justice department's inspector general report on fast and furious. then the economic policy institute discusses how american families are doing in today's economy and then later, this week's cyber-based attacks at bank of america and jpmorgan chase that kept those banks from doing business. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. the senate before they left for the break devoted to keep the government running until march 27, 2013. in presidential news, president obama and the milwaukee for a campaign rally. michelle obama speaking in

washington tonight. to find out more information you can go to our c-span website, our campaign 2012 site, you can find out affirmation about those events. our topic for the first 45 minutes, take a look at the topic of medicare. paul ryan of last night talking about it at the aarp. and president obama mentioned it as part of his campaign. we are looking at voters in 55 years or older. we want to get your thoughts this morning specifically to the topic of medicare. more specifically, who do you trust, president obama or mitt romney when it comes to how they handle medicare issues? here is how you can contact us. two lines/two regions.

-- two lines divided by two regions. who do you trust on medicare? "washington post" has a right up when it comes to this topic. here is the headline.

the article references the white house, or at least those running to the white house when it comes to medicare. paul ryan in front of the aarp, here is a bit from the store that talks about that. that replaced in new orleans. you may have seen a bit of that before the start of this program. here is paul ryan talking about the larger issues when it comes to health care and particularly that of the president's health- care plan. >> you see, if we reform health care for my generation, we can protected for those near retirement today. [applause]

the first step to a stronger medicare is to repeal obamacare. it represents the worst of both words -- worst of both worlds. i had a feeling there would be mixed reaction. let me get into it. if we protect medicare -- it puts it at risk for the next generation. host: the washington post writing about the response you just heard. there is. a little bit from the perspective of the romney/ryan campaign. who do you trust on medicare would that comes to the people running for president? jan is up first.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i trust the president on this issue. the reason is, i am a medicare advantage. -- enrollee. i was concerned with what happened with the changes in the affordable care act. you know, this is the time of year when medicare people are able to change their plans. you get the information in the melee about what the changes are going to be for next year. -- in the mail about what the changes are going to be for next year. my medicare advantage program is not going up 1 and dime. it is the exact same price as this year. i just want to assure people

that the medicare advantage is still in full force. they are not going to give up on their being involved host: in medicare how much do you paid for your co pay? caller: my office visit next year will be $30. host: do you worry about issues like on the other side's arguments about the sustainability of the program? caller: i do worry about the cost. you know, the key that will help is going to be lowering the cost. i always felt that is the biggest issue. maybe with more people being insured across the country for medical services, it will lower. that is what i am hoping for.

host: this is misty. hello. caller: i just watched the last part of paul ryan's question and answer session in florida. i might have missed this. i know that the gop has talked a lot about politics asian and health care. i wondered if he talked about that or if was asked about that. what that means for people like me. host: if you have access to a computer, go to our web site and you can watch the whole thing off of the video library. if you go to the front pages improbably find a link to it as well and you can see the whole thing in real time as far as what questions were asked. can i ask you about medicare as far as the people running for president, who does your trust live with? caller: i feel there has been

flip-floping, sort of hidden agendas. i think mitt romney made a mistake by holding off on his tax return information. give people like me a sense of insecurity as to what my really happen once they become -- would come into office. i think obama's interest in the outside -- it making the changes that people like me who speak up and say, no, president, whoever you are, this is what we want. i feel obama would be more opening -- more open to listening because he has already done that. we have to take our government. we are the government. they said it for 100 years. we have become apathetic. we have let other people run our lives. host: san diego, california.

good morning. caller: i am glad you are on this topic. i have worked for nearly 30 years for the benefits i have. every time we turned around we are seeing an increase. there is an enormous influx of members that are on welfare. we stand in long lines. i was just told a drug that i cannot do without that has to be the brand name, it cannot be generic, i now have to pay a significant increase for the brand name of that drug. i do not know what people are thinking in this country but i am telling you something right now, this system is long overdue for a righteous overhaul. the tax payers are the people who are footing the bill for the individuals for welfare addicts and cannot get off of welfare

and will not get off of welfare. california is a huge magnet for this problem. we go out dollar after dollar for this. for years these politicians have complained in this state that the reason we are going under is because of the welfare and medical issue. they invited it, and now they have it. we have people all over the planet thinking they are entitled. >> when it comes to the presidential campaign as far as people on competing plans for medicare, who do you side with? are you there? she might have left us. cleveland, ohio. hello, james. caller: i am calling about -- i am 67 years old and have worked all of my life.

what i want to know is, paul ryan is up there on stage and saying all this about the next generation. he is not saying anything the about this generation. about the senior citizens now. i am retired. i have paid into medicare. i have paid into social security. why does he want to destroy what we have worked for all of our life? thank you. i will hang up. host: that is about the third or fourth call from california. this is los angeles. caller: good morning. i side with president obama. i bring up one. that is, they picked this number

55 and over or 55 and under without being eligible for medicare. i just have a question. what do they intend to do with people who would become eligible for medicare through disability, the social security disability program that provides medicare to individuals who have been disabled for a couple of years. what are your concerns? caller: if you are unfortunate to become disabled before you are 55, are you up the creek without a paddle or what? host: here is president obama on the campaign trail with his perspective on how to deal with health care. >> i will never turn health care into a voucher. [applause]

folks have worked hard their whole lives. they should not be spending their golden years at the mercy of an insurance company. they should retire with dignity and respect. yet we have to reform and strengthen medicare for the long haul, but we will do by reducing the cost of health care, not by dumping the costs onto seniors. host: tucson, arizona is next for those 55 years or older. hello to jim. caller: i just wanted to point out to your viewers that when you look into the future, the $700 billion taken out in the medicare and put into obamacare, it may result in things not just affecting insurance. the people thinking they are covered are going to find a doctor that will serve them. that is really what the danger

is. i trust ryan's plan much better. host: what is it about his plan that you trust? caller: there is no change if you are 55 or older. there is nothing to worry about. it is a continuation of what we have. by recalling obamacare recompose money back into hospitals so they do not go out of business. host: there is a twitter conversation going on as well as facebook. two responses for you this morn.

two responses from facebook this morning. if you want to converse that way or on twitter or talk to us on the phone as well. hello, lewis. caller: as far as trusting, you really do not know any more who to trust. i can only tell by the example that my experience -- what i have gone through. right now, you're sorry not ready for a change to romney. i do not -- i am not ready for a change to romney. i do not like the way they are trying to force it down our throats one way or the other. the same thing with president obama. i am 62. i have always worked for myself. i have always paid my own

hospitalization. i was a one-person operation. i was never able to participate in a group plan. i used it one time when i was sick. i ended up at the va center, which is government controlled. that was my only option. my premium went from $600 a month in my 50s to 2000 a month raises a $2,600 deductible plus 20% of the next $20,000. i acquired with somebody from the -- i inquired, what happens when i turned 64? we were mandated to buy the insurance. to put it all into a nutshell,

he really did not know. he said, you still have insurance. you go to the va. i said the va is not insurance. host: i appreciate the story. one more question. how much of your voting decisions boil down to health care related issues? caller: i am glad to obama has put his plate and and i cannot wait until 2014 into action. i will not be penalized as to by my insurance. the insurance companies and the lobbyists that put these premiums at such unrealistic amounts will not be able to get out to me anymore. host: that is lewis from west virginia. a story this morning about the senate before they went out for congressional break to be back in november, they took of votes on a key pieces of business including the senate approving a

six-month spending resolution to keep the government running. this is tenn., cal, good morning. caller: listen up closely. there is a dirty secret the democrats have not told the. they intend to take medicare and folded all and to the affordable care plan. even president obama said that. they said that yesterday at the aarp. seniors would be better protected under the affordable care act. i have already stolen $716 billion. they're going to take the rest of it.

they really want a single payer plan. the fact of the matter is, they want to totally eliminate medicare and have a single payer plan for everybody. host: steve, hello. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am 61 years old. i have medicare. i have a social security disability. i had a liver transplant two years ago. i have been watching this debate very carefully. i have been studying this. what the last caller said is true. mr. obama has taken nearly three-quarters of $1 trillion out of medicare and has put that into funding for obamacare. the romney/ryan the plan does save it $700 billion in

medicare. they pull that money back into medicare. obama achieves his cuts in medicare by actually reducing payments to providers which means fewer doctors, nurses, hospitals will be able to take care of us seniors. in the romney/ryan plan does not do that. also, the romney/ryan plan will keep medicare in place for me and four other seniors as it is right now. for those under 55 years of age, they will have options, one of which is to continue in medicare as it is by what we have. now, this is a very interesting subject to me. i am very concerned about unelected panel's making health

care decisions for all of us. host: does health care decisions rate on why you will pull the lever in november? caller: that is a huge reason for me. also, we have to get back to -- people need jobs. they need to be self empowered and enriched. they need to learn to do for themselves to have the self- esteem. this entitlement society will go nowhere but straight down the tubes. i will vote for romney and ryan. those 55 and under -- and over calling in today. we are going to take a short side trip. every lead story in the paper dealt with the release of tax information from mitt romney's campaign. according to the 2011 tax

return, $19.4 million paid in federal income taxes giving it a 14.7% tax rate. $4 million in charitable donation. a little over $1 million to the church of latter-day saints. 2.2 $5 million to charity deductions claimed it. $3.5 billion earned from warren -- it foreign countries. a $3,000 paid in foreign tax. $1.3 million paid in state income tax. website,o to politico's there is a story there saying that mitt romney's tax history is still fuzzy. what is fuzzy about the history? caller: one thing that is

interesting is the campaign did not release tax returns before 2010, but they released a summary of the returns from 1992 through 2009. during that period mr. romney paid an average of 20%, but we do not know what he paid each year. we still do not have any kind of tax information for the annual years before 2010. host: why is it important to have that affirmation? caller: because president obama has released tax information going back to the year 2000. there is a lot that has been made about what exactly mr. romney has paid in terms of taxes and where his wealth comes from. that always creates a little bit of, what is going on here.

it raises questions when we have only seen two years of actual returns. host: as far as this year with the 2011 turns, talk about the tax rate and how that was achieved. caller: that was pretty interesting. mitt romney over paid his taxes this year because if you remember in august, he said he has never paid a rate that was lower than 13%. he basically had to fiddle with the numbers and not take all of the deductions available to him via his charitable contributions to make the math work to keep the rate above 13%. had he taken all of the deductions available to him, his rates would have been somewhere in the 9% to 10% range.

host: is that in part due to the charitable contributions, $4 million over all, $1 million to the church of latter-day saints and 2.2 $5 million to others. caller: that is right. host: there is a little on the political side reacting. harry reid said this morning that the information released reveals mitt romney manipulated one of only two years of tax returns he saw fit to show to the american people. that raises the question, what else on the tax returns has he manipulated? we already know he has money overseas, but why does he not want to be straight with the american people about the choices he has made. does this go to the areas that senator reid was concerned about?

caller: he makes these allegations that there are years in which mr. romney did not pay taxes at all. some insiders source knew that mr. romney did not pay taxes. there has been a back and forth over the past couple of months on this issue. mitt romney has released -- he has paid taxes. he paid at the federal and state level over the past 20 years. it continues the conversation there. host: do you think the release of this will ever satisfy the desire for release of others? caller: people are still saying we need prior years and more affirmation. this is not ever going to satisfy people who want more information beyond what the campaign has already given. this is basically reinforcing what we already knew.

mr. romney is very wealthy. he is textron 14%. host: steve sloan is a senior tax reporter on politico. thank you for your time. back to our calls. who do you trust when it comes to medicare? we decided to divide the lines regionally and implied voters 55 and older. this is henderson, nevada. hello. caller: good morning. i am with romney/ryan plan. being a former insurance agent and manager, the obamacare plan is flawed in many respects. number one, it forces the states, all of them, to lose federal funding.

it forces the states to put a pool up to ensure people that never possibly even paid into medicare. eventually, the serious injuries, the serious illnesses will deplete the funds these states set up. i am not against indigence. i am not against people who did not pay into medicare. we will be financing through the state mandated obamacare. the second reason is he did in fact take out $750 billion, three-quarters of $1 trillion to fund in the states. that is not going to work. the government will never have actuaries that are as perfect as the insurance companies do. we are all at risk and the

premiums rise based on risk and actual experience. host: this is shreveport, louisiana. hello, keith. caller: good morning. i have been on medicare for some time and i have no problems with it at all except the scary thing is when they passed obamacare. i support the ryan and romney plan wholeheartedly. it will work because it brings in that free enterprise. the problem when they said we have to pass the bill before we can find out what is in it. i do not believe we have found out everything in that bill yet. i think that we need to look at free enterprise, capitalism, and we need to look a giving people freedom of choice. this is how the price will be reduced and not by cutting the price of doctors. host: what is it that you think

will work in the caller: medical:it always has worked. capitalism is what has made our country so great. free enterprise. host: now that the general campaign conventions are over, the debates are next. the first one coming up october 3 about the preparation for those debates on both sides saying the obama campaign wants to set a lobar for the president's performance, reflecting in part his debating skills are weaker than his other political assets.

we want to invite you to watch and engage in the debates with c-span. we have set up a page and information concerning all of the vice-presidential debate and debates. you can see these debates, comment on them. you can also listen to them live on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org. that is part of campaign 2012 coverage. for more information go to our web site. hello, this is maryann. caller: i want to thank c-span. i was up and watched the paul

ryan speech to the aarp and i thought it was very good. i have not had an opportunity to hear that speech. i guess i was really impressed by the plan that they have. i cannot understand how people can think obamacare can work. if you do not strengthen the economy and have people making money to invest money to give to these programs, how is it going to work? host: what is it above the/the ryan approach that is appealing when it comes to health-related matters and medicare? caller: they will let people have a choice on who they will choose for their provider. with obamacare, everybody has to have the same provider. it is like one shoe fits all. i was really impressed by what ryan proposed.

you support the economy, and then the economy will feedback -- if you have more people working, you'll have more people paying taxes to help people that really need it. i really like the plan that the wealthier people are going to still be able to have medicare benefits, but it will be a different ratio from what poor people that need more assistance will get. host: portland, oregon. here is john. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a c-span junkie. two things here. the republicans mostly are claiming that we are putting all these debts on our children. the fact is that if we keep

medicare as it has been unchanged for our children, they are the ones that will also worked their whole lives but they will buy have access to care the way we do. if we change it for our children, we should change it for ourselves. they will not have the same access. that is one thing. the second thing as far as the money taken out of medicare, the cbo says the money that was saved by taking care of obama s changes strength and medicare. the third thing is that right now the reason that medicare and social security have survived all of these years is because we are in it together. when you divide a program, how long do you think the people under 55 will continue to

support at some level for us older people when they will not get it. separate of the people, divide them into halves. host: the united states has decided to disclose names of those at guantanamo bay. a story this morning said --

harrisburg, pennsylvania. hello. caller: i like c-span. thank you for your program. i would say 85% of the population does not even understand either plan. it is confusing, and there are a lot of scare tactics. i was in the bush and i got a lot of poison ivy on me. this was about six years ago. i had to go to the emergency room because the va is not open on saturday. i went to the emergency room and

waited about four hours or whatever. i got a bill for something like $250. just two months ago i was going to virginia to go on a little fishing -- kickback and all that. when i was cleaning my fishing box, my big knife close down on my right index finger and probably needed a couple of stitches. three days later in a balloon up a really big. i went to the emergency room and was there for six hours and received a bill three weeks later. three days after that i went to the medical center and spent two hours there. i got a bill from the first

place i went to that was like $115. that is a lot less. then the other bill was only $85. like i said, i do not understand what is going on and everything, but i do remember obama did say if this plan is not working in some areas, we will make changes through congress. if things are not working, he did say we will have to make changes. i cannot see cutting off all of these kids who are 25 because -- whatever that is. i cannot see them getting cut off. there are thousands of people who have health care now. it will not run out. social security and everything -- it will not run out until like 2030 anyway. host: michigan is up next. hello. caller: good morning.

this is my first time speaking on c-span. i listened to the people that you have calling in. most are confused as to what the two plans are. specifically, you did indicate the $700 billion taken out of the plan did not reduce any current benefit specifically. i am 70-years old. my concern is somebody says they will give the a voucher that may be accepted some place. most people do not understand a voucher is like a script. are going back to the depression days. it does not make any sense that i would vote for somebody who has not tell me what they are going to do. as far as i am concerned, i will stick with president obama.

yes, they will be affected, but at the same time they cannot expect to have the same benefits for ever. it does not indicate they will have no benefits. it would just be different. the voucher plan does not make sense to me. pretty soon social security will be changed over if we continue to listen to a rich man -- i am not concerned about his income tax. rich people are going to try to pay less. that is not an issue. when he plans for us is an issue. that is what we ought to be concerned with. just his raid after he becomes president -- which i hope he does not. host: when it comes to mitt romney, not only were his tax records released, but also a bill of health released yesterday.

this is a write up about what was found.

oklahoma city, oklahoma. caller: good morning. i am just wondering as to how mitt romney and paul ryan are going to pay for their system. our people currently employed, are they not going to have to pay medicare tax anymore? how are they going to fund the voucher system once somebody that is 54 or under is going to be eligible for medicare? it is not making any sense to me. how are they going to take care of the current seniors if there is no medicare tax taken out of the payroll checks anymore? host: when it comes to who borrows and who lends, a question asked by the new york times. it says --

one more call on this topic. angela, hello. caller: thank you for c-span. i am for the romney/bryan plant. gov. romney here in massachusetts did a great thing when he had the health care. people are happy with it. unfortunately, it has been costing us more and more every year. that is the unfortunate thing about this plan. we are $16 trillion in the hole.

putting 32 million more people on obamacare -- where will we get the physicians? if you look at england, there are long waiting lines. people are waiting for operations. we do not have the physicians to take care of 32 million more people. i am 76 years old. people need to get informed about this new plan obamacare. it was never, never a bipartisan plan. it was rammed it through. we need to look at it and pass it so we know what is and it said nancy pelosi. i am a catholic. i resent the fact that have to pay for abortions and contraceptives. this is in the plan. timothy tried to meet with obama and said, our conscious does not allow this. obama told a black eye and he just discounted us and what we

felt this and our hearts and our religion. i think number one, no. 2, and three this is a very bad plan. i am voting for a mitt romney. hhost: if you are watching television in the later part of the morning, if you go to bob the national book festival. we are planning coverage of that event 40 dead days. you will get a chance to speak with authors as well. -- this event for two days. we would refer you to our web site c-span.org. coming up, we are going to talk about fast and furious and the

operation done by the atf in conjunction with other organizations. a report from the inspector general's office. we will take a look at details about the report and you can ask questions as well. david ingram will join us. later on, lawrence mishel will join us. we want to point you to our newsmakers program. this week we had a chance to sit down with senator joe lieberman. he spoke about a lot of different topics. attacks on the u.s. consulate, the fate of cyber security, and the bill in the senate and his return to private life. one of the topics that he did address was the crisis or at least who was responsible from the crisis stemming from that video and what happened in

libya. >> it just perplexes me that this video done by one man from what i can tell and his son, crude, a parent, and tight islam is allowed to set off these demonstrations. you would have to look at the president's attempts to rebuild our relationship with the muslim world has not succeeded yet. we have to get to a point where not only we, but more importantly, the leaders in the muslim world say, this is a terrible film done by two

americans. it does not represent the american people. it was not done by the american government. it simply is not an excuse to go on a rampage against american targets and americans. in other words, you cannot say that it was just this one man in california. it was created by the radical egyptian cleric who gave a fiery speech and a sermon about the film a few days before 9/11. by everyone else who went out and demonstrated. i think we have to respect the world's muslim community enough to say, friends, brothers, and sisters and faith, this is unacceptable behavior. >> washington journal continues.

host: this week the inspector general released a this report about 500 pages, dealing with events that took place from a program known as fast and furious. a hearing this week that took place on the house side dealt with not only the report, but the findings and questions about it. here is what was said about the release of the report. >> the conclusions after 19 months of hard work, of course, are greater than what some would want and fall short of what others want. they cannot bring complete closure, but even the i.t. and in this report have some questions. -- ig has some questions. but like any document you have to at some point cut it off, come as you are, and bring what

you have. i think this was the appropriate time. host: now, david in drum joins us to talk -- ingram joins us. caller: the republicans were looking for a conclusion to an investigation this started almost two years ago. the biggest component they were looking at was, what involvement there was, if any, by the leadership of the justice department in this investigation. either coming up with the idea or giving them confidence this was a good idea. the report found there was no cover up by the department after it became public. when this operation started, it was started by local agents. it was not conceived of in washington by officials here. there was plenty in this report

for everybody in this case to find something that they like. host: i would imagine most know what was meant by fast and furious. but for those who do not, a short synopsis. caller: it started in 2009. the phoenix office, the atf. it was run by the atf and prosecutors and arizona as an intent -- in arizona as an attempt to get into a drug trafficking ring. they believe there are many that feed semiautomatic rifles to drug cartels in mexico by buying them into the united states and bringing them into mexico. the agents on the ground believed they could not

dismantle these smuggling rings by going after the low level buyers. they had the idea of, what if we held off on prosecuting low level buyers and instead waited, let them make their purchases, even if the government suspects it's illegal and build a case against people higher up. host: as far as the guns themselves, a part of the concern is the guns and it up in mexico. caller: that is exactly right. we do not know exactly how many ended up in mexico. 2000 guns were purchased by suspects in instances where there might have been a legal basis for the government to interject the weapons. two weapons were found at the scene of a death of a u.s. border agent in december 2010. that is what led all of this to

become public. host: operation fast and furious. your questions and comments about it. here is how you can call us. you can send us a tweet, also said as an e-mail as well. you can make comments on facebook as well. the history of fast and furious, the report comes out. what are the main concerns by the inspector general about how the program was run? caller: the first would be fast and furious itself as an operation along with a similar program started in 2006. the inspector general believed that the program was ill- conceived, up agents should that

have been so quick to give up on the idea of the arresting low- level buyers. they founded the program was not well overseen either by people like the u.s. attorney in arizona as well as washington. other concerns dealt with house senior officials of in washington handled affirmation about the operation before and after it became public. the inspector general found senior officials at the justice department and at atf as early as 2010 could have asked more questions to stop what ended up being a poor strategy. after it became public in december of 2010, they did not pursue aggressively internally all of the questions and tell congress what the problems were. host: several people within the

organization knew about it, but not enough was heading to the top. caller: exactly. the report is explicit in saying that low-level officials in arizona did not tell the whole story to their supervisors in their in arizona or washington. it prevented higher ups from learning what happened. host: is there a sense of why the intermission did not make it that far? caller: it did not get into the motives exactly of these people. people in arizona believe in the operation and thought it was the most effective way, especially given the difficulties of bringing some cases against buyers, the most effective way to stop what everyone agrees is a problem which is trafficking weapons to mexico. host: what does it say about in this?der's repor

caller: it cleared his name. he did not find out about the operation at all until early 2011, after the death of the u.s. border agent. host: our guest david ingram joins us. here is your chance to ask him questions. fort worth, texas, you are up first. caller: thank you for taking my call this morning. i would say, are you surprised all of this came from the atf in arizona? all of those local officials who did this project and then did not let the other people in the department know? and then the republicans and the process they were trying to create for the attorney general

holder. i watched all of the proceedings. the republicans should be ashamed of themselves. as all have to say. guest: there is this question here of, why arizona? arizona is a border state. is relatively easy to get to mexico from arizona. it is has relatively lax gun laws. it is easier to buy not just certain kinds of weapons, but large numbers of these weapons. the inspector general found according to some people, that was contributing to the problem. host: this other program in 2006, operation wide receiver, was a run in a similar fashion? guest: there were differences. this involved some of the same

agents who would later work in fast and furious. the tactics were in some way similar and some was different. wide receiver/atf almost ran a gun shop and was selling large amounts of weapons. in fast and furious they were working with two and shops in particular that they thought would serve as informants. the case for wide receiver went to the justice department in 2010. one of the concerns was the department officials to read reports on the wide receiver did not ask more questions and find out about fast and furious. host: i was going to ask if there were equal amount of concerns with operations, but

was one run better than the other? guest: they did not approve of either program. what of the main arguments is, there has to be a choice of going after low of will suspects and high level suspects. you can do both and they are not in conflict. host: this is keith from houston, texas on the republican line. caller: i have watched a lot of the hearings on c-span. i am very familiar with it. the bottom line is, at what point did eric holder find out about it, and why did it president obama exert executive privilege into this question mike your guest david says, there are strop persons in houston i am familiar with here.

if they called betting, should we intervene, people were buying 10, 20 at a time, they were saying, let them go. let them go to mexico. i do not know if you saw the interview with president obama on univision, they ask questions about a lot of weapons in a mexico that president obama let go there illegally. i do not think we know the whole story yet. the caller made several points that a correct. reportpectors general's found that the atf did not handle its relationship with those gun dealers correctly. the atf was sanctioning and approving gun sales to suspects that it knew could be illegal.

that was an indirect relationship between atf and gun dealers. they should not have told gun dealers to sell these weapons. the caller brought out the president's interview on univision where the president expressed confidence in eric holder and did not fault him for fast and furious. i think the attorney general is feeling good about how this report went. host: the president declaring executive privilege. does that mean the information does not make it into this report? guest: his office pursuit -- pursued and they found there was one person on the national

security staff who was speaking with the atf about gun trafficking, but not specifically about operation fast and furious by name and did not mention the cast -- tactics we know are now controversial. before this report came out in june, the president to exert its executive authority and executive privilege over information relating to weapons related communications regarding how the department responded to congress. host: we are looking at the inspector general's report on operation fast and furious. caller, go ahead. caller: i was curious. with the things that have gone on with these different weapons transactions between mexico and the united states, did we

actually learn anything about giving weapons to different parts of the world. i understand they were supposed to be trying to track them and all of this kind of stuff. now we have weapons that are being used against of our military men and we were training them over in afghanistan and weapons we take to the libyans are being used to kill our ambassadors and things like that. all of these things are just kind of turning around and coming back to the point where maybe we should not give everybody out weapons. host: is that the weapons go? guest: they go a lot of places generally. i think this operation highlights something be caller

talked about, which is how, it is for small arms to be traffic around the world. unrelated to fast and furious, there was a meeting at the united nations to come up with a treaty to control small arms like automatic weapons and semiautomatic weapons headed for places like syria or libya. interestingly enough, both of these are top issues for u.s. gun owners and their lobbyists in washington to see the atf operation and the u.n. operation as possible threats to second amendment rights. host: michael horowitz, the inspector general for the justice department, was asked about the political motive behind the fast and furious programs and could this be used as an argument to change a gun laws. here is his response. [video clip]

>> we do highlight in the report instances where there is talk about changing rules, regulations, our laws. we found all of those instances came after the investigation had begun. the notion was, maybe this is a good example to show why we need to change the laws. we did find evidence that the outset that was what was done. host: even political conversations end up in this report, at least some of the report. guest: what he is referring to is suspicions by some people that the whole operation past and furious and once that preceded it were an attempt by the obama administration to drum up here of gun trafficking, use that as a pretext for new gun laws or enforcement. the inspector general says he found no evidence to support that and was why fast and

furious was created. he says it points to the beat -- the need for more efforts against gun trafficking. host: we have a tweet. we are destabilizing our neighbors and that is not good for us. there was a glowing response to this report, considering this person was the one who was suspicious of eric holder. guest: inspector general will be in that office for a long time to come with a professional staff. a few other people in congress want to criticize an office that is going to be around for a while and they are going to take a critical view of the

administration. they were happy with the substance of the report because it did not let the justice department of the early, even though it cleared eric holder of any kind of cover-up. host: james on our democrats line. caller: we are getting a perception that it was a fake. -- a failure. there were some successes in the fast and furious, were there? guest: there were some indictments that were brought. as of last month, there were about 14 guilty pleas by people who were involved in fast and furious. the department may not want to call that a success, but indictments are what they would like to do with there is suspicious -- sufficient evidence. the questions were about what

good because of having these gun purchases was worth it. the justice department is not going to tout those indictments with their -- when there are a few thousand guns that have been sold in the connection with mexican drug cartels. host: for those indicted, what faces them? guest: they have not been sentenced yet. they have entered guilty pleas. people in arizona have pled guilty as straw buyers. host: north carolina on our republican line. hi. caller: second time caller. thank you for receiving my call this morning. i would like to thank sandra day o'connor for her service in america. as we know, jan brewer has been

serving as the governor of arizona. i am happen to say i have lived in arizona 17 years. while i lived in arizona, i was associated with a number of people in the law enforcement and criminal justice department and in arizona education and arizona everyday life with the police. my friend told me, working for the mesa police department that there were many people involved with a gun sales and different types of routine commercial operations. i am a happy veteran of military service, but i realize in the early days of the war on terror , many compromises were made with prior offended men and women who had been in the criminal justice system and they were introduced into the ranks of the police departments and

law enforcement throughout the nation. these were considerations made because of the people and their prior offenses. i do not believe the people who were involved in fast and furious willingly and knowingly made the mistakes they made cautiously. i do know there were many people who have been involved with criminal penalties and had a criminal record who were in the law-enforcement system. host: ok, caller. thank you. guest: i would like to talk about something brought up earlier, and that is what they have the full story. news reporters are not satisfied that it really gets to the bottom of fast and firm s&p -- fast and furious and the programs that preceded it. there are two things we are quick to follow from here on out. one is a view that republicans

in the house have filed asking for the documents the obama administration has held. a judge is going to have to decide whether or not to enforce the subpoena. that will be interesting to watch. the other is that the ig said in his report that there are a few threads that he is going to issue more reports about. they will be minor compared to this report, but still interesting. one is another atf operation that related to a grenade components. another is about potential leaks regarding this investigation. host: as far as the operations we have seen, do we know that there are similar operations the still exist even though we have had trouble with these two? guest: we do not know if there are any that still exist. the department and the atf have

made clear that they have moved on. host: good morning. this is pat on the independent line. caller: yes. i have looked at all of the hearings concerning this matter. i will not let the people -- the people of the atf or not -- allowed to testify. it was political against general holder because he is going after these states applying to pass laws -- i am sorry -- trying to pass laws that will intimidate voters to stay away from the polls. we are talking about one man killed. my sympathy goes to the family. but we have over 4000 people

killed in war based on a lie. no one seems to be upset about that. host: we will leave it there. reaction from diane terry -- brian terry's family. guest: then welcomed the report and were happy that it found systematic errors by the justice department. they were not happy with eric holder's response to the report. two people resigned as the report was being released. the former head of the atf and the criminal division of the department. one of those retired and one resigned. eric holder praised their service. brian terry's family thought

that was inappropriate given the circumstances of his death. there will not be any official accounting of how many people died as a result of the weapons from fast and furious. some people claim that many more people other than brian terry have been victims of this operation because these weapons are out there. host: this is michael horowitz and it goes to the idea of supervision of fast and furious in which he says was a risk to public safety. [video clip] >> the risk to the public safety was immediately evident in the investigation. atf agents learned that the purchases were being financed by violent mexican drug trafficking organizations and firearms were destined for mexico. in operation fast and furious, we found that no one responsible

for the case at the phoenix steel division, atf headquarters, or in the u.s. attorney's office raise a question or concern about the government not taking earlier measures to disrupt a firearm trafficking operation that continue to purchase firearms with impunity for many months. host: as far as the atf will moving forward, have they reshuffled leadership positions of those responsible for releasing the information? guest: no one is still in the job they had before fast and furious. there is a new head of atf. he is a lawyer from minnesota who also has the role of u.s. attorney and senior federal prosecutors in minnesota. he is doing two jobs. one of the longstanding jobs -- issues related to the atf is that it is difficult for a

president to get someone confirm into that position because of all of the politics around guns in the united states. it seems unlikely that there will be a confront leader for atf in the near future. host: this is the report that came out this week, about 500 pages. if you want to look through it, we have provided a link on our c-span web site. you can see the link on our website, c-span.org. we have a few more minutes with our guest to talk about the findings. this is providence, rhode island on our republican line. caller: good morning. i have a couple questions. between the two operations, wide receiver and fasting curious -- i have been watching this about two years now.

with wide receiver, we notify the mexican government that we were doing this and that we have tracking devices on these weapons, which it appears we never let the mexican government know about this with fast and furious. there was no way to track these weapons. please comment on that. guest: that is true. in wide receiver, the mexican government was involved and was notified of the operation. that was not true in fast and furious. it is something that the i.g.'s report addresses. there were tracking devices that were used in wide receiver. they were definitely not used to the extent they were in wide receiver in the fast and furious. host: what type of weapons are we talking about? guest: mostly ak-47-style

rifles and semiautomatic handguns. host: this is clearwater, florida. caller: by name is john. first-time caller. i am delighted with c-span and the work you do. the question i had on this was, it seems to be a shame that the polarization -- the political isolation of its -- politi zation of it seems to be a way to get at eric holder. i am a retired priest. i was also a schoolteacher. i am retired from that. many of the things that come in these calls to you show an

amazing lack of charity. there does not seem to be -- i would use the rodney king statement -- can we all just get along? can we treat each other with respect and dignity? if we have questions about policy and questions about personality and things like that -- they do not seem to have any place in our public discourse. host: thank you, caller. we move on to kittyhawk's, north carolina. -- kitty hawk, north carolina. caller: i am calling in to voice my opinion. why did they wait until the death to stop this operation?

guest: when we are talking about fast and furious, we are talking about two different operations. there is operation wide receiver started in 2006 and operation fast and furious started in 2009. they were both run by atf. they are two different programs. there is a question that between 2006 and 2010, and why didn't the leadership of atf and the department of justice learned lessons from wide receiver and prevent what happened in the fast and furious? that is a good part of the reason we have seen people resign as a result of this investigation. host: did the inspector general address those concerns in the report? guest: yes. he pointed the finger at officials at 80th and the justice departments that they should have learned of this

program and told their superiors about guns being allowed to move it into mexico or toward mexico and should have made sure there were no similar programs. host: ohio, john, republican line. caller: first off, i would like to thank the guest for differentiating between the two program fast and furious and operation wide receiver. i have heard that myself on fox news and talk radio. the point i wanted to make is, i watched the hearings. eric holder -- i was appalled at how supposedly ignorant he italy's up everything going on underneath him. the best ignorant -- ignorance he says -- he is of everything

going on underneath him. he is answerable to the president. the corruption in most administrations is hard for most americans to swallow. host: who is the closest person to eric holder who knew about this? test ban that would have been lani brewer, who knew in 2010 that there was an operation. he knew about operation wide receiver. the report criticizing him for not telling eric holder about the tactics in wide receiver. there was another official who is the chief of staff to be attorney general, who learned about the tactics of fast and furious directly after brian terry's death. the report criticizing --

criticizes him for not telling eric holder about these tactics. it was six weeks before eric holder learned of it. host: this is gary. hi. caller: obama used executive easement that he created. i cannot know if he created or not. president obama also used an executive easement to cover up or change abortions being done in mexico being denied the states funded and other areas. he covered up two things by using an executive easement. thank you for hearing me. guest: one of the things worth noting about the inspector general's report is how the department responded to

congress's interest in this. the department sent a letter on february 4, 2011 saying there had been no guns that were allowed to be bought legally and traffic to mexico. it took the department nine months, from stepping very to maybe 10 months, to officially withdraw that letter and tell congress they were wrong. the report criticizes congress for not being -- the department for not being forthright with congress. they knew what was said in february was wrong. postbank west virginia. na ne -- host: west virginia. janet on our independents line. caller: is it surprising that

nobody knows anything? i cannot understand what is going on. it is ridiculous. it is a sad situation to see what is gone on in this country and people do not see it. this is the greatest country in the world, and yet people cannot see what obama is doing. he is doing anything he wants to and people are ahing and oohing and he can say anything he wants to. i cannot understand why people do not see this and i thank you for listening to me. guest: another conclusion in the report that the inspector general highlight it was rather or not officials in washington who review wiretap applications should have realized with the tactics were in fast and furious. the report says it is concerned that senior officials in

washington were approving wiretaps without personally looking at the applications coming out of arizona and discovering with the tactics were. host: what with the wiretaps used for? caller: -- guest: that were used or straw buyers. they used tactics like surveillance to find out how the weapons were getting into arizona. that included the use of wiretaps, which needed approval of officials in washington. there were questions as to whether that process was started the way it should have been. host: this is greg in washington on the republican line. caller: i would like to have you addressed the issue -- address the issue of the difference

between a gun runner and fast and furious. gun runner was stopped and started under a george bush. eric holder and barack obama knew all about that. with fast and furious, then restarted it and it was completely different. obama and eric holder did not know anything about that. can you please address that and keep it simple and short. thanks. guest: that was one of the main criticisms of the report. obama's appointees in the justice department did not learn lessons from the first operation and apply those lessons to operation fast and furious in 2010. they potentially could have stopped the operation then. host: we have a viewer who asked if president bush knew about the gun operation that preceded fast and furious. guest: we have no knowledge of

president bush knowing and the previous head of the atf. he was briefed. host: a caller from texas. caller: thanks for taking my call. i appreciate c-span. i am a little confused. he said when brian terry was killed, fast and furious was stopped. is that correct? guest: i do not remember saying that specifically. but there were a indictments brought right after brian terry's death. caller: there is a discrepancy there because you said eric holder was not made aware of it until january or february of 2011. i am wondering because that is a

three month time period. was the operation still going on or wasn't it? my last comment would be, i see this as a complete and total failure in foreign policy. i find this totally unflappable that secretary napolitano -- unfathomable that secretary napolitano and a person in one office could be responsible for distributing weapons that never go away. guest: the department of justice has 1000 employees around the world. the attorney general is in charge of keeping everything -- keeping up with everything. there were indictments brought in the weeks after brian terry's

death and fast and furious was closed down. there was no evidence to contradict that. host: what does eric holder say about the future of this operation and how information is handled in the justice department? guest: he says they have learned lessons about oversight of atf operations and the importance of atf and u.s. attorney's office is working closely together. this is something they would like to move past and find other ways to address the problem of gun trafficking. host: we are talking about the report from the inspector general on operation fast and furious. he wants to read the report for yourself, go to our home page and click on the link. you can also go to our website,

c-span.org. you can see the hearing that took place this week and every other hearing that preceded that held by the house oversight committee and darrell issa's committee. again, c-span.org. thank you. coming up, we will look at a new report how taking a look at working america and the state of working america. later on, we will talk about cyber security attacks and connecting that to iran. we will return in just a moment.

>> my desire to get involved with politics is watching a permission on c-span. i love to talk topics and things that come up. i love watching it and pulling it up on my mobile device. >> she watches c-span on cox communications. c-span, created in 1979 brought to you as a public service by your cable provider. >> if you were trying to write a story about a couple, about their intimate lives and what happened during and after their relationship, the lincolns offer us in this possibilities. working on abraham lincoln, one gets into that mesmerized doris

goodwin staring at the picture. you do get mesmerized by this thing about lincoln. you start wondering about, why didn't marry do this for lincoln? then, i am able to see the world around me and there have been other presidential lives, other women of privilege who have been accused of illnesses. i have used be great "princess diana defense." was she a daughter of privilege? what she put under scrutiny and criticized former fashion? the parallels are quite interesting. >> this weekend on american history tv, the troubled life of first lady mary todd lincoln. "washington journal" continues.

host: joining us on our c-span set, lawrence mishel from the american policy institute. he serves as their president. it put out a report on the working people of america. what is the purpose of the report? guest: to highlight working people and their families so that we get ideas about economic policy. host: what elements to you look at in the family to data that? guest: -- host: what elements in the family do you look at to gauge that? guest: we examined wealth and poverty and social mobility. host: starting with wages, what did you find?

guest: over the last 30 years, there has been a growth of income equality such that the top income growth is 240%. the middle group, just around 40%. the economy grew enough that everybody's living standards could improve, but it did not because economic policy given by those people had a lot of income, power, and walt changed economic policy so that the through -- the fruits of economic growth only go to the top. the recession definitely hurt. even the period between 2000- 2007, income did not grow because the wages of all workers, college graduates, high school graduates, did not improve in the last 10 years. we saw the wealth of the typical

family decline. the wealth of the typical family is lower now than it was in 1983. it is pretty remarkable. host: by how much? guest: it has declined around 20% between 1983 and 2010. that is data we have gotten from the federal reserve board. host: the median family income was 6% lower in 2010. guest: yes. that reflects the recession and the disappear -- disappointing period over the business cycle. it was the first business cycle where a family cannot have more

money at the end of it than they did at the beginning of it. host: with that in mind, our guest will be with us until 915 to talk about the findings of the report. you can ask questions about it and tell your own situation. here are the numbers you can call us on. democrats, 202-737-0002, republicans 202-737-0001 and independents 202-628-0205. where do we stand as far as families today? guest: income is cash you get over the course of a year. you may get it from income -- from wages or social security or pensions.

it is basically what you own and the equity in your house and when you own in the financial markets-what your debt are. along with income -- financial markets last what your debts are. the wealth between 1982 and 2010 went to the upper 1%. the bottom end up with less wealth. one of the key findings is that the stock market -- a lot of discussion about the stock market been democratized. 30% of households have more than $2,000 worth of stock. the value of the stock market is held by 2% of the top -- 10% of the top. when you --

host: does that take into account things like 401k? guest: it includes 401k's and ira's. we have expanded the retirement system. in the retirement system, more people have 401k's that in the past. people have regular pension plans. in spite of that, we have a load distribution of stock. fewer people own stock. there has been a decline in the share of people who own stock. host: what is it about those in the top% -- in the top 1%? guest: quick question. we think there are two things that drove this.

one is the fast rise in executive pay over the last 30 years. the other is the expansion of the financial sector and the increasingly high paid in the financial sector. one reason behind that is our tax rates. we used to tax people in the upper 1% 70%. in that situation, a ceo could say, i do not want to push for extra money because i only get to keep 30% of it. now they get to keep 70% of it. they get much higher pay. host: was that because of the change in tax rates under the previous administration? guest: this change in tax rates has been going on since the late-1970's. the pay rates are established by ceo's friends.

that ripples through the whole executive category of people. between the expansion of the financial sector and the ceo pay, about 60% of the growth of the top 1% income -- the top 1% double to their share of national income between 1979 and 2007. capital gains is a big part of it. it is also wage income, business income. they basically have -- the use to get around 10% of the national income. -- they used to get around 10% of the national income. right now they get 22%. host: randy on the democrats' line.

caller: thank you for c-span. my question to you, if income is declining for a large portion of our -- earners in this country, to change the dynamic, would it be necessary for a complete tax code revision, or would it be incumbent upon the voters to say, we want to see some serious rates changes for the wealthy. as you said, the money you earn on interest. what you call that again? guest: capital income. caller: is its 15%? should that be construed as income? it sounds that if i take a dollar and put it in a bank and it turns me a dime, that is income. if i take it dollar and i put it

in a business and it turns me a dime, that is definitely considered income by the government. host: thank you, caller. guest: income from wealth is taxed at less than half the rate of income from work. that is why you observed rounding's tax rate of 40%. tax rate of 14%. i do think it is important that we have a more progressive tax system and that we raise revenue to protect the public investment and our social insurance system.

i cannot think that is the main thing that has gone on over the last 30 years. the economy has grown in terms of its ability to produce goods and services. we call that productivity. since 1973, it has gone up 80%. the average wages of the typical worker rose by around 11%. 80% for the economy. why is that? that is because there has been an erosion of the ball rolling power of the typical worker individually and collectively -- borrowing power of the typical worker individually and collectively. we have allowed the erosion of collective bargaining to be cut in half. it is hard for people to earn a good living. to go a little bit further, a lot of policies over that. bank of time said, -- over and

that period of time said, we will make you richer by lower your tax rate. in order for people to consume, they have to learn a good living. that is taking to account that the data and i am presenting is inflation adjusted. host: you are talking about unions testify as collective bargaining -- guest: we have cut collective bargaining in half over this periiod of time. there are fewer people who get the higher wages and benefits by having your pay set by collective bargaining and having a voice on the job. in unionized sectors and occupations, people who do the

same thing get the same pay. it for rentals between the highest paid workers and the lowest paid workers is -- differentials between the highest paid workers and the lowest paid workers less. the largest the fact is the disappearance of that because collective bargaining causes the -- the spillover effect has disappeared. that hurts the middle wage worker. earthman more than women. it can explain around -- it hurts men more than women. host: let's take a look at what you talked about and what we saw last week in the chicago

teachers strike. people are asking for more wages and more protection. the use think that unions look at that lightly as a thought -- relates to what they are doing? guest: i have written two books on the pay of teachers. when you look at the pay of teachers and compare it with comparable jobs with equal education and experience, teachers make about 9% less. we used to pay teachers better than average and now we pay them less. we should not be surprised that fewer people are flocking in now than in the past. i think people deserve to have a say and be evaluated. i have studied this whole idea of integrating test scores in the evaluation.

the consensus of experts in education is that there is no meaningful way to track test scores of students and apply that to the teacher's effect. kids come in all sorts of bundles, various levels of problems, various levels of expertise before they get there. you have to control all of that. they do not get the tests on the first day the student sees the teacher. they get the test in the spring before. what people are doing is ramming down a system that is not ready for prime time and telling people that their lives will be subject to -- telling people that their work lives will be subject to it and their pay will be subject to it. caller: good morning. first of all, i do not agree with any of the opening statements -- i do not agree

with any of lawrence's opening statements. i am from chicago and we get paid well. i can tell you are a liberal democrat to espouse the notion that only the rich are making any money. here is my example. between 2003 and 2009, we got a $19 -- we got $19 an hour in a race. that is part of the reason -- $19 an hour raise. chicago pays well. we are getting good wages. we have made progress. i do not agree with any of your ideas that the working man is not making any money. guest: i appreciate your point of view.

i am china closely to stick to what i determine from i the-i am trying to -- i am trying to stick closely to what i can determine from the data. i am glad you are making a good wage. i can present you with data that the typical worker has not gained too much over the last 30 years. what is the standard we used to say whether it is appropriate or not. i am using the standard that says the pie has expanded 80%. with 80% of the pie, the typical worker that 11% more pie. i think they should have gotten a lot more. host: what he said about urban areas versus rural areas. guest: the urban areas may more money than rural areas.

that is because the cost of living is higher. cheap metal worker is a highly paid profession. -- sheet metal worker is a highly paid profession. you probably have collective bargaining and you have a better share of what he contractors it. host: lafayette, louisiana on our independent line. caller: that last caller is fortunate enough to have a union job. he is still making a good living. we write a lot to my situation, in the 1980's, after ronald reagan came into office, i was a construction engineer and was making good money. all of the sudden, everything shutdown and all of the

construction people were laid off. a top tradesman was making about $13 an hour or $14 an hour. when unemployment ran out, they started getting $6.50 an hour. we were told that we were going into an austerity program and we would not have any pay raises for the next several years and that we had to work more. 45 hours a week. they demanded we work 60-80 hours a week for the same pay. the ones who balked were let go. in 1986 when the taxes were so high the with-look into the dictionary -- in 1986, when the

taxes were so high, look into the dictionary -- host: color, can you think of the question? -- caller, can you think of a question? caller: if we went back to supply-side economics, would that help the situation? guest: we have seen a period where companies have had the upper hand and they were able to have their way with many employees. these days, we have college graduates working for free in so-called internships, which is illegal in the private, for- profit sector. why are they asking to work for free and why are people willing to work for free? they are in a situation and that does not speak to the situation of lower income workers. supply-side economics versus keynesian economics, what

keynesian economics says, for our situation now, there are a lot of complicated questions. we have high unemployment. it is expected to persist for many years. if that remains the case, we will not see in comes return to their 2007 level, let alone to their 2000 level, by 2020. we have to deal with the high unemployment. it is hurting many people and the economy overall. we are losing the ability to produce output we can give to everybody through the economy. how do you do that? supply-side economics says lou wants to expand the capacity to produce more. when you have a situation of facilities not being used, work as not being used, using not

need more facilities. you cannot need more work this. you need more customers. that is where keynesian economics comes in. you need to increase demand for goods and services. the government can do it by spending more than provide cuts and put cash in someone's pockets. things like providing unemployment insurance to long- term unemployed seems to be one of the most effective things to be compassionate and putting money in people's pockets. the unemployment benefits that people that for the long-term unemployed may not continue past the end of this year. it is one of the things people do not talk about. we will lose more jobs by the end of that than we could possibly lose by the idea that be which will be taxed when the bush tax cuts expired. unemployment insurance benefits are definitely counted as income. when someone is unemployed and

they get some extra money, they are not putting it in the bank or saving it. they are trying to maintain their standard of living and they are feeling desperate. that is what all of the evidence shows. it is really something where, if you are compassionate and help people through these tough times, you help the economy by doing that. host: car;ps on our - carlos and our dear -- carlos on our democrats line. caller: i would like to ask the guests what he thinks about the trickle-down economics when rich people get richer it benefits the whole population, the whole country. actually, i think that is one

example that republicans laid down and have taken that over the last few years. even in the economic depression that we have, the rich got richer and we have a depression. ken lawrence comment on this statement? -- can lawrence comment on this statement? guest: the idea of trickle-down is what mitt romney is saying. we need to take care of the so- called job creators and that will make us all better off. i do not think there is much evidence for that. over the last 30 years, we have done the opposite of that. that is why mitt romney paste

14% of his taxes. we are giving him that as an investor. we have been tax cuts that essentially all of this. then we had one of the worst recoveries on record. it did not do much to stimulate investment or stops. the one thing it did stimulate, we have high profitability. on the record, that does not work. i favor economics that says we want everybody to be better off. when everyone is better off, that makes the economy grow. i think there is a lot of evidence for that. host: miami, florida on our republican line. caller: i have a comment at a question. i went to see the movie, "obama 2016." i encourage everyone to go and see the movie.

i do not think that guy is perry traveled and understands that. -- is very traveled or understand that. i collected unemployment three months. everybody is paid the same, $8 an hour. the secretary, a paralegal, it seems like it was the same pay no matter what job you had at the time. is there something fixing that? guest: that is a good question. the unemployment benefits are related to your weight. it is taxed. it is different in every state. at some point, if you make $100,000, you would probably get the same benefits as it you made $60,000 a year. if you are a $15,000 a year

worker, and you are going to get less benefits than a worker making $30,000. we are providing a minimal, a decent income just trying to get people buy. i think it should be higher everywhere. there is an unwillingness to pay higher taxes to provide better employment benefits. the state provides those. the federal government provides the money when we are in recession by the extended, longer-term benefits. that is what is at stake now. in some states, you can get benefits up to almost two years. i think that is appropriate with 8.3% unemployment. that may go away. i do not expect unemployment to fall much over the next year. host: has free trade changed the

way income is distributed in the united states? guest: there are ways you can globalize that are less tough on workers. the way we globalized gives companies the upper hand. wage and equality does come from increased trade with low-wage countries. as economists, we are taught big trade makes everyone better off. that is potentially true. it may improve the economy. but the economics say it only makes you better off if the winners compensate the losers. i have not been noticing a lot of compensation of the losers. people say we cannot do redistribution. free trade does not improve the economy if it is not hurting a lot of people. the idea is the shift from less

skilled workers to more skilled workers. when you do that, the people with less skills are competing war against each other for the few remaining jobs. their wages go down. that leads to inequities. maybe that is a good thing. maybe it is not. it can only be good if we make sure everybody is better off. we do not do that. economists do not talk about it. that is indictment of my profession. host: the story talks about technology and its role in the changing nature of the work force. many economists call the vendor making manye categories of employment less lucrative. guest: we have had technological change.

it has increased our ability to produce more goods. technology is leading to greater inequities is that in the workplace, employers need more educated workers and your that do not have a college degree. we have expanded those in need a college degree. in 1973, 12% had a college degree. now it is 1/3. that grew in the 1980's. it has hardly grown at all in the last 15 years. >> in the last 10 years, those with a college degree has been stagnant or fell. college graduate wages in business or sales occupations, flat. host: illinois, don is on the

independent line. caller: my comment is the government is greatly responsible for the economy, particularly for factory workers. we have lost half of our -- manufacturing is only 50% of what it was. it used to be 20% of our economy. it is now 10%. the government has not protected american workers against policies the chinese have. their money is undervalued. they are not doing anything about it. the government has created this problem allowing the shipping of our manufacturing overseas. one example i am familiar with. i was watching tv.

it was a program about manufacturing in china. one of the manufacturers had a plant that made baseball caps, not baseball caps but taps for golfers. i will not name the company. the cost that came out in the conversation was 95 cents a cap. the cap is sold for $26 in the united states. host: we will leave it there. who decides the fair outcomes of trading transactions? guest: these are good questions about trade. government policy could make things better. --'s dig into behind what who drives government policy. in the situation with china, you

have to put the onus on our financial institutions and large corporations who like it that way. the bill has passed in each house which would retaliate against china for its manipulation of exchange rates. there is bipartisan support for this if it was allowed to vote. the last congress, there was bipartisan support. you cannot get a bill through that has bipartisan support, a large majority, something if we corrected the exchange rates with china would lift the economy, generate jobs, and lower the deficit. there are not many things you can do that will lower the fiscal deficit. this is one. why does it not happen? it is because of the power of wall street and multinationals. they like the cheap imports from

china. they want to move over there. they have already moved over there. they want to import it. they want those goods. they want them cheaply. they're passing it off to you. they are making a lot of money off of that. economic policy could make things a lot better off. we could have 4 million jobs if we corrected the exchange rate problem with china. not this year, but over the next three or four years. we need those jobs. it would be a good thing to do. host: texas on the democrats' line. caller: i agree with everything you are saying. you have to know history to know what is going on. ceo's and 1980's, the company owners were making approximately 40% of what employees were making. we were all doing great.

then reagan came along. over the last 30 years, these same ceo's and company owners are making 400% times their employees while the employees have seen their wages stagnated or go down. the wealthy can by the laws to allow them to offshore their money and make it easy for them to ship jobs overseas. if the citizens do not understand what is going on, it will never be corrected. guest: i wish my mother were around to hear you say that. thank you very much. i am sympathetic to what you are saying. i do not think it is just one party. i think it is elements in both parties that generate this kind of economics. some of this started before ronald reagan. it started with jimmy carter.

there is a bipartisan agreement around some of these. there is an elite in this country. they have a piece of both parties. i think they dominate the republican party. also in the democratic party. people should read a new book by well-respected journalist. he tells the tale of all of this. there is another book called the "winner-take-all politics. --." i do not pretend to be an expert. industry first capital gains break happened in 1978. -- it is true the first capital gains break happened in 1978. we started regulating industries in the 1980's. this started under reagan. we do have a problem. we will only fix it if the

middle class gets organized and voices themselves. they need organizations. they need to band together. they need to make people know they want it to be different. the message of our book is if the middle class is struggling, it is not because the economy has not produced income and wealth. it is because there have been economic policies that failed working people that did not allow the fruits to flow and lift up middle income families. this country is not broken will not be broke. what does not work is the economy has been designed not to work for the vast majority of the population. once you understand that and hold people accountable to making sure it will last --

benefit the vast majority, we will have a different outcome. host: what will it take to rise incomes? guest: it will take a couple of things. we need to grow jobs. we need to reduce the deficit. if we start reducing the deficit now, unemployment will be going up. we need quality jobs. we need to have a higher minimum wage. we need to give people the right to collective bargaining. we need to enforce the laws. people should not be working for free as in turns. they should be able to get over time. the person who was saying they have to work 80 hours, that should be illegal. you should not be able to do that. employers are pushing down the workers. there is very little push back up. we want a system where employers and companies are competing against each other to make better products to improve

efficiency, but not competing on who can make people better off as workers. we want some stability and security for workers from a decent pay. have competition drive but not on who can find the cheapest worker and cheat them out of benefits and wages. host: merced, california, paula. caller: we are a small business owner. i understand the private worker. no one seems to take into consideration that the more i give my employee, i have to raise my product. consumers will not buy it. they will go elsewhere to get the same product for less. that is what i do. if i need someone to work on something here, i find the cheaper mechanic or a plumber.

i do not go to the one that will charge me the most. all i hear is the business owner, the business owner. he is in a mess, too. it is not like he has all this money in his pocket. we have regulations. ethanol in california for the dairies, no one took into consideration our price. maybe we could have hired another worker. but we are unable to because our prices have gone up due to the diesel for our supplies. we give our workers a fair wage. we try to get a fair wage for the milken we're told the consumer will not pay more, so you are lucky to get what you get. >> i understand the situation. i grew up in a small business family. an individual business person on their own cannot change that.

if we raised the minimum wage, everyone with low-wage workers will be paying more. the competition will be facing the same -- minimum wage is 12% lower now than it was in 1967 even though the productivity of the economy has doubled and even though the skills of the work force is far greater than it was 40 years ago. i understand. it is not the immorality of an individual owner. i am talking about what is going on that sets things up so we get these outcomes. i take your observations to heart. host: from rhode island, bill is on our independent line. caller: i agree with you minimum wage has to be raised. over the last 30 years, if we

had kept up with the cost-of- living raises, we would not be in this predicament now. i would like to know what you think about that. i will take my answer of of the air. guest: thank you for the question. the minimum wage, i consider a labor standard. we need to pay attention to these things. it sets the wage floor. in the late 1960's, minimum-wage represented 50% of what the average worker got. now is down to 37%. the floor is down. there is no reason it needs to be down. it could be raised. i think it could be raised in reasonable increments without having any impact on employment levels. i think it would help working families a lot, adult working women. we should be doing it. we should be ratcheting up so

the minimum wage again represents 50% of what an average worker earns. host: there are two tweets. one references the fact that ben bernanke will pump $40 billions into the economy. the other says, do you have an alternate suggestion? guest: it is $40 billion a month if federal reserve was going to pump into the economy. i do not think it will turn around the economy. but i think it is an important thing to do. it signals economic policy should be focused on growth, how to create jobs, and lower unemployment. that is not what is being talked about on capitol hill. they are talking about how to fix the budget problem. the reason we have a large deficit is because we have a large recession with high unemployment. when people are not working, they are not paying taxes.

when businesses are not producing what they should, they are not paying taxes. first and foremost create jobs. as the economy gets stronger, then we can deal with other situations where we want to get the deficit down to a reasonable level. the frightening statistics about the deficit are tenor 15 years off. we need to address them. people talk about a fiscal crisis. i think the crisis right now is the struggling low and middle income families trying to make a living, high unemployment, and joblessness. around 30% of workers will be unemployed or underemployed sometime this year. that is a disgrace. host: from florida, tom is on the democrats' line. caller: i was a republican. i am not a democrat. i voted for the president. i am not going to vote for him again.

my wife is an rn. i am a cna. have had a home-based business for 25 years. we never thought the dreadful economy would touch us. we felt we offered the community an alternative to a nursing home in private care in our home. there are only two people here we take care of that time. -- of at a time. we charge $500 plus half of what a nursing home charges for the care of terminally and critically ill people that need absolute. 24 hours a day. -- absolute care for 24 hours a day. it adds up over 24 hours to $100 a day. host: we're running out of time.

question or comment, please. caller: the economy in titusville, everything has hit the skids. all i see is our president partying and golfing. guest: i do not follow the president's schedule but i have engaged with his economic policymakers and the president wants. i do not think it is because they're spending time partying. the president has enunciated a policy that would create a lot of jobs. it is called the american jobs act. he announced it last september. he has it tough dealing with members of congress who have a different philosophy, i think it is misguided philosophy. it will not lead to more jobs. i understand the pain. i follow it. i document it.

i articulate it everywhere i can. the crisis we have with the andployment rate being highe high for the foreseeable future, i think economic policy can address it. i think people should be held accountable. i wish the presidential debate would be more focused on that than tax rates. i am glad about the discussion of the role of government. are we going to get people working again? that should be our priority right now. host: the findings and latest reports are available online. your website? guest: thestateofworkingamerica.org. read the overview. that gives you the overall message.

host: we will take a look at cyber security issues. there were reports of two separate attacks at large banks this week. that discussion will take place right after this. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> today, millions of students are paying less for college because we took on a system that wasted billions of dollars. we said, let's give the money directly to students. we have been able to help millions more young people get an education. >> we've got to make sure our workers have the skills they need for today and that our kids are getting an education that will allow them to compete tomorrow. that means it is time for us to put the kids, their parents, and the teachers first and the teachers' union behind. its interests are very different. >> the first debate between presidential candidates is less than two weeks away and wednesday, october 3.

jim lehrer moderates from the university of denver. the debate is at 9:00. after the debate, your calls, e- mails, and tweets. >> i think there are a lot of anti-obama books critical out there. i did not want to be either one. i wanted to describe an answer to what i thought was the most interesting question. look at barack obama as a character. he is a fish out of water. he has little executive experience. his entire life is that the law professor's lectern, at the committee table, or in various meetings. he is never the guy in the front

of the room deciding in making the hard calls. he has little if any management experience. suddenly, he is in the most important managerial job in the world. he is president of the united states, leader of the free world. my question was, how does he do it? how does he make decisions? how does he govern? >> the investigative journalist credits president obama's advisors for many white house policy victories. he will discuss his conclusions on "afterwords" on c-span2. "washington journal' continues. host: we're joined by col. cedric leighton. he was the deputy training director of the nsa. welcome. we heard about cyber attacks at

two banks. what happened? guest: bank of america and j.p. morgan chase are two major u.s. banks. they were victims of the cyber attack resulted in not getting into customer databases, but they did in of affecting the speed of the websites. when customers into the web sites, they had slower service and could not access their accounts as readily as they usually can. it was an inconvenience. it was not a case of manipulating or changing data. it was a case of slowing down the data and making it hard for people to conduct business. it is a denial of service attack. that means you flood the servers with much more traffic than they can handle. when that happens, it slows down the traffic and makes it more

difficult for people to conduct business with the website. host: this stems from an interview joe lieberman did with us on c-span. people are looking to iran for this. guest: that is interesting. senator lieberman has access to intelligent and knows about things: on in that realm. there are two forms of malware that were forced into the iranian system. the reporting is that stuxnet came from the united states and israel. there are certain aspects that indicate they would retaliate. when you start playing that game, people are going to use the same realm to go after you. in this case, you is the collective term for anything in

the united states. they make no distinction between government, private sector, individuals. it is all about getting after people who represent america. in this case, the banks represent america. the other thing i should mention is not only did the denial of service attack affect j.p. morgan chase and bank of america, it was also focused on the new york stock exchange, which is the bed of all things capitalist and related to american finance. that becomes a very big deal. host: we will take calls for our guest in a few minutes. we have the line for democrats, republicans, and independents. cyber security attacks took place at two banks and other places. senator lieberman talked about

this. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i do not believe these were just hackers skilled enough to cause disruption of the websites, the cyberspace of bank of america and j.p. morgan chase. i think this was done by iran which has its own developing cyber attack capacity. i believe it was a response to the increasingly strong economic sanctions the united states and our european allies have put on iranian financial institutions. host: he said developing cyber attack capacity. could you expand? guest: the force that is part of the iranian revolutionary guard element and also the iranian

intelligence service both have cyber capabilities. they have developed divisions that are their own cyber warfare army. they have publicly announced the fact they have this. they have said we will go after the people that go after us. that means the united states and israel. we're going to deny them use of cyberspace. cyberspace is a realm just like air, sea, and land. we're going to see much more of this. we have seen it with russia attacking estonia in 2007. georgia in 2008. it was both cyber and physical. in the case of estonia, it was only a cyber attack. these are the things that speak to the future of warfare. each and every conflict in the future is going to involve some element of cyberspace. that is where our information flows. that is where we have all the things we do in our daily lives.

that also means everyone of us will be affected. it is not just a frontline thing anymore. it is an all-encompassing thing that may require action by everyday citizens. host: how prepared are we? guest: not very. the reason the denial of service attacks did not affect j.p. morgan chase, bank of america, or the stock exchange more is the financial-services industry has a robust cyber security capabilities. however, if you have to stay one step ahead of hackers. there are the hacktivists on one side and then those that do it for the state. in this case, the state is iran. they have a considerable intelligence effort. they are working hard in the

cyber rome. they see that as an avenue to get after our weaknesses. host: our guest is with us until the end of the hour on cyber security issues. new york, you are up first. mike is on the democrats' line. caller: cyber attacks and other forms of attack, it seems many countries do it. whether we'd do it or they do it, instead of as having discussions about he said/she said, we look at using technology to feed and protect people. i appreciate your guest, but i am struggling in new york. i do not care if it was iran. i am looking for leaders to talk about issues. how do we use computers to educate children? host: i appreciate that.

we will stick to the topic. guest: they have done several things. they tried to support legislation on the hill. senator lieberman sponsored a major piece of cyber security legislation that ended up failing to pass the senate. there were other measures. one was sponsored by the committee on intelligence that would have brought the intelligence community more aligned with the business world. it would have gotten information from the cyber rome to different private entities in the defense sector and also financial- services, health care providers, utilities, all the members of the critical infrastructure in private and governmental hands. the idea with both pieces of legislation was designed to

increase our cyber security awareness and make sure we have a minimum standards by which we could determine whether or not a website was meeting the minimum security requirements. united states has no minimum requirements as a broad general sense. there are standards in the u.s. government, particularly the department of defense, as well as other elements of the u.s. government. because of the failure of the legislation to pass the houses of congress, president obama is looking at implementing an executive order which would affect government entities and seek to encourage businesses to provide cyber security information when they are affected by a tax -- attacks. the one weakness with executive orders is they cannot engage in

liability protection for companies that want to share information with the government. companies do not have an incentive. they have a legal disincentive from sharing information with the government and vice versa. that is where we are now. we do not have a coherent cyber security legal framework. we do not have a coherent way of dealing with cyber security issues outside of the government sector. within the government sector, it varies by agency. the department of defense probably has the most robust protection efforts. these types of things are involved constantly. one point the republicans make in opposing senator lieberman's bill is that the threat is devolving so quickly you do not know what standards to put a

head because hackers will morph into different capabilities. the other side is if you do not have minimum standards, you cannot set the baseline from which to operate. that is the dilemma we are in. is a huge political issue the business community on one side and the government on the other. if we are not careful, we are going to find ourselves in a cyber pearl harbor. if we have that, it will create significant situations where we could lose lives, especially if they affect critical infrastructure elements. people depend on refrigeration to keep medicines safe. if that goes away, there are going to be significant penalties. other things could happen that are much more drastic. that could affect things.

host: tracy on the republican line from minneapolis. caller: i was doing a background check on mr. leighton online. i do not think this is iran. i think cyber security and espionage probably comes from israel and [indiscernible] i doubt iran has anything to do with this at all. i think they're trying to build a case for attacking them for one reason or another. i will take your, off of the air. guest: here is the basic idea. the iranians are very interested in keeping what they have right now in terms of their governmental structure, but they are also very influential in seeking to increase that influence in the middle east. there is no doubt the iranians

are supporting the government of assad in syria. they have gone in and done some things that are very threatening from a cyber security standpoint. many are classified. here is the bottom line. there is some evidence the iranians may have been behind the recent distributed denial of service attack against aramco, the saudi arabian and oil company. that is a major deal. according to some reports, aramco was affected in such a way that 30,000 workstations were taken off line. that affected production in the world largest oil producer. it also made a critical from the oil production standpoint and also affect the way the world economy works. the iranian threat is not a

paper threat. it is real. it is real because there are some elements the iranians want to support. they want to go after us in every way they can. they are much more active in this than any other country. as far as the relationship with israel, israel also has cyber capability. that cyber capability has not been done in a way that affects our country to a great extent. they are looking at things in our network, i am convinced, as well. but the israelis are seeking to find out more about the iranian intentions weather in the cyber, nuclear, or general forces rome. -- realm. the iranians are a dangerous country. we have to be careful in terms of going after iran.

the iranians are very astute at doing certain things. sometimes what they say is not exactly what they plan on doing. host: mass., zach, independent'' line. caller: are you aware of a program made in germany sold to government? it is undetectable by security programs. they can basically eavesdrop and do what ever they want. there is no way of detecting them. thank you. guest: there are several programs that purport to do what you describe. there is the german program. there are hon. efforts. and during researchers -- there are hon. -- hungarian efforts. there are significant efforts in

russia as well. as far as being undetectable, there are things that are undetectable for a while. then there are things detectable immediately. nothing will stay -- one would hope our security system will devolve to such an extent that our detection efforts will keep pace. that is the challenge. you have to be one step ahead of hactivists and others. the german program is very good. i think the one he is referring to was developed by universities there. it is not completely impervious to detection. host: next up, diana from new jersey. caller: i have been following the cyber security bill of 2012 and watching the hearings. there was resistance from the business community to work with government or except the minimum standards. i am questioning their patriotism. we are getting threats from china where they lurk on the

system and steal intellectual property. i want to know why these businesses will not protect our critical infrastructure. there is 85% of the critical infrastructure in private hands. it is scary to think the business community does not want to share information with the government and work with the government. where is their patriotism? they are putting offices in other countries using foreign workers. one of them could turn, give away secrets. i want the business community to start being american and working with our government. guest: there are some excellent points. the other side would say one element of this is privacy, the right to privacy, the inherent i

get you are protected under the bill of rights from unreasonable searches and seizures. some would consider the things that have to happen in the cyber security realm interested. there are objections on privacy grounds. the aclu is also following this as well as other organizations interested in preserving the privacy aspect. there is a misunderstanding when it comes to the type of legislation the lieberman bill is. the basic idea is it is designed to focus on threats. you mentioned advanced persistent threats or apt's. that is an absolute concern. it can stay resident on a system for a long time. it can lay dormant on the system before it is detected.

it gets to the previous caller's idea of undetectable malware and other things. that can happen. to protect against advanced persistent threats, the type of data you need is not necessarily personally interested. it is data that tells what it is doing to my system and where i think it is coming from. those are the things the lieberman bill was trying to go after. i think there is in fundamental misunderstanding about the relationship of privacy and security. there will be trade-offs between privacy and security. on one hand you have that. on the other, you have a situation where each threat becomes so pernicious and pervasive that you have to be very consistent in your approach. that is why i would say it

becomes very important to go after each threat and have minimum standards to raise the bar for hackers so they cannot easily change data, provide denial of service attacks, do things like that. those are the things threatening our economic well- being right now. if we are not careful, we're going to be in a situation where there are -- is significant damage to the american and worldwide infrastructure. the legislation has to be crafted in such a way that privacy is safeguarded. it also has to provide for information sharing and protection for people and entities trying to share information with the government. the rogers legislation called for the intelligence community to share information with the private sector. other countries do this already. the fact we do not use a

negative for the u.s. economy. that becomes a key element. if you appropriately clear businesses and social media websites as well as businesses that provide for critical infrastructure, we can make a huge difference in preventing hacking from having a serious effect on the economy. at least we can make a good effort at that. that is what we should strive to do. we should not give up. we should be able to work in a way the raises the bar for hackers and makes it very difficult for them to do what they are trying to do. host: our guest was a member of of the pentagon, also a deputy training director of the national security agency, talking about cyber security related issues. tom on the republican line, good morning.

caller: and was only aware of this cyber pearl harbor three months ago. i wonder if he could respond to general alexander from the air force who said our prepared this level is three out of 10. guest: general alexander is a great guy. his assessment is probably right on. we are looking at how we can respond to threats. in some cases, they are threats we do not know about. in other cases, they are undetectable for some period of time. the wall street journal reported on the canadian-based electronics and computer hardware company. their intellectual property was

stolen by supposedly chinese hackers. it was stolen over probably about 10 years. that is a severe example of what can happen. nortel has filed for bankruptcy and does not exist as it did in the communications industry. this is a serious threat. it is not a visible threat until you are trying to access something that has undergone a denial of service attack. then you start seeing problems or websites defaced. those are the things we are dealing with. because our preparedness level is so low, these attacks have been more frequently. anybody engaged in trying to do harm to the united states or world commerce sees it as an opportunity. they can remain anonymous for some time. that is probably why anonymous has chosen the name.

you are not completely anonymous as some -- they are not completely anonymous, but there are some areas where these groups have leverage and can exercise leverage over the world economy and critical infrastructure. host: ron, independent line. caller: i keep hearing comments about cyber attacks and terrorist attacks. i think my government has done more terrorism around the planet than any other government. i hear these things trying to keep the populace scared and terrified. we have another pentagon died trying to prop up the military industrial complex, is what i feel. guest: i do not work for defense contractors. i am independent. i have my own business. i did serve in the military for 26 years. i can tell you from personal

experience and historical experience that the united states does not engage in terrorism. in terms of the actual threats, these threats are not often appreciated because they are unseen and ill -- until it is too late. we have the best interest of our country at heart. we're trying to make it clear these are the kinds of things we need to make our population aware of. there are certain things that can happen. i have no love lost four major companies trying to bilk the government out of billions of dollars. i do not approve of that. i do approve of protecting our country and people. host: edward from massachusetts, democrats line. caller: the focus has been on making software simple since the 1960's.

our computer systems are full of security holes and bugs because they're full of complexity that should have been banished 40 years ago. i found the software community has a lot of incentive to make things complicated. that seems inconsistent with the need for cyber security and public safety. i am wondering if you know of people on the side of cyber security rather than incentives to complicate. guest: i believe in making things as simple as possible. edward, i think what you have been trying to do for a long time is a noble thing. one thing that happens is there are a lot of different incentives for businesses to make things complicated. sometimes they feel they're added security features. sometimes they try to make these efforts so complex to protect

intellectual property. at least that is what they think they're doing. in the case of the internet, the original idea the founders had was to make it as accessible and simple as possible to use. we have gotten away from that. in some ways, that has increased the possibility of inserting malware and other bad elements into the internet to create problems for komen users. whether the systems are simple or complex, you will always find people who will try to manipulate the systems for their personal end. that is where you end up with a different set of circumstances. there are server security. -- there are security people who try to have as simple and protected a system as possible. there are those of us out there that believe in it.

host: does the average person have to be worried? guest: absolutely. you have a system where people do all kinds of things. there are fishing attacks. they are designed to tempt you, phishinjg is similar to fishing. you try to find patterns of behavior. you try to entice people saying you have won the lottery and we have a check for you in a nigerian bank. when you see stuff like that, run. the idea is everyone is at risk because of the way in which people use the internet now. it makes them very vulnerable. if you see an e-mail from someone you do not know, be suspicious. be doubly suspicious if it has a link that leads you somewhere

else. these are the kinds of things that lead to the compromise of credit card numbers, the draining of bank accounts, things of that nature. some of the most common things that happen to average people is each person who does banking is subjected to certain risks. even if you are not engaged in online banking, there is the possibility a cyber attack could go after your bank account. you need to check your balance as often as possible. a minimum of once a week. i would recommend more often. make sure you are looking at those things. that is the easiest way. in russia and other places, people will go after credit card numbers. they will skim the credit card number. they can sell the number for a small fee. they get money off of it.

they do not attack directly. they seldom number. -- ssell the number. the criminal activities go after your details. that information is sold. bank accounts are accessed or at least they attempt to access them. host: the next call is from fort lauderdale, fla. caller: what do they have in place where you have all of these coffeeshops with the free wi-fi? criminals use that. they are stealing credit cards. a guy might be john smith in one coffee shop and go to another and be betting group -- betty boop. they could put a signature in a program so if they see it again,

they can wipe it out. i hope we're working on that kind of thing. they could just fly over the cities looking for-signatures. guest: i think a predator drone would be quite the instrument for this. free wi-fi is risky. it can be accessed by anyone. you use it for convenience. you have your smartphone. you want a wi-fi signal so your data rate does not go so high. those of the things people will do. the key thing is biometrics. there is a lot of research going on in the field to protect people's identities. the idea would be based on facial features or a fingerprint or some other biometric signature, that would

authenticate the individual using the card. that would secure the transaction in theory. that is the kind of thing we're looking at. several layers of authentication will probably need to be part of that. banks are experimenting with this. they are looking at making it more difficult experience for those that seek to steal identity and credit card numbers. host: missouri, mike is on the independents' line for our guest. caller: i have a question about iran. i believe iran is developing nuclear weapons and a delivery system for those. everybody thinks that is to attack israel. i do not think it would happen because it would make the land uninhabitable. what would happen to our ability to communicate if iran were to set off nuclear detonations in

the atmosphere prior to other military action? guest: that is a great question. as far as we can tell based on science and other things, there is the electromagnetic pulse. it would be so strong over the areas where detonation occurred that communications would probably be wiped out to a large extent. the average cell phone user, tactical communications for the military, things like that would be practically gone. those are the things that could happen. there are some ways to protect against emp. there is heartening that takes place for some communication links. there is redundancy in the military with redundant communications systems. it would be a very bad

situation, not to mention radiation that would be critical from a health standpoint. from a communications standpoint, telecommunications as well as cyberspace would be adversely affected by any nuclear detonation of the type described. host: we talk about outside the united states. what about what then? guest: 1 caller alluded to the idea of insiders. they do not have to be outside the united states. they could potentially access things. with the wikileaks case, bradley manning was able to download and redistribute all of the diplomatic traffic, intelligence traffic from the department of defense and the state department and other agencies.

there are insiders out there. those insiders with malicious intent are a clear threat because they are susceptible to social engineering and blackmail. they can circumvent all of the security features unless there are other features in place to track their traffic and figure out what they are doing in their time on the to peter -- on the computer. host: what is the skill level needed? guest: not much at all. rudimentary education and some knowledge of computer workings. you do not have to have a computer science degree to do significant damage. all you have to do is insert a thumb drive with a virus and you can create a major problem. that is why it for a long time, elements of the government banned them from certain

systems. they are convenient but able to carry viruses and malicious code. it makes it very difficult for security elements to go after that. host: col. cedric leighton is a former member of the joint staff and a security analyst. thank you for your time. i want to point you to c-span2 this weekend with coverage of the national book festival. it starts at 10:00. you will see panels, interviews, and much more. that is part of the national book festival. it is the start of two days of coverage. go to c-span.org. tomorrow, we are going to start with a look at the papers. then we will take on the topic of those dependent on the government for certain services. government for certain services.