contemporary slavery as a politically safe issue. it casts what is happening today as an issue you can take action against. people are and vote not to deal with the legacies of their ancestors and the problems but instead it to be cast in the role of savior and activist. in significant investment has occurred with relation to slavery and its white disease -- significant investment has occurred with relation to slavery and its causes. there is this really good book

called "the marketing of rebellion," why the reason that some causes succeed has more to do with how they resonate in particular constituencies. it over the last 15, 20 years, there has and a slavery search. -- been a slavery search. there are certain constituencies and audiences that are infinitely more comfortable talking about problems today than slavery and its legacies and continuing forms of structural in justice, discrimination, and so forth and. -- than continuing forms of structural injustice, so forth.ion, and simination, d there is this pivot or you have a more palatable topic or you talk about today.

politicians love this rhetorical move. it enables them to frame themselves and a positive light , rather than deal with the fundamental injustice. >> in america, it allows us to be the abolitionist nation. >> to me, that is why it is so important to put the african- american narrative central. right now, it is not there. i work a lot with a historically black college in mississippi. what we're building down there is an institute for modern slavery studies.

if that voice is not put into all of this, it becomes an exercise in displacement and the revocation. that makes me and nationalist about the story but i want to tell about history here. when i was at the freedom center, standing at the wine bar, talking to two african american bartenders, they asked me why i was down there. i said and working for the national underground railroad for the center. their first reaction was, we don't care about that place, because they have moved away from our story.

>> it is a much easier story to tell, but it does not challenge people. >> thanks. now you're doing research at a wine bar. i don't get it. [laughter] >> nice to meet you all. the one comment i would like to throw out there, bringing the survivor perspective into the discussion. the idea that these women did not see themselves as -- we served 500 people who have experienced what we're talking about today. there of all different descriptions. we have received about 3000

calls directly from people identifying as having been victimized in this way. very rarely do any of them use the term slavery or trafficking. this crime, i think, is unique in the description of it by others who have not experienced it is somehow at odds with the description of it by those who have lived experience. for example, i was just a month. most people are comfortable with saying, i was mugged. and the definitional committed to would say, you were mugged. -- community would say, you were mugged. the people who experienced on the trafficking might not describe it that way. -- bondage or trafficking might not describe it that way.

they might say, i had as a violent pimp and i have been having to have sex with all these people and this has not been fun for me, but i do not want to compare myself to that. one of the byproducts of that apex or that panicle is that modern-day people who are experiencing forms of exploitation do not want to associate with that. the feel like they are treading on sacred space. basic, well, i was not a slave. -- they say, well, i was not a slave. define it for what purpose? how does the consciousness of this definition trickle into those that are experiencing it, and how they define it for themselves? a lot of folks would say, i was exploited. i was abused. in a service provision, we dance

around the word slavery and almost two not say the -- do not say the "s" word or the "t" word. we do not say, "hi, slave, nice to meet you." the modern world has to grapple with this chasm. i do not have an answer for that. i do not have a useful question. [laughter] >> part of it brings back the question that was raised earlier of the process of negotiation. in this case in russia, the woman had negotiated with this man to take them where they could earn more money, as opposed to the tradition of slavery in the afro-american experience, in which there is no

negotiation. i think that part is very important in defining the problem. and >> joe, go ahead and respond. >> i think it is a really important question. but it is also a question that is non generalize about. -- non-generalizable. people want to use different language to describe their circumstances. it invariably changes over time. my instinct is -- i am drawing here on some new work and and doing, dealing with a forced marriage and conflict situations. in talking and relating to this

question, the question is, would it be preferable if people describe what happens to them when they are abducted and abused and a horrific experiences, could be better to describe that as marriage? of that it's better to describe that as slavery? there is a discourse that arrives -- would it be better to describe that as slavery? there is discourse that arrives. i do not know that there is an answer to the project we're looking at is trying to save, perhaps this is better described -- marriage is hugely problematic in this conflict. defining some did as slavery does not necessarily reduce stigma. -- something as slavery does nto

ot necessarily reduce stigma. people can use different language to describe and make sense of what happened to them. but all their options seem to be compromised unlimited by the fact that there is not a language our vocabulary that enables some to get beyond or through what happened to them. >> historians are about to weigh in your. >> one of the reasons people cannot describe themselves as slaves is because of your body knows slavery does not exist -- everybody knows slavery does not exist. -- exist anymore. that is a conceptual problem. about howre talking

you called the contemporary issues sometimes trafficking. whenever we're getting into a situation where we are comfortable talking about a situation of modern sliver, we're doing our job wrong. -- slavery, we're doing our job wrong. we are implicated in an economic system of slavery as we were 200 years ago. one of the big challenges is how to affect that approach to reconstruct something that is more just. that is something that should make a lot politicians uncomfortable. one of the things that is important about the international definition of slavery is a their international. -- that they are international. it becomes one which is more difficult for any single nation to address by itself.

there needs to be a considerable effort on making lot international -- law internatinoaonal. if we are talking about the legal persons, as mr. rahm pointed out, corporations are people too. they're the most responsible for slavery of people today -- mr. romney pointed out, corporations are people, too. they're the most responsible for slavery of people today. these corporations know this. and yet nothing has happened. there is an issue there in terms of, how do we expand lot to addressing some of the great captains of industry who are creating wealth in our own countries by enslaving people in other countries. >> did anyone see that political button that said, i

will believe corporations are people when texas executes one? [laughter] >> when you were talking about the whole process, you referred to the experience of the individual. from the point of view of lawyers or law enforcement, is it the experience of the individual or some other way of defining sliver we're talking about if people who lived through it cannot define themselves and that sense? to whom is it most useful? >> that is a good question. there is an institutional set of criteria that are established and delineated how you can tell people, and people aren't called the their trafficking victims, and they do not drink

or trafficking victims. a certain state responses arrive -- who are called trafficking victims, and they do not believe they are trafficking victims. we're trying to impose a degree of coherence and uniformity to a thing that is not a coherent. it is case specific. it has slavery as a site around which different coalitions and constituencies fight around what it means, what should be done, and so on and so forth. as much as we may need a sense of criteria or certainty, we're imposing a degree of coherence and systematic linkages which,

while it may be useful to pull this together and make sense of a big and complex whole, really quickly breaks down once you start touching individual cases and circumstances. there is a false coherence. and talking about an antislavery movement as if there was one, as in lots of ways, we have to have an addiction that helps. -- diction to cases that helps. >> quick observation before lunch. the historians and academics in this from a more than aware of this. -- room are more aware of this. we have had a brutal and almost ridiculous debates over the

question of what to call slaves. this is the stigma and language issue. it is very serious. were they enslaved africans? were they enslaved people? were they slaves? i once chaired a session at the public history national convention, huge. we had site directors from all over the country during these fascinating talks about their exhibitions. rich, rich material. i got up to jarrett after that. the first question was, why are you calling them slaves? -- chair after that. the first question was, why are you calling them slaves. i could not get the question of that. -- audience off of that. it has everything to do with the

moment in which that person has to now be identified. it also has to do with the legacies of this. our people now identifying themselves? who wants to be the descendant of a slave? if they can help it. the problem with historians, we go back and say, he had american slaves. >> is a completely unrelated comment. this often drives me crazy when i am teaching classes. a look out into this audience, and i see mostly women, including lots of young women. we have been here for four hours, and almost all but one question has been for men in the audience -- from men in the audience. that drives me bonkers. to all the women i see out there, i am sure you have things to say.

could you please raise your hands and say them? [applause] >> if i have been missing enhance, come and ask me. -- any hands, come and ask me. a quick reminder, at 1:45, the two breakout sessions will occur. lunch is served upstairs. thank you very much. and think it to this panel. -- thank you to this panel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] uack's this weekend "newsmakers," we're joined by senator debbie stabenow. join us sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern and 6:00 eastern here on c-span.

>> the big discussion that i remember was, what is richard nixon going to do? >> i can remember going, night and being scared to death. -- home at night and being scared to death. >> it was shortly after the farewell speech. the chief of staff called me. i cannot remember exactly what he said. he said, we forgot a resignation letter. i said, that is very interesting. he said, you need to write it. >> i thought the best way was not for me as a historian. i am a trained historian.

i thought the best way was for the players, keep people from that era to tell the story -- key people from that era to tell the story themselves. i started a video oral history program that involved nixon players in the watergate drama, and let visitors understand the complexity. >> the former head of the nixon presidential library and museum, timothy naftali, sunday night it o'clock on -- at 8:00. >> president obama talked about the deal reached by congress, and what needs to be done to address the deficit. house ways and means committee called for changes to

the tax code. >> hi, everybody. over the past two years i have trouble the country. i told you if i was -- traveled the country. for the first time in two decades, we raised taxes on the wealthiest 2% of americans will preventing a middle-class tax hike could have thrown our economy back into the recession. under this law, more than 98% of americans and 90% of small businesses will not see their income taxes go up one dime. we major that millions of families will continue to receive tax credits to help raise children and son to college. companies will continue -- send dthem t them to college.

2 million americans will continue to receive unemployment benefits. all of this was one step in a broader effort to grow our economy and shrink our deficits. we still need to do more to put americans back to work, while putting this country on a path to pay down its debt. our economy cannot afford more showdowns along the way. even as our business has created two million jobs, including one of its 68,000 new jobs last month, the messy brinksmanship in congress made business owners was confident. we know there is a path forward. i signed a lot, $1.70 trillion deficit reduction. one of the largest deficit- reduction bills passed by congress in over a decade. i believe we can find more places to cut spending without

shortchanging things like education, research, and technology, all of which are critical to our prosperity in the 21st century economy. spending cuts must be balanced with more reforms to our tax code. the wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations should not be able to take advantage of loopholes and deductions that are not available for most americans. one thing i will not compromise over is whether or not congress should pay the tab they have racked up. if congress refuses to give united states the ability to pay its bills on time, consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. the last of congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered. i congratulate the newly sworn in members of congress. i look forward to working with the new congress and a bipartisan way. if we focus on the interests of our country above the interests of the party, am convinced we can cut spending and raise

revenue in a manner that reduces our deficit and protect the middle class. and we can step up to me the important business that awaits us this year, creating jobs -- to the important business that awaits us this year, creating jobs. protecting our planet from harmful effects of climate change. educating our children, shielding them from the horrors of gun violence. these are things we must do. in this new year, i will fight as hard as i know how to get them done. happy new year, everybody. >> i am congressman dave camp. let me be candid. and anderson and the frustration so many americans have with washington right now -- i understand the frustration some americans have with washington right now. it is time for us to stand up and say, enough is enough. that is why the republicans in congress took critical action

this week to protect hard- working taxpayers for massive tax hikes. americans are paying more for gas, more for groceries, and more for health care. the last thing they need is to pay more for washington. that is why we made sure that the temporary tax cuts passed a decade ago were made permanent. now we can look forward. speaker boehner has said the american people reelected a republican majority. we will use it in 2013 to hold the president accountable for the balanced approach to promise to cure it that means cutting wasteful spending, strengthening programs like medicare and social security, so they're there when americans see them, and treating a tax code that creates a healthy economy. -- need them, and creating a tax code that creates a healthy economy. roughly 60% of hard-working taxpayers have to hire a professional to do their taxes.

you should not in the army of lawyers and accountants to understand the tax code. when it is simpler, flatter tax code that is designed for -- we need a simpler, flatter tax code that is designed for tax payers. i believe in a simple principle. when it comes to the tax code, everybody should play by the same rules. the tax rate should be determined by what is fair. the simple truth is that we're in this fiscal mess because washington takes too much of your money and then waste said. that is the real problem. -- wastes it. that is the real problem. we have to make sure washington is accountable for every dollar it spends. unfortunately, the spending problem is getting worse, not better. under president obama we have had four straight years of trillion dollar deficit. our national debt is now $16 trillion. we're crashing to a's small businesses.

-- today's small businseses. -- businesses. many of democratic colleagues did not seem to get it. throughout the fiscal cliff discussions, the president and democrats who control washington repeatedly refused to take any meaningful steps to make washington live within its means cured that position is irresponsible -- means. that position is irresponsible. when you have no more money in your account, the spending must stop. that is the current financial reality facing america, as return are attention towards the debt limit and budget. we must find responsible ways to tackle washington's wasteful spending. our resolution is clear. we're committed to making our economy stronger and healthier, and getting our spending under control by making washington fully accountable to you, the hard-working taxpayers of

america. we're going to cite wasteful washington spending. we call on the president and congressional democrats to join us in that fight. think of for listening. god bless you, god bless the clematis states of america. >> -- united states. host: we will look at car sales now and how they contribute to the economy. justin hyde from yahoo auto joins us. we have been talking about optimism or worry in the economy. how have car sales contributed? right now car sales are probably a big source of optimism. they ended 2012 up about 13%, 14.5 million new cars and trucks sold across the country. the projection for the industry expect that to continue into 2013.

they were up across the board. pretty much every auto maker and type of people had some kind of increase. there was a lot of people coming back in the market during the recession, a lot of people held on to their cars and let them get older than they normally would in the recession. the average age hit a new high of about 10 to 11 years. there were a lot of people still out there who need to replace an aging vehicle that is expected to drive demand. the other thing has been two things. one is unemployment has been dropping steadily, not as fast as some would hope but it is dropping and that is bringing more back into the workforce and giving them income to get the vehicles they need to get to work. the other thing is interest rates, the majority of people still borrow money to buy a car and with low interest rates that has allowed banks and dealers to craft deals more can afford.

it is not unusual to hear a payment that goes to six years and rates are subsidized for some cars to get them off the lot. so as far as sales go it is pretty optimistic. host: as far as the buyer is concerned is it easier to buy? they have access to credit and banks lending more as far as concerns about past credit history and things like that? guest: unlike the housing industry where there was a great crash in the recession due to a number of bad loans the auto industry has mostly been able to keep ahead of issues of bad credit or of a troubled buyer. and be more precise how it lends frptd it is easier to repossess a car than a house unfortunately for some folks. so, when a loan goes bad the auto industry is adept at minimizing the losses. as far as buyers are concerned if you have a good credit buyer out there right now there is a lot of competition for the business.

not just from banks but the finance companies that provide honest to dealers and auto makers such as general motors allied financial. host: if you want to talk to us about car sales and their contribution to the economy and maybe tell us your story if you bought a car this year call us on the numbers on the screen. you can send us a tweet at cspanwj and e-mail at journal at c-span.org. we are looking at car sales. you talked about total sales and if you look at the information in the national association of auto dealers g.m. was on top about 2.3 million cars. this was sales through november of 2012. was this part also of what happened as far as the

government investment in g.m. too? guest: there is factor as much as g.m. exists. it and chrysler wouldn't be around in the government had not intervened. has been the largest auto maker and will remain for some time to come. that said g.m. did lose market share this year. the big gainers this the surge of 2012 sales were honda, toyota and chrysler because honda and toyota were both coming back from 2011 where they lost a lot of sales due to the effect of the tsunami and earthquakes in japan that hit production. they came back with not just more available cars but better cars, better models. they climb back into the market in a way they were not able to do in 2011. chrysler had the biggest gain among the detroit three auto makers. they had a real push for new models opening up new dealerships and being much more aggressive on sales. g.m.'s market share slipped a little bit versus 2011.

and while it had a very good december, was able to rebound from a fairly rough november where it had its truck sales expand due to some incentive action, its profits have been fairly strong. it is a very profitable auto maker. going in 2013 will be a key year for measuring how well g.m. has come back since the bailout t. will have the launch of its most profitable product in terms of pickups and those will be key to measuring how well the new g.m. performs. host: an observation saying car dealerships are loaded with cars that were overproduced and now they are sitting there gathering dust. inventories are fairly healthy. guest: the typical way of measuring inventory is by days of buy which is sort of a measure of sales versus how many are on dealer lots. in the industry it is typical to have about 60 days supply for any given month.

at the end of the year they tend to swell because they have produced a bunch of new model s and they will dwindle down the next three or four months so inventories are a little high but at the moment they are not what one would say historically oversold more than years past. there have been not that many years ago it was not uncommon for a detroit auto maker to have 90 days of supply. last month g.m. had a 120-day supply of the old versions of pickups and there was concern for financial types and wall street and people who watch it. at the end of december it fell back to 86. they will have a shutdown where they won't produce as many trucks until they get the new ones on line. that is more in line. at the moment i don't think there's a great concern about at least inside the industry about inventories being too high. host: justin hyde contributes to the motor blog. tell us about it. .

it is blog where we compile a lot of original stories, things about the industry and car buyers and car enthusiasts and try to make bridge between things that kpoeut excite us and people who may not be interested in cars every day but find other parts of the business and vehicles exciting. host: our first call is from mount sterling, kentucky, independent line. this is make. caller: yes, i want to comment on the automotive industry and down here in kentucky things are really looking good. host: how so? caller: we are hiring people every day. all last year we were hiring people just about every day to work. but we had trouble keeping people here because it is a hard job and nobody wants to work. guest: he is right.

you go down through the south sort of the i-75 corridor there's been something of a boom in auto production where a lot of factories from foreign auto makers and toyota planned in georgetown that keeps expanding. a lot of foreign auto makers, especially japanese have been boosting production in the united states so they do not have to be as worried about fluctuation in currency with the yen. as it rises and falls it can make a major impact on profits. they find that it is much more profitable to build in the united states by expanding some plants. kia in g. as well are staffing up and there is expectation that volkswagen may add to that new plant in chattanooga, tennessee. volkswagen wants to expand up to a million vehicles a year in the united states. there is some expectation they can't unless they put on a new

building. host: and observation says g.m. sales up to government were up 79% but how does that contribute as far as overall sales? guest: fleet sales are still important for g.m., ford and chrysler and toyota. they can make up to a third of total sales. in the past, sales were seen as a pressure release valve. there were considered unprofitable sales. there were considered a way to keep a factory running. and the costlout's of the past couple years, that you changed a bit. -- view changed a bit. the companies do not have nearly as much unused factory capacity. the sales are seen as not as much of a burden as they once were.

host: what is it looking like, employment was, within these major companies? guest: the auto industry added 4000 manufacturing jobs. it is not up to nearly word was before the crash of 2008. there is a chance for extended employment. you cannot get to the sales figures they're expecting without bringing in deductions. that has affected parts suppliers through the rest of the food chain. autoworkers are worried about the same things the rest of us .re that is a worry about who is going to be buying cars, and a worry for everybody about how it

is going to affect their incomes. the autoworkers' of today do not have the same path of increase in earnings year-over-year as it did in the past. the ballots, cost-cutting -- bailouts, cost-cutting have limited their earning potential going forward. there will be a chance to get jobs. there is hiring, as mike mentioned, but they are difficult jobs. their benefits and pay will not go up as fast as they did in the past. caller: one thing you mentioned worries me. and but that as buying a car you cannot afford. -- i look at that as buying a car you cannot afford. guest: >> that is a lot of concern for a lot of customers.

if you stretched out along much longer, you'll end up owing much more and a car than it is worth. -- on a car than it is worth. i think a lot people have somehow been able to finesse it by being comforted in the idea the taken hold on to that car much longer. the average new-car lasts a lot longer, a lot more durable than in the past. the real issue becomes when you get into used vehicles, whether it is a smart idea to have a much longer-term on a used car that is going to be worth a lot less. the average new car sells for about $30,000. it is something of a luxury purchase. host: of the beach, florida, republican. -- p ompano beach, florida, republican. caller: i came out of that

industry 37 years to. -- ago. fewer standards are being imposed by our government by 2020, we're talking well into the 50 mile per gallon fleet requirement. i look upon our government as imposing these regulations on industry as opposed to foreign economies, like in japan. the government gets behind the auto industry and helps them in terms of financial aid, the impose tariffs on imported cars. their government is acting on better behalf of the auto industry. our seems to be negative. -- ours seems to be negative.

guest: fuel economy standards are set to rise steeply between now and 2025. those standards are pretty historic. they've had some pretty high numbers. the problem comes in the way those numbers are talk about. the number and the top of the cafe standard is not a real world figure. it is a laboratory figure. when you talk about where the vehicles are actually going to have to go, it is much lower and not quite as dramatic. some people on the road today already meet those standards. it is a very, very tough haul. a lot of new vehicles coming out now through 2015 will have most of their improvements devoted to meeting those fuel economy requirements we will have the detroit auto show here next week. -- requirements. we will have the detroit auto show here next week.

to your point about what governments do or do not do, as tough as the united states is on automakers here about cafe rules, requirements around the world are no easier. there are tougher in europe and japan than they are here. there is no choice but the auto industry but to make their vehicles burn less gas as time goes on. it was not for cafe rules, it would be the price of gas pushing it that way anyway. gas prices hit an all-time high. they're expected to rise again. the average mpg is 24. that will go up. foreign governments take different views of the industry depending on who you talk to. the japanese to take a lot of concern about the health of their auto industry. -- to take a lot of concern about the health of their auto

industry. u.s. had executives of japanese lawmakers telling the government -- you have had executives of japanese lawmakers telling the government but it would have to ship overseas. if someone to from detroit to ben bernanke and said, you've got to weaken the dollar, backlash would be immense. every relationship hasnation hay close relationship with their otter makethere automakers. cars will be lighter. there will be a lot more technology in them. there will probably some kind of electric system that helps them drive in some fashion. not necessarily a full hybrid. when you go to a stoplight, the engine will turn off.

you will see cars a lot more aerodynamically smith. you'll see a lot more exotic materials. even up to carbon fiber, trick pieces of aerodynamic technology like shutters. i will give an example. the new full-sized ram pickup has an eight speed automatic transmission. a few years ago, that was almost unheard of. it needs to be able to meet these tougher fuel economy standards going through 2025. host: the fuel efficiency standards to the safety standards? guest: there some experts who contend that any amount of lightning of vehicles is automatically going to mean a decrease in safety. there's another school says, we

know enough about how crashes work and how to disburse the energy from a crash the you can make vehicles safer and lighter at the same time. host: a call from maryland on the line for independents. caller: i bought a car this year. i really wish that i had not. some of these newer cars are very expensive to fix. the have computer chips. if you buy it from a second-rate autodialer order credit is not that great -- auto dealer and your credit is not that great, they jack up the interest rate, and you end up underwater. host: could you tell us what you bought and what you paid for it? caller: 2008 chrysler sebring.

i paid $12,000 for it. $300 a month. guest: that is a concern. buying a car still can be a very complicated and opaque process. you have to be vigilant at every step of the way to make sure you are getting the kind of deal you can afford at the end. that does not mean just the price of the car, just the monthly payment. that means looking at the terms of the loan, how the interest is spread out, looking at the interest-rate and your collateral and trading volume. -- trade-in value. it takes a lot of effort on the part of the consumer. host: the top of vehicles sold for 2012. the top of the list was the f- series truck.

honda accord, honda civic. what does that say about car buying habits? guest: these are the traditional top five numbers. generally speaking, if you see a lot of trucks going out the door, it is a sign that construction is back in swing. the f-series has been one of the most popular vehicles in united states for decades. notice that japanese companies take the top three spots in cars. there had been hopes once upon a time for some in detroit that they could tcrack the top five. the have not been able to crack that yet. of those three vehicles, the three cars are vehicles that are sold around the world. they're essentially global models. that has been the key for the

auto industry at this point, tried to take the same vehicle and make a similar copy that sells for around the world, that the minimize their costs and engineering and meet the needs of buyers in different countries. pickup trucks are still a very american product. the rest of the world does not by nearly the size of trucks and we have. there's still this dichotomy between things itself around the world and make a lot of profits and things are mostly u.s. interest. minivans are dying off. a lot of minivan sales continue to fall. ford and gm are basically out of that market at this point. and a lot of minivan buyers have shifted over to a larger suv's for various reasons. style, pricing. those vehicles tend to be more profitable as well.

there's also the advantage of minivans being to parental, not that sporty. your down to a buyer who knows that the minivan has benefits for the right customer. host: massachusetts, on the democrat line. caller: good morning. recently bought a cheap about a month ago. a jeep liberty. the salesman was very corrupt. i think we wound up paying $4,000 over the sticker price. we went to another dealer. he told us to call chrysler, which we did. so far, we have not heard much. of worried about the price, too. we were trying to keep it -- we with our kind of worried about the price, too. -- we are kind of worried about the price, too.

we got 15,000 for two cars. but we wound up with another almost $15,000 bill. people.e to the elderly i guess the took advantage of us. guest: i would suggest that you press your case with chrysler. i would try going on-line, contacting chrysler through any channel view of god. contact the general manager of the dealership -- channel that you have. contacted general manager of the dealership. dealers are independent businesses for the most part. automakers have some sway with them. did not have that much control. - they do not have that much control.

if you have a problem with the dealership, it is reliant on the customer to find some way to the dealership to sit down and make that work. beyond that, there are a few authorities coming on line, the customer product safety commission, the ftc. state level, you have the attorney general post office. office.ney general's those are a few of the channels. if it is still an issue, i would suggest researching those. host: you saw a number of sales. but how much of that can be attributed to these kinds of incentives that automakers offered? is that still profitable for them if they have to give away a lot? guest: incentives did go up this year. there was a lot more incentive activity after november fell

off. we did a story about how there was a gm dealer offering $13,000 off of the previous year pick up. they're a lot of dealers advertising $10,000.11000 dollars off stickers. -- $10,000 and $11,000 off stickers. automakers have gotten a lot more targeted with the kind of deals that they make an kind of incentives the put. a lot more incentives coming to the dealer rather than the customer. rather than advertising a rebate, there will be a bounty, the dealer saying if you sell these 100 cars this month, you'll get this amount of money. it may not come on the hood of a new car. it may go to your trade-in. it may bring the cost of the loan down a little bit.

that keeps the total amount of incentives down. right now, the automakers are very profitable, especially gm chrysler. to are making close billion dollars a quarter. host: massachusetts, bud on the democrats' line. just talk to me. -- from gross point. caller: what is your background? guest: i have been a reporter for 20 years. i used to live in detroit, of grosse pointe. -- from gross point. i also worked for the detroit

free press, covering the financial bailout. happen with yahoo of goes for about a year. -- i have been with yahoo autos for about a year. caller: a lot of questions coming up as you guys talk. what percentage of u.s. police and state patrol cars are supplied by ford? right to work states, if you could break down in some way, was a portrait of how that appears -- give us a portrait of how that appears. guest: we had this shift here in the past year where ford stopped selling the ford crown victoria, which was used by 80% of law enforcement officers. it was cheap and easy to build, it was horrible.

-- durable. there has been as upset in the market. new competitors have come in. ford is offering a range now between the taurus and a police version of the export. gm has brought in a car from australia. -- explorer. gm has brought in a car from australia. it is hard to say how well ford has held on to that 70% or 80% of the market. i do see a lot more dodge chargers on the road and i once did. -- than i once did. the police cars of choice are the new ford taurus cars in washington, d.c. they are rather high tech. right to work, michigan just went to the battle it did over becoming the work to right

state. i do not have a trend broken down for yoyou. much of the job growth in the auto industry is not happening in the southern tier states that are more right to work. that is because the detroit industry after 2008 has not built any new plants. gm, ford, and chrysler have not added a new plant in united states for several years. foreign automakers cayman, and endorsed expanding operations -- come in, and are expanding operations. the last new u.s. factory car maker that opened in united states was volkswagen's chattanooga plant in 2011. there are no firm plans for any new automotive plants, automotive manufacturing plants in united states. in 2012, there was a flood of

new plant's opening in mexico. at least four and new plants from other makers around the world. -- automakers around the world. mexico has become the place to go and build cars for all of north america. mexico has some free trade agreements that makes it advantageous to export vehicles from there. there is not the issue with tariffs and shipping and distance that automakers would have in bringing vehicles from china. host: a tweet asking, please discuss the value and hybrid auto sales. people i know who owned the chevy volt rave about them. guest: the volt was part of the

2012 election and part of the whole question about bailouts. the volt has started to catch on a little bit. when you talk to owners, you find people who talk about going months between having to put gas in their cars. there's someone on twitter who said the state had had their fault two years and are on their third tank of gas. -- volt two years and are on their third tank of gas. hybrid's sales are still a fairly small part of the market. the volt was the majority of electric vehicles sold in united states. only about 50,000. when you look to 2013, the cost of these vehicles still seems to be out of reach of most consumers.

there are no auto makers right now who have plans for a mass- market electric vehicle in the works. the question is what is the demand. a lot of the new elect -- electric vehicles are going to be limited to california and a few other states. who want a certain percentage of vehicles met in those states. otherwise, the demand for electric vehicles is questionable. the only auto maker that is trying to make it is tesla. they are in a startup mode. hybrids are about 3% of the market. and sales have been fairly steady. they are not expected to be that

much of an increase in hybrids because they are able to make fuel saving on traditional cars at a lower cost. so there is this math that goes into buying a hybrid versus a traditional vehicle. the first time we hit $4 a gallon you will see hybrids sale goes um. >> you mentioned g.m., what is the future of stockholders for g.m. guest: g.m. agreed to buyback some of those shares and that leaves $300 million to sell. the treasury will take a loss on the g.m. investment and a large one. maybe up to $24 billion to $25 billion. the only way it does is if it

trips and that is not going to happen. as much as treasury may want to sell or not sell its shares this was pushed mostly by g.m. treasury could have held on to its shares and rolled the dice and it might have gone up a little bit or down a little bit. it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome that much. but g.m. executives made this their top priority. to them, there was this overhang, this stigma of government motors around so much of what they did that getting out of it was a number of ban fetes for them to get back on their feet. there are tangible benefits as well. the cap that was set was lifted. executives can travel by private jet and they have not been able to do when they asked for help back in 2008.

that is certainly part of it. i think the main push was trying to get out from underneath this spotlight that made g.m. hop into the news. host: justin hyde is the senior edit for yahoo auto. caller: good morning. you mentioned delrs 25 billion shortfall. in my opinion, this is a down payment on any kind of general motors car for anyone who pays taxes in the united states. is this going to be a writeoff? i cannot think of any good reason, unless this is corrected in the favor of the person who is buying the car that anyone should buy a general motors car. thank you. guest: i appreciate your call and you are not alone in that. we did a poll and we asked

americans would you consider general motors car and about 15% said that no they would never consider a general motors car and the bailout was the one that was most cited. the loss goes through the rest of the tarp, if you remember that term. fm i remember correctly the profit that tarp made on the banks off jets the loss that tarp made on the auto industry. so by the government's accounting there isn't a deficit so much as your point about taxpayers go, while there was some suggestion that every taxpayer should get a share of general motors when they buy a car i think economists look at it the other way. meaning that, what the bailout bought america was two

automakers, finance companies and their production and supply chains throughout the united states that employ hundreds of thousands of peopling directly or indirectly. if you go back before the bailout, more than one million jobs would be lost going into the recession. what the bailout bought was having these two companies remain in the united states, producing vehicles and, you know, producing engineering and technology that they can sell around the world. host: one more call. jacksonville on the republican line. caller: i'm curious about where we are in natural gas. why are we not moving in that direction? guest: you do have some automakers experiencing with natural gas. the issues with those is mostly around fueling. honda had a natural gas

experiment running on civics. you could buy the fueling kit that you could put in your garage but a lot of people did not sign up. they are very clean but the cost, once again, tends to outrun the benefits for most consumers. they are popular in foreign countries and latin american countries it suicide yet to be proven here. you will see automakers go to diesel vehicles as an alternative rather than natural gas. host: what car do you drive and what would you like to drive? caller: i drive a small minivan. i need three rows of seats in my vehicle. what i like to drive changes from day-to-day. i got to drive a tiny two-seater

anything until between. host: justin hyde from yahoo auto. thank you. guest: thank you. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" we'll talk about the 113th keeng how president obama will govern in the year ahead. a look at how much current numbers of congress are paid. recent efforts to increase salaries and the perks of congressional service. later a discussion about president obama's foreign policy agenda. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> what i like about c-span's coverage it is very thorough. every show i want to watch is on

c-span. i like the coverage on the floor and debates on the floor as well as the hearings that you cover for sub committees and major committee hears. >> judy watches c-span on comcast. c-span created by america's cable companies in 1979. brought to you as a public service by your television provider. also from this morning's "washington journal" an update on hurricane sandy disaster relief assistance. host: joining us now stephen ellis. welcome. there were concerns about a bill considering the emergency funding as to what was added to it. was was the main concern of that? guest: there is a nucleus of that that is critical in sandy

aid. they just passed $9.6 billion. but there is important sandy aid for the victims but there was other money for other natural disasters. host: how much money? guest: it could be tens of billions of dollars. a lot of times they watch over it so they could provide nearly a billion dollars to do some dredging on the waterways. maybe all of that would go to new york harbors, maybe half of that. so it is hard to tell what was not sandy specific. host: some include over a billion dollars for highways and trains. $800 million for federal harbor and dredging projects which you mentioned. we'll look at the other parts but why were these kind of things added to the bill for

hurricane sandy? guest: there are budget caps on the regular budget once you designate something emergency it is free money. it does not count it counts towards our deficit and our debt but for budget purposes it doesn't count against the base line for fiscal year 2013. there are advantages to get stuff in there otherwise it has to fight witho other priorities in the budget. host: what kind of stuff do they have to put in in other words to have them added? guest: they just have to have a claus in there. host: so including some things, and you probably saw the list $100 million for head start projects. guest: it could be related to what is going on in the sandy region. schools could be damaged and so

we're trying to make sure they get a healthy breakfast. as you start building out and using the scale we have to be careful that this money is truly for sandy and truly an emergency. otherwise, people get cynical and they start thinking that congress doesn't get it, they don't get that we just had the fiscal cliff and we're in a financial crisis. they see this as busy as usual. host: does history prove in that these type of bills get added? guest: there has been a lot of ornaments added on, some which that are completely irlellvent to the situation at hand. we've had so much concentration on on the fiscal cliff and the budget. we can't have that situation now. host: our guest is stephen ellis

he's the vice president to here to talk to us about disaster assistance for hurricane sandy. and we're going to look at what is in there. there is a complete list on their website. if you have questions about the bill overall, specifically what is in it here's your chance to ask them. the climate change a nationwide study of wide resources and a cancellation of loans dating back to katrina. guest:ly start with the last one. there is a disaster loan program

that fema operates. they provide these loans to communities. if they don't have the ability to pay it back we forgive the loan. this is all from katrina related in 2005. this would allow the communities to reapply, there is about 56 of them in louisiana and mississippi to reapply for loan forgiveness. including about $30 million that they have paid us in principle and interest. to me, this is something that will shouldn't be in the bill. i'm not saying it is not important, it could be important or critical but it should not be part of the sandy supplemental. host: if i'm hearing you correctly, there is things that are emergency but not specific to sandy? guest: right. going all the way down to the

small there is $25,000 for the department of justice to replace cars that were damaged by sandy, i guess. well, the justice department has more than 40,000 vehicles. so i kind of think they can take that this should not be viewed as free money. it is not just congress, it is people in the administration that want to feather their nest as well. host: as far as your analysis what should be important to note before we go to questions? guest: one thing that is debated a lot is the notion of how much the cost shares should be between the federal government and the state and local governments between the core engineers projects. there is $3.4 billion provided in this bill. so to rebuild beaches, bedrooms, dunes, -- berms, dunes.

it is amazing that lawmakers will talk that way and make it up. they are basing it on historically what the end repayment was in katrina. if you go back to that legislation it has to be 35% local levs. that is critical because it makes that every dollar goes that much further. physical you imagine you only have 10% added on by the state and localties. we're not going to get as much done. it is irresponsible to have this waiver. beside it reduces the skin for the communities and it makes it likely that we're going to rebuild exactly what we had before which we know is vulnerable. host: for those who don't know your group what is it? guest: we're a watchdog.

we're critical for people on the left and the right. we cover the budget. host: when you see politicians complain about voting for the bill about what is added to it there is kind of a political tug of war going on. guest: it is hard. before i had this job i was in the coast guard and i dealt with disasters all the way in the floods in the midwest. being critical how disaster funding is being done does not mean we're critical of the victims. in reality, we want to make sure every dollar is spent wisely so the community is more resilient and less disaster prone. there is a lot of criticism that gets thrown around so i think because lawmakers want to make sure we scrub this and we only spend the right of amount of money doesn't mean we don't

care. caller: can you tell me what the $75 million that is going to nascar was about? i will hang up and listen. guest: we're talking about sandy but in the fiscal cliff bill there added tax extenders. there were provisions of small board that traditionally been added on and extheepeds provisions for a year or two. these whole packages were added on to the 2008 bailout. similarly, there is one provision for nascar that is -- it is actually for the nascar track owners. if they made improvements to their tracks they would have to

expense them to write-off the cost over a 40 year period. but under this provision they get to right it off in a seven-year period. there are benefits for wide interests that have nothing to do with the fiscal cliff. >> this is jim on the republican line. guest: i read the entire bill that was offered from the director from l.m.b. and i listen to harry reid. nobody is debating the fact that these people are suffering. however, it appears there is a need to identify the origin of the money. when these congressional members take an oath, they take an oath to defend domestic threats to

the nation as well. it has been identified that our debt and excessive spending is the largest sing domestic threat that we face, possibly exceeding all of our adversaries. nobody is debating the money but, you know, i don't think it is fair to identify republicans and members of congress, including republicans that are being called names. they are just doing their job. guest: you certainly have a point. there is a responsibility to make sure we scrub these bills and we fund the most important levels of funding. the joint chief of staff said that will our national debt is a national security risk. so it is certainly where we've

got to have a dawn of a new era in here in washington where we're going top talk responsible about our money and make sure we're not over spending and that we're helping our citizens. we are the federal government so it our responsible to help the people affected by sandy. we have to doff it in a responsible manner and we can't bust the budget. for instance one that was not on there there was $150 million for fisherry disasters. right after that was included in the bill which wasn't in the president's request you had the senators from alaska putting out this is going to help us out. some of these cases we see them out thing them. i was rereading the bill last night and the senate bill has passed and i noticed some of the

core of engineers funding they dock doctored it a little bit so it benefits the areas affected by not just hurricane sandy but also hurricane isaac and it would benefit the portions of louisiana and mississippi that were affected by hurricane isaac. nobody talk talked about that on the floor. nobody talked about that t fact we're moving the money to different areas of the country. you're going talk about a hole in the senate bill, there was a policy provision that is was rejected by a 2-1 margin. a republican that said would allow people to build in harm's way because it was flooded so frequently.

host: we have the next caller on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have two questions for you, mr. ellis. one has to do with fema organization and it has to do with the aftermath of sandy. i have relatives that live in new jersey that were hard hit, long beach island being the barrier island. their house was four and half feet under water and there is a lot of damage. now they are arguing between their insurance company and fema about who is going to pay the bills. what they have been notified by fema, the rules changed three years ago to elevate the houses all along the waterways. they can't do that because the house was built many years ago. now with sandy coming through they have to elevate the house two feet more. there is a tremendous amount of

people that are existing with houses all along the area and they are going to pay fees that compete with their mortgages. they are very high. host: ok, caller, thank you. guest: the caller has an interesting point. it is something that has happened in a lot of places in the country. we have people who have built in floodplains or risky area. we have the flood insurance program that allows people to get subsidized rates or not quite full-cost rates for flood insurance. that is only one way you get flood insurance is through the federal government. there is attention between the flood insurance companies and or the federal government and the flal flood program and the insurance company.

your normal homeowners insurance doesn't cover flood. after katrina, the senator fought with and took state farm to court. they said the flood is what caused it and they did not have to pay. there is a lot of back and forth. then to his relative in the area, in the end, this is geography. we have issues of sea level rise, these issues are only going to get greater. we have to help people out of harm's way and that means flood proofing are or relocating. we can buy people out it is a predisaster and keep those properties open space. it is hard to do but i mention the 93 floods earlier and after the 93 floods we bought out the

entire towns of illinois and missouri which are probably cheaper than the areas along the coast. but when the floodwaters returned there was no flooding because we relocated the communities out of the floodplain. that has to be part of our solution, move out of the harm's way. caller: good morning. i would like to try to super impose this sandy relief bill on -- in the context of the greater fiscal cliff argument in relation to the republicans are now trying to stifle economic recovery as we supporters of president obama. you said something very important in the beginning, you said that disaster relief has always been a christmas tree. it has ornaments placed on it. back then in 2005 and before

that time nobody said a thing. i mean, there were no tea party people running around protesting, there was no dire budget looming on the horizon, these kinds of things. in the broader context of psychology the president is trying to make the people in the country feel better, feel important, feel needed. that is why we need to infuse the stimulus bill. that's why the president put the stimulus in his economic package. all the republicans protesting this are less credible. guest: he's right. the republicans have talked out of both sides of their mouth abouting with responsible. unfortunately, we are where we are. tax cuts weren't paid for, we have wars that aren't paid for.

i would take issue with henry if he goes back and look at what was said after hurricane katrina, you will find me complaining about extra spending. right after that disaster a democrat and republican came out with this enormous bill, $250 billion bill that they introduced for louisiana reconstruction. i remember looking at it, going through it and finding my mouth wide open and found how they were taking advantage of this bill with a laundry list of pork. i looked at the cost of the louisiana purchase and it was more money of the louisiana purchase cost. we've been critical of overspending and done our best to pear them down. host: goverpblg christie documented on his hend from the state of new jersey how they

took care to kind of lay out what they needed. here's what he had to say. >> new york and new jersey used a company to assess the damage to our states. our professional staffs spent countless hours providing leadership and backup domings for all the damage claims. host: they took great care in what they want to ask for. guest: the fact is, a lot of this isn't going to the state of nfpblg or new york. a lot of this funding is going to the federal agencies and it is going to federal infrastructure. we have money in there to repair the roof of the smithsonian. we have money for other federal facilities so i'm not necessarily taking issue with govern christie and he did not say how much the state of new jersey asked for but i think we

need to scrub these bills and we need to take the time. i'm disappointed as well as i'm sure the governor is that it has taken this long. part of the reason, in my opinion, is the fact that it is too big. this is the largest emergency supplemental bill that we've ever considered. larger than any individual one for katrina. there were two that were close, they were just over $60 billion. a lot of this cash wasn't going be spent until further in the out years so we had time to think about it right. host: now we're going to do it in pieces and we have more time to figure out what is going to stay in? guest: these bills don't stand up to scrutiny very well.

we have the $9.7 billion that everyone agrees that the flood insurance program was about to run out of cash. we, as a government, have to pay our obligations. that is important that it moved even moved quickly. now we're going at a slower pace and we're looking at the charm is proposing in his package, which i think it is like $17 billion. then there is another bill being proposed is $33 billion. we're going to have more time to look through this and make sure we're giving people what they need but we're not padding that. host: you're organization did some analysis on that. $921 million for federal aid highways and it does not seem to be trust fund related.

the money will not be spent immediately, it is for emergency and it goes on and other things. guest: absolutely. in the senate bill, the sandy supplemental bill, they had money in there for amtrak. but a lot of it was for a capital improvement program that was planned before sandy struck and was trying to increase steams on the northeast corridor. these are things that are nice to have and maybe we should spend money on them but we should not do it with the free cash that does not compete with other interests. host: tom is joining us on the republican line. guest: another caller touched on this. i would suggest that you publish the names of all the

legislatures democrats and republicans about the pork spending. it is really terrible that you would leverage this bill so you can bring pork back to your district. it is absolutely appalling. that is the reason why the bill is being held up. john boehner is doing it because he know there is too much pork in this bill and he's right and i support it. i live in the state of connecticut that was affected by this storm. i wouldn't vote for it either. i don't want to see my people exploited so people in other districts can get this kind of pork. it is wasteful spending and that one caller before is wrong to believe just because this kind of thing has happened before it should continue. these are low standards of government and we should not except low stands of government. if barack obama really want us to feel better he should

demrever better government. host: thanks caller. guest: the caller is from connecticut and i went to the coast guard academy in connecticut and they had some money in the sandy supplemental to rebuild some of the buildings there. so i do understand. i -- certainly -- one he said how speaker boehner held up the bill. i think he held up the bill because of the challenges in his own conference and the fact they just voted for the fiscal cliff bill and a minority bill of the conference voted for the fiscal cliff and the last thing he wants to do is pass another $60 million bill and one that won't pass with a majority. that said, i think he is right we can't i ford business as

usual. he also mentioned all the of the people trying to request this. unfortunately, a lost this started out in the administration's request and the president's request. also, we were one of the first to be publishing databases of all the earmarks and all the spending bills so it is certainly something that transparency and accountability are critical issues and something that every taxpayer should expect out of their government. a lot of lawmakers standing behind this. host: if i wanted to attach names to this bill and how transparent is it and where do i go? guest: it is not that transparent. we haven't gone through the normal legislative process where the committee marks up the bill

and we see what happens there and then it goes to the floor. there was quite a fight to make sure there were some amendments offered. we saw more people trying to remove things than we saw them trying to add. it is hard. if people go to our website taxpayer.net we are trying to keep people honest. host: dennis on twitter says every bill should be a stand-alone bill. our next call is from virginia on the independent line. rebecca. caller: good morning. i live on the eastern shore of virginia. we were affected. people lost their homes. only a few. macdonald tried his best to get us some help. he could not.

i think the government is still picking winners and losers. they get it. we did not get enough. if i lost my home, my home is just as important to me as they are because it was only one home or two homes makes no difference if it is one or 2000 homes. if you lose your home, you have lost your home. thank you. host: thank you, rebecca. guest: we need to be dealing with people in an equitable manner. if it is a a whole neighborhood affected or an individual is effected, one thing to keep in mind is a lot of that comes out of flood insurance, which we just restored funding to that. we are about to give -- hit the cap.

there is also a disaster relief form that is being recapitalized. it already had a couple billion dollars in the relief fund before sandy even hits as part of the disaster relief structure. we paid out plans and we still had money to pay out claims for a couple more months. we have almost $11 billion and $5.60 billion of that is for the future, to recapitalize the future so that we -- when we have the next disaster, we can immediately help people out. we should absolutely be doing it in an untenable -- equitable and fair manner. host: roberts says it is a waste of money and nobody will know where the money is being spent. guest: there are provisions where they provide funding to

the various agency inspectors general that mantra the funding. it is an issue. we saw a lot of waste after katrina. that is one of our concerns. the army corps of engineers is getting $3.40 billion in construction funding annually. its entire construction budget for the nation is $1.84 billion. you are asking an agency in a rapid action to manage a budget twice the size of its annual budget. you are talking about contract officers, budget officials, the people who are managing the actions on the ground. that is a real challenge. the concern of ours is, they are happy to take it. they are not complaining. i am concerned that we will see some waste of that money and we will not build things properly

and put people in harm's way. host: norma, are you there? let's move on to bob on the republican line. caller: i am a republican, but i am not closed minded like some of the people calling in. this should have been a simple bill, money for victims of the storm, nobody else. $27 billion went up to $60 billion. by a pill -- five people really discussed me over this. christie, harry reid, pelosi. the vote to help themselves rather than the people who are affected and need the help. i may be a republican, but i am not a republican like some of these democrats or

republicans. no pork. the money is for this and nothing else. this is the nonsense of the politicians in this country. guest: we need to scrub this bill. levitt the right number is $28 billion when you accept the flood -- whether the right number is $28 billion when you add up the flood insurance, i do not know. it is important that we rebuilt in a resilience manner. it may cost a little bit more. there is room in this $50 billion to be eliminated. there are people on both sides of the aisle who will pillory you and say you are against the victims if you say that. host: are there people accountable for these provisions and for putting them in? guest: there is a way to track the changes being made.

i did not know until i read last night that isaac had been added in along with sandy. that is something we should know. that is something -- considering that senator cochran was the ranking member of the appropriations committee and is a mississippi republican and senator landrieu's and louisiana -- landrieu is a louisiana democrat, i cannot say for sure. caller: thanks for taking my call. as far as being a tax in the united states, my concern as far as money is appropriated for the disaster bill is, what about the waist and money that could have been appropriated toward the

disaster relief fund for raises for politicians that was totally unnecessary especially for the time they spend supposedly doing their job. the transportation cost of all of the politicians going to and from one banner told them to leave on thursday or friday and come back on saturday or sunday. what was the cost of those congressmen or politicians traveling with that money could have been appropriated for the disaster relief fund? host: that is a little off topic, but you can comment if you want. guest: that is something they have been doing for the last couple of years. they recognize the optics look bad if they are increasing their salaries while we still have 7.8% unemployment and the economy still just inching along. the one thing i will take out of

what paul was saying is that, we cannot just do disaster preparedness in an emergency spending bill. it needs to be part of the regular budget process. what we have seen in a lot of cases is that we will raise the disaster relief fund to offset other things. we will scrimp on medication measures -- mitigation measures and when disaster strikes we opened the spigot. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. there has been a study done by the multi-hazard mitigation council that every dollar spent on litigation is worth that much dollars in recovery. doing it in and -- worth $4 in recovery. host: the bill is large. a viewer asked about bp oil

spill victims. anything for them? guest: not in my recollection. caller: we are at a point where we will have mainstream republicans taking issue with more extreme republicans. governor christie is more mainstream relative to the tea party. secondly, you look at military spending. there was not much debate on the amount of money we were giving toward the military years ago. now we are focusing so much on spending less and so forth. the third point is, some of the states that appear to be the most assertive in terms of spending -- conservative in terms of spending receive more government help. host: thank you. guest: both parties are going toward polls.

the republican conference is going more towards the right wing and the democratic conference is going more towards the left wing. that is accurate. there are going to be challenges in trying to bridge those together. parties go through re-examination after big elections. the republicans just lost the white house again. as far as military spending, hear, hear. much of the discretionary budget has been treated as sacrosanct. much of turning off sequestration was how we cannot afford to cut the d.o.d. if you actually saw sequestration the way it was ashley called for, you would para d.o.d. back to a level -- the way it was actually called for, you would pare d.o.d. back to a level it was in 2006.

there is some money going to d.o.d. in there for facilities, but it is not quite the issue. there has always been the issue of donor and donee states. there are a lot of red stains on the donor site of the category that hate government. -- red states that hate government. caller: do they pay their fair share? the insurance companies. guest: the insurance companies will pay for the structure or any kind of damage for wind or any other non-flood related damage. did the wind blow awful cure roof and flood your house or did the water -- wind blow off your roof and flood your house or did the waterflood your house and blow off the roof?

the insurers and the re-insurers will be paying $16 billion to $20 billion. caller: thank you for taking my call. the government should not have disaster assistance programs. when did the federal government go into the insurance business? the offer the opportunity to buy flood insurance. if you live around water or areas that have floods, you should be required by the finance company to carry full

coverage. in texas, when you borrow money for a car, you have to have full coverage in you have to prove insurance every year. it should be the same way. the federal government does a good job of ensuring you against floods. the flood insurance is nominal compared to buy insurance. host: thank you. i want to add robert's tweet. why is disaster relief beavis possibility of federal taxpayers? -- relief the responsibility of taxpayers? guest: there were some provisions that would have encouraged people in harm's way to buy flood insurance. we were responsible for keeping those provisions in the bill. they were removed.

we are the federal government. to the comment, part of being the federal government and what holds us as a nation together is that we help out the other states when they have meets just like they help out other states when they have needs. that is how a federal system works. the states have to bear responsibility. that is why i thought it was irresponsible to go to a 90% a federal cost share of building these projects. there should be a significant portion coming from the states. it is something where we should have more scan -- skin in the game. disaster aid is something the federal government should do in a limited and targeted way. it is something we have been doing at least since world war ii. host: when it comes to this bill, what is next on the

agenda? guest: they are going to bring a bill to the floor. just yesterday, the chairman of the appropriations committee introduced it. that is $17 billion. there has already been an amendment drafted that will be offered by a republican from new jersey to add on another $33 billion. we cannot know if there are other amendments. we have to find that out as we get closer to the time. host: if you go to the website for taxpayers for common sense, they have a break down. stephen ellis serves as their president. thank you for your time. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" we'll talk about the 113th congress and how president obama will govern in the year ahead.

then a look at how much current members of congress are paid. recent efforts to increase salaries and the perks of congressional service. later a discussion about president obama's foirn policy agenda in his second term. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> it is true how the people's history is how it is synthesizing of the great work of other historians. what happened in the 1960's with the counter culture is a whole new generation of historians have come up and they were reevaluating all aspects of our past. >> tonight at 10:00 eastern on

c-span2. look for more book tv online and like us on facebook. >> coming up here on c-span we're showing you forums from the world in 2013 festival held in new york university. first, a comparison of china and india's economies to the united states. this is 35 minutes. >> this year, 2012 there was a sharp slowdown in the economies and there is a lot of questioning stellar growth rates that we're used to. that is what we will look at in this session.

we have two outstanding individuals known for contrarian views on the emerging economies. we will start with william easterly and probably best known to you for his books, "the white mans burden." a very non provocative book as you can tell from the title. "the elusive quest for growth." bill was named one the top global intellectuals. what is going to happen to these bricks?

guest: i want to focus on china. this is a major moment for development thinking. the idea of the growth merkel that china has done so much to promote is over at this point. let me give some insights. authoritarian growth miracles do not last. how many of you have heard of a growth miracal? just raise your hand. i thought we would have a better i thought we would have a better informed audience.