat -- i'm supposed to say students -- that these students each, it's the best meal they eat all day. i know a federal principals who were friends of mine who verified that. in my school, and this is going back a few years, but we had the first salad bar for lunch and the girls ran to it. they loved it. they ate those salads. it was light and well-balanced. i do not have a question. and is wanted to make those comments. host: christopher in alexandria, va. caller: are there any additional subsidies available

to school systems for sourcing food locally? guest: this year, the usda made available grants to help farming in school programs which can be used to get local produce, local vegetables and other things in that environment. host: tommy, and independents in kentucky. caller: my grandson is 12 years old in the sixth grade. he has type i diabetes. the second day of school, the school nurse called my daughter and said he was not getting what he needed at lunch when he should have his highest number of carbohydrates. because he has to go to dinners, to check his blood and get his injection, he does not want any special attention caused to him. that is the reason his lunches

are not bought for him daily. but his parents are educated. they have a specialized condition for their child. there are other children or that is their best meal of the day and they need more food. they are not getting it under the guidelines. what are the provisions not only for special needs but for these children when this is the best meal they get for the day? guest: you bring up an important point that the school program serves a range of kids including special lead including food allergies and type i diabetes. this allows flexibility to accommodate those circumstances. there are things schools can do in the environment to make sure that students have available to them what they need. or in the case analogy's they can make substitutions to

accommodate. there should be an ability to make those accommodations. the standards do not get in the way of that. spring host: field, missouri. caller: wire repeating children breakfast and lunch when many parents are descending them to school as a babysitter knowing that many are forced to take food they do not want and is thrown away? it is an enormous waste. most of it is packaged food, and our real food. the food is of poor quality. they are eating a lot of preservatives. that's why the way they are. guest: there is a great variety across the country. the caller from miami, they have made tremendous improvements over time. you see different things in other places. the other thing i might point out is one thing we did is a national poll actually looking

at what do people think bac? do they think it's important? 80 percent and the people overall were concerned about childhood obesity. over 50% were very concerned. they felt an important place to focus on was the school nutrition. across geographic and party lines, 80% were in favor of national nutrition standards to set a floor and make sure what we were making available was generally healthy. this is where we have really broad public support. host: bonnie who works in a lunchroom in colorado. caller: my job was to scrape off the food children left. i discovered through the years, the children just wanted to go outside and play. they did not care what they ate.

they just wanted to go play. i suggested to the people in the lunchroom that they needed to change the schedule so that the children go play first and then they come in, they are hungry, and they know they will not be going out to play. then they clean the plate. i could not get them to even consider that. then i found out it was the principle he would have to change the schedule but she was scheduling things about what the teachers wanted. these kids are hungry but they would rather go outside and play first. guest: you are reflecting what research has shown. the perfect set up would be to have recessed for lunch in terms of helping kids get that energy out. then they come back in to settle and eat, they are more likely to

eat those that take a little extra time, like the kurds and vegetables they need. it needs to be addressed locally. time decisions, how long students have to be, with the school day looks like, they are all local decisions made by the district. host: be in baltimore. caller: even though there is more food out there and it's being wasted, why is it a problem that these illegal aliens are eating the food and we are paying for it? we're paying for so much waste. i don't think there's any problem with giving away the food anyway if they are reading it. guest: -- host: do you know if illegal aliens are allowed to eat the school lunch program or not? guest: it is not something that we have explored specifically.

host: where is the school lunch program going next? what are some other provisions coming down the pipeline? guest: more pretend vegetable, more whole grains, less fat, lower sodium. there rolled in overtime. we will see that improving. we will see things going from partially whole grain to fully whole grain. the most exciting change is the rest of the school food environment. if we want them to meet their roots and vegetables, the things as parents we want them to we, we have to make sure we're not competing them against foods that may be more appealing. that is the next piece of the puzzle. some schools are had the curve and have implemented attrition standardsa la cart and for the vending machines. children spend more time in school than any other environment outside their home. they get as much as half of

their daily calories in school. the healthful food product -- project is interested in promoting the children's health. that time is critically important and the food they're eating during that time is critically important. host: so you asked about the school lunch program and see how it works? guest: we work with the organization working directly with schools, hand in hand held and the meet the guidelines with great resources available. the usda has resources and there are other great organizations out there that are helping them meet these updated standards. host: the topic this morning as part of the "your money" segment. $11 billion for the school lunch program. do we know what it is for the

2012-2013 school year? guest: we do not know the levels of participation rates. it has increased a bit with a recession. families have more difficulty with finances and are more reliant on the school meals, we will see where things land in that specific arena. we know there vitally important. host: 80 more minutes left. harrisburg, pa. -- a few more minutes left. caller: i have a comment and a question. at one point, i had to take care of my nephews. they benefited largely from the school lunch program. for everyone out there about kid's throwing food away, my nephews never threw anything away. they ate everything. believe me. it was much appreciated. the second thing i would like to ask ms. black, are there any

requirements about who can actually plan their meals? is there any requirements for dietitian or nutritionist involvement? guest: there is not a specific requirement for a dietitian or nutritionist, but they specifically have nutritionist's were working with the district or have potential to work with them. the usda does has sample meals and training available to help schools set healthy menus. host: jessica donze black is the project director for the kid's safe and healthful foods for pew health group. thank you for being here to talk with our viewers. that does it for today's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern with more of your phone calls and questions. thank you for watching. it [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]