e sequester will affect the labor department. jon prior will take your calls about how the spending cuts could affect ♪ host: this february 26, tuesday, a lot happening in washington. try to avoid the automatic spending cuts. the president travels to newport, virginia today to push republicans on this proposal. jack lew will get a vote in the finance committee to replace timothy geithner. a vote may happen for chuck hagel on defense secretary. federal employees only, dividing

the lines geographically. here are the numbers -- we want to hear from federal employees only in and outside of washington d.c., your take on sequester. also send us a tweet, twitter.com @cspanwj. this morning, here is the "new york post with the breakdown of what this administration is warning on sequester and the impact on federal employees. scare tactics, being $85 billion in sequester cuts would be bought by consumers, home buyers, and even some taxpayers filing paper returns. --

there is a breakdown of the federal employees that are impacted inside of washington and outside across the country. we want to hear from them only this morning to get their take on sequestration. let's go to sandra in georgia, what do you do? caller: good morning. i work for the department of defense. this is huge for me. specifically i work in the office of soldiers council. we represent soldiers that the army is looking to put out of the military. this is a monumental for me. i am proud of federal worker. we worked extremely hard. my dismay is that you have some folks in washington that are putting out these on for statements that federal workers are lazy, overpaid. we have not had a raise in two years.

we all sacrificed tremendously. it is unconscionable to me that folks in washington cannot get this thing solved. it is a darn shame. there is an undercurrent of folks that will not be happy until a hard-working folks are down to eating kibbles n bits. host: who is telling you in your agency about sequester? what are they telling you specifically that may impact you personally? caller: we get memorandum that are coming down from the undersecretary of the army. that is mr. ashton carter. he sent out a couple of memos. up until this point, it has been the same dialogue, we do not know anything, which i do not understand. i think folks do know what they are going to do. our understanding is that agencies have the discretion to

determine who will be exempt. in other words, agencies are going to be sending out information to say, these folks should be exempt, but my understanding is that it will come from the high levels, probably the secretary of the army, to make the determination about will be exempt. until i see it in writing, i do not tend to believe it that my position is exempt. right now, i am making steps to get out of dod. i try to get to another agency that by law is not part of the sequester. host: do you think that you might be furloughed? tallest how that might work. -- tell us how that might work.

caller: i think i might be. they are telling us, one day a week, about 22 days of reduced pay. i have not even done the math. i'm afraid to do the math. i'm fortunate that i have just myself to support. there are other people at much lower grades and people trying to support families and keep households running. there are a lot of folks that do not make the money that people think they make. they are fortunate they have a job, but we have folks -- those people need their money. host: 4 thus -- for those outside of washington, can you explain the grades? caller: i am a nine. that is fairly solid money in

this region. when i go to the washington area, that would be increased because of the cost of living. it costs more to live in washington. the lower the grade, typically the less money and make. it is also based on geographic spread -- geographics. a three in georgia makes less than a 3 in washington. cola is based on cost of living. the pay cuts that i'm talking about, we have not had a raise in two years. host: how high does the grading in kodak's -- grading go? caller: it goes up until 10. the next level would be 11 for me. host: how long have you been working for the federal government?

caller: since march 2008. five years this coming march. i love working for the government. that is why i left the private- sector because i like the idea of working, being a public servant, as opposed to working in the corporate sector, which is driven by profits. very different. to sandra, talking off -- a federal employee in georgia. we're waiting for more employees to call in. we're talking to federal employees only. we have divided the lines geographically. we want to hear from you, inside washington, outside of washington. sandra is from florida -- from georgia. the sequester, is that all that is the talk in your office? caller: i have friends in other agencies, this is a hot topic. this is going to impact us, all

of us. host: is that you're getting your news, through twitter? caller: no, not through twitter. i am a news junkie. i get mind from c-span, the most unbiased source out there. i can remember my parents watching c-span. i hated it. i'm like, what are they watching? now i'm like, oh god, i'm turning into my parents. they used to have it on every morning. that was in the days of brian lamb. i appreciate you guys. host: i want to hear from federal employes only this morning. give us your take on what is happening with your job, your agency, mitch in south carolina, go ahead. caller: i am a gs 12, step 8.

i am a civil engineer working for the air force. host: what have you heard? caller: about the same as the lady that was just talking. i come in every morning, and you hear people in the break room talking about that. i have not seen any e-mails, but i believe my boss may have some e-mails. in our weekly meetings, they are saying, hold on. host: do you think for job is safe? caller: i think. -- think so. i honestly believe we should do the sequestration. i worked for the government for eight years now. i see a lot of waste. i think we are over -- what is

the word -- we have too many people here to do the work that we have. host: have you heard that the most redundant positions, those lower-level employees, that those are the ones that would be furloughed or subject to a hiring freeze? caller: no, i think that would go across the board. it would hit everybody, going from a lower levels to the higher levels. i would be one of the higher ones. really, if it happens, so be it. i will be taking a vacation. host: one day a week? caller: that is what i hear, how that would start. host: you are a civil engineer

for the army in south carolina. is there an army base there? caller: there is an air force base here. i work on the old naval weapons station. it is kind of -- it is not right on the air force base, but it is close to it. host: can you explain that a little bit? caller: i am in the public works office at the base. i deal with mortar and a sore issues -- sewer issues, waiting for contracts to redo some were lines that have been in place since the 1940's. host: thank you, mitch. the baltimore sun has this on its front page --

the baltimore sun reporting that checks will go out, but if you have a claim or you need to get on the farm with the social security worker, there could be delays. we will take phone calls from a federal employees only this morning, getting your take on sequester. first, neild joins us, a staff writer for a "roll call." we just heard from two federal employees about what they are hearing. tell everybody that is watching, is anybody talking to each other in washington? guest: it is good to be with you. it sure does not sound like it. i have been listening in on the

phone to the previous two callers who are federal employes, both working at military installations, and you know, they may not be pleased to hear, nor will most of your audience, but at this moment, the senate is gearing up in the next couple of days to have a couple of competing test votes on sequester-related legislation. one proposal is from democrats, one proposal from republicans, but we are hearing that neither one of those proposals has any chance of passing relief. -- passing really. there is not met -- much action from the house of representatives at this juncture. host: neils, there is report in

the house gop is drafting a plan to give president obama disk -- discretion on these cuts. guest: right, we have heard the same from senate republicans. the argument from republicans, with this discretion matter, which has been floating around over the last week or two, is to say that the administration has been saying that the way the law was worded to set up a sequestration, they have a very limited flexibility in how they can implement it. they have to take furloughs in lots of places that would seem to be mission critical. secretary lahood is talking about shutting down air traffic control towers at smaller airports there will be long waits at psa -- at tsa with

fewer screeners. what republicans in both chambers are trying to do is perhaps come up with some way to be able to give the administration more flexibility, which is also perhaps politically useful, because there is this whole notion of firing first, where they put cuts in affect and tout cuts in places where people will feel them. there was some reporting last night about people in immigration detention centers perhaps being let out because there are not enough people from the immigration service to be able to keep them there. what the republican plan would attempt to, though the white

house were feuds that it would be actually useful, is to prevent that sort of -- refutes that it would be useful, is to prevent that having to happen in areas that make -- that make it an obvious problem. host: here is a tweet from one of our viewers who is asking -- how would sequester impact capitol hill? guest: well, there is an interesting link to that. we had this debate a couple of weeks ago. it recurs every once in awhile, about congressional pay. also the pay of the president. there is a law -- it would be unconstitutional to change, to alter the pay of members of

congress, and less on election has intervened. the expectation is that the furloughs would not apply to members of congress. certainly, we are looking at, whether it is furloughs are budget cuts or all sorts of service cutbacks, the internal operations in congress would be altered, and folks in legislative branches and ages -- agencies, like the library of congress and other support offices all around the capital, are bracing for what the effect might be on them. it even affects things perhaps like doorkeepers and other support personnel. there are also questions on capitol hill, like everywhere else, about how it will affect

contracts. do you services that are provided to the capital that provided in the same way? these are questions we do not know the answer to. there has been some reporting in some detail about that. just like everywhere else, as the two colors on a just before me -- callers on just before me, there is a lot of uncertainty about how this will be implemented starting on friday. host: thank you for your time this morning. as neils was talking about, three days to go until these forced spending cuts going to effected march 1 is the deadline. the baltimore sun that light -- have line -- headline -- president obama will travel to newport news, virginia today.

we will have coverage at c- span.org .. he will push for his proposal to avert the automatic spending cuts. we're speaking to federal employees. ryan is in virginia, just over the bridge. you work with the cia. what are you hearing? caller: i do not work for the cia. i'm sorry. i work for the dia. there is a generation of members of the intelligence community that have been brought for developmental programs. right now, i have been hit with the agency for about three years. at the same time, they are bringing well educated, very smart young people into the community, try to change the old boys' club that once was, into the force that we absolutely need to take on the information we are able to collect worldwide. unfortunately, all of these people are paid -- as one of

your previous callers mentioned -- at a relatively low level. this amounts to less than $40,000 a year, but just prior -- just prior to the cost of living adjustment. living in the alexandria area, you have to deal with extremely high costs, transportation, as well as apartment living. that is a 20% pay cut to any one of these analysts. it is a terrifying prospect. host: you work for the director of intelligence or the defense intelligence agency? and that is part of the pentagon? caller: the defense intelligence agency, we are under the dod. host: what are you hearing about your job? caller: because i am a civilian,

i'm liable to be placed on furlough at least one day a week, potentially 22 days until the end of the fiscal year. unfortunately, paying my half of the rent with a roommate at $1,200 a month prior to facilities, i'm going to have many difficulties with living with another analyst, just trying to afford our rent, as well as part of any food or any other expenses. host: could you have taken a job in the private sector and made more? caller: absolutely. i got a college degree try to join the intelligence agency, because i intended to serve this country. i do not wear a uniform, but i go to work every day for the defense of this nation. host: steve, from maryland, part of the energy department. caller: i am a fairly senior person.

i understand the plight of folks at lower levels. the point is i have been working for the federal government for about 32 years. i would have been fired in the first or second. if i did what the congress is doing. they do not do their basic job, which is to make a budget. make a decision. that is what is missing. host: steve -- caller: they are going about it in the worst possible way. host: do you see waste where you work? caller: of course, i see waste everywhere. that is the job of the congress. in coordination with the administration, they should identify programs which are wasteful. i have three tenants who have been on section 8 for the last 20 years.

why should you continue to help people for 20 years? put them on help for five years. not forever. host: we're talking to federal employees only. just as in silver spring. where do you work? caller: i am under noaa. i am a senior staffer. i have been in natural wild -- natural resources management. all the resource agencies of the federal level, i've worked for 10 years, i worked for the park service, i worked for the fish and wildlife -- we have been seeing cuts since basically the clinton administration. i have not seen programs growing. the talk about government waste, i do not get it, because in the

natural resources management agency, there is none. we're all struggling to provide services to the public. from the worker level and entry- level jobs all the way up to management, i do not see a period -- see it. it makes me angry when people talk about government waste because we are about trying to provide services to the public. maybe other agencies that do not work with natural resources have a lot more waste, but we sure do not. host: if you are furloughed and others are, what is the impact? what will they feel? caller: i do not know. i can only speak for myself and the folks i work with. host: will americans outside of your agency, the people who rely on you, will they feel the impact of sequester from

furloughs from your office? caller: it is hard to say because our sister agency, the weather service, you all, every single person in the united states and the whole planet, debts of the reports from noaa data. the weather is pretty important thing for everybody is a daily routine. planning anything, most people factor the weather in. host: andre, a naval intelligence officer. good morning. caller: similar to steve, i am relatively high ranking gs15 inside the government. what is frustrating when looking at the lack of cop -- cooperation between congress, number one, we are mandated as we square our oath of office to cooperate throughout. there are always great to be

policy restrictions that prevent that. at the end of the day, we ask civil servants, it is expected of us to cooperate on behalf of the taxpayers, who ultimately pay our salaries when we see our congressional oversight -- pay our salaries. when we see our congressional oversight not cooperating, it is frustrating. the moral argument is being put forth as if united states market economy operates as if our household -- as our household economies operate. when you see arguments that children, they will have $85,000 worth of debt, if you monetize that back to when we were born, that number might have been and $10,000, for instance. what to do not see is anybody knocking at our door, asking us to pay that dollar value -- that dollar some value. it does not really work.

we do not have a credit card company is sending us a bill every month. host: who do you blame, congress, the administration, or both? caller: i think it is everybody's willing to bear, including us, the citizenry. at the end of the day, they represent us. we speak through our elections. they interpret what we say. that manifests itself in policy doctrine. if this comes to fruition, everybody is to blame. this is the truest instance of a scenario where elections have consequences. host: we're taking phone calls from federal employees inside and outside of washington, d.c.. let me throw this into the conversation, a letter from senator tom coburn. he sent it to omb, outlining several positions that are being

solicited from the federal government for jobs. he says -- you can find this letter on our web site. tonko burnt lists the jobs -- tom coburn lists the jobs. he has several in his letter to omb. we're talking to federal employees only. we will keep taking your phone calls. first, let me give you some other headlines. your is a new york times --

albany -- all the newspapers reporting how he took on that role, more of a public role. he issued an pack warnings about the dangers of smoking, and he pushed the government into taking an aggressive stance against aids. despite his opposition to abortion, refused to use his office as a pulpit from which to preach. "the wall street journal" has a front-page piece about immigration and the dilemma republicans' base, particularly when the gramm who is running for reelection in 2014. they note that senator gramm, senator john mccain will meet with the president today to talk about immigration reform. the front page of the new york times, republicans signing a brief in support of gay marriage. 75 people have signed an amicus

brief, a friend-of-the-court brief, before the supreme court takes up a california ballot initiative at baring same-sex marriage. -- there are republicans who have signed this would not previously talked about the issue, mega wittman, who supported proposition 8 originally, congresswoman lee some of florida, richard hanna of new york, stephen hadley -- back to your phone calls, sam in

west point, new york, he works for the department of defense. what is your take on sequester? caller: well, there is waste in the federal government, but there is also waste in the private sector. you cannot quantify it. we have already had cut. we have had about 5-10% cuts. mostly for people who have not -- have been hired. we had contract employees, and they are now on their way out. we have not had cut since the clinton administration here. host: larry, where are you calling from? what agency do you work for?

caller: i'm calling from puerto rico. the federal bureau of the provisions -- it boils down to two words for all federal employees. essential and non-essential staff. essential staff would be correctional officers. we would have to keep that. they could send secretaries home, case workers home. so you work at an ammunition depot. they would keep the security people, but they could send the secretaries home. it boils down to two words, the central and non-essential staff. i am sure they would not send air-traffic controllers home from washington dulles, or chicago, but smaller airports, they might close down. a central staff they will keep. goas in on a clinton's last

around in the mid 1990's. i took my annual leave during the shutdown. they said, you better not, because you will not get paid. i got paid at the end of it. people worrying they will not get their checks, that is a bunch of malarkey. host: where are you getting this information? from the 01 b? -- the omb? caller: that came from our memo, that essentials that would be capped and non-essential staff would be sent home. host: on the sequester though. caller: i put this together. this is what they will do at federal agencies. they will keep essential staff, and non-essential staff and they will send hundred -- home. host: jack from the veterans affairs office.

caller: we have a lot of waste. we have a lot of people who do not do anything. i am one of the lower ones. there are people making $80,000, $90,000. all federal employees could go through, they could cut a bunch of those jobs. congress and the senate, they have lost a reality with us regular people. they have no idea. they're all millionaires, and they still get paid. we have not had a raise in three years. they still get a pay raise. they have just lost reality with the citizens of the country. host: that is jack working for the veterans administration. i want to give you an update on what is happening on capitol hill. jack lew is getting closer to being confirmed as treasury secretary. the senate finance committee will take up his nomination today. there will likely vote yes to move that forward to the full senate. we will have live coverage at

10:00. the business section of "the new york times" is reporting that to shore up his support, jacob loo -- jack lew met with 41 senators to respond to the 738 questions for the record. on tuesday, he is good to have a backup on capitol hill. also, a program note, we will be covering a house committee examined u.s. airways and american airlines' merger. that coverage is at 10:00 a.m.. a house committee judiciary subcommittee on regulatory reform will be looking into this murder and its impact on competition. here is a full-page ad taken out by american airlines in the washington post --

they are claiming that it will bring consumers more choice. a full-page ad in the washington post ahead of today's hearing. writing in the opinion section of the wall street journal, bob corker, republican of tennessee, a ranking republican on the foreign relations committee, and jim inhofe writing together, nuclear zero offers nothing worth having. they're talking about the president's plan to reduce the u.s. nuclear -- nuclear arsenal. in "the new york times" -- talks with iran to take place in iran -- in moscow. secretary of state john kerry, promising fresh ideas on syria.

those are some of the morning headlines for you. we're continuing to talk to federal employees only. we have about five minutes. robin in maryland, she works for dod. tell us your take? caller: good morning. i'm calling from an african american standpoint as a federal worker. as i was speaking to my mom, you have african-americans, having myung-bak -- young black boys in prison disproportionately. and you have a young african- american young ladies having kids, teen pregnancies, and they're raising children from cradle to grave. then you have parents who are middle-class -- a majority of us

work for the federal government. that is the middle-class blacks. they were able to get an education, get a college degree, and now our jobs are being threatened. you're talking about the black community, the african-american community -- sequestration is cutting us off at the legs. also the baby boom generation, we have to take care of our parents. thank god they're not taking social security, cutting social security and medicaid, because we're now having to take care of our parents. we're paying for this high cost, the prescriptions, the medicines, taking our parents to hospitals.

i'm looking at it from an african american standpoint, and we are hit very hard. host: let me ask you, who do you blame? caller: i first when the congress -- blame the congress for making it so hard for president obama to move the country forward. he won the election. get over it. it is so partisan because if you do not -- i cannot imagine constituents supporting these persons -- it is going to affect everybody. host: some facebook comments --

on twitter -- we're talking to federal employees only this morning we're going to take more phone calls from you. dial in. what is your take on sequester? what are you hearing from the government here in washington about your job and your agency and what impact it has? do you think this is not such a bad idea? we're getting your take. a program note, a fed chairman ben bernanke will be back on capitol hill. he will be talking about monetary policy. he is likely to be asked about sequester as well. look for our coverage live at 10:00 a.m. on c-span 3. also a house appropriations

committee will be looking at impact of cuts on the defense department. we will have coverage of that. then representative candice miller, republican of michigan, will chair a hearing on border security, and we will be covering that. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. 202 c-span.org for all the details on what we are covering today -- go to c-span.org for all the details on what we are covering today. some other headlines -- the washington times this morning, the front page has this story --

>> next to that is a piece about abortion -- that is the washington times this morning. "usa today" reports on a survey done with teachers. they're not so gung-ho on guns at schools. nearly three in for educators say they would be unlikely to bring a firearm to school even able allowed to do so. -- tomorrow in washington, the

supreme court will take up the voting rights act. edward bloom has the knack for finding the right -- one more for you this morning. this is the front page of the financial times --

the justice department in court with bp, asking for the maximum penalty for the gulf oil spill that happened in 2009. we have a couple of minutes. we will hear from natasha in virginia, federal contractor. what are you hearing? caller: i have an hearing that some of the contracts may be canceled. some of the funding may be decreased. furloughs may take place. we have already been warned, but of course, we will have 30 day'' notice. host: what do you do? caller: i work at the bureau of indian affairs. host: what you think the impact will be for americans? caller: washington reason, it will have an impact because some of the people work for the government or military, and i

think it will affect businesses that rely on the population here. there may be a bit of the many recession in this area perhaps. host: natasha, and what you think happens march 1? have you heard about that? caller: not really. we're waiting for the word in our office. everybody is waiting patiently to see what happens. host: we're going to speak with two members of congress, and up about sequester and get their take on it. -- coming up about sequester and get their take on it. we will stick to democratic representative or to sanchez. then republicans will join us, all after this break. ♪

-- loretta sanchez. then a republican will join us, all after this break. ♪ >> you have to understand that all the founders, their primary concern, number one, numero uno, was with national security. what would they say about a company such as lockheed? i am of the opinion that based on how they acted in other instances, they would grudgingly saver a bailout of lockheed because it supplied the united states with its top fighter jets and its top reconnaissance airplanes. i think you can make an argument

that they would have supported the bailout of chrysler back in the 1980's, but not the one today. what is the difference? chrysler back and made tanks. -- back then made tanks. it is interesting, when chrysler comes out of debt and repays the government loan and comes back to halt, the main way they do so is by selling off the tank division and a plan that money back into the company. >> larry schweikart will take your calls and tweets on at the founding fathers. that is at noon eastern on sunday on booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome to our table, loretta sanchez.

sequester is our topic, as all washington is talking about it. for those federal workers we were talking to and the other viewers that are watching us, what happens march 1? guest: if we cannot rearranged this sequester law -- remember the law was passed, and it is the law of the land -- congress has the ability to push it off, like we did for january 1. we pushed the date to march 1 priebus -- march 1. it could go into effect. we could also rearrange it. for example, we could say, people within agencies hubble but more flexibility to decide where they cut -- a little bit more flexibility to decide where the cut.

i am usually an optimist. for federal employees, you are really going to have to look and consider where your discretionary spending is. as much as possible, you're going to have to pull back from that for a while until we can change this law. host: what is the impact, a if eni, on the overall economy? -- if any, and the overall economy? guest: it is tough. it depends on where you are in the economy. we had elections sunday and monday in italy -- italy went through an austerity program, cuts being forced in. the people revolted because it depends on whom those cuts fall. when we look at march 1 and ask, where those cuts fall, if you

are relying on headstart for preschool for your child, and all of a sudden, those funds get pulled, it is affecting directly. but only do have a place not too -- do you not have a place to send your kid, you are pushed back. flying and it is deemed that some airports may be closed because we do not a people to work the towers, you may find yourself flying into chicago to get a planned to go someplace instead of being able to go on that one daily flight that would leave from a regional airport. it depends on where you are. in the washington, d.c. area, people are incredibly concerned because in many ways, d.c. has not felt too much the impact of this recession over the last five, six, seven years. this will definitely affect this area. host: our next guest is

republican from wisconsin. he put together slides that i took a look at. what will the budget look like if sequester happens? here in blue is the spending, without sequester cuts, the spending of our federal government. with sequester cuts, not much of the difference. "the wall street journal" recently wrote that it will help the economy. do you agree or disagree? guest: "the wall street journal" tends to like the fact, they are looking from a business perspective. it depends on where it falls. i would agree with most people that there are some areas we need to redo. social security, medicare, for

example, those are areas that would give it a bigger impact. he is right. the discretionary piece of the budget, which is what congress fights over much of the time, has been shrinking, moving more into that money being spent in defense, and less in other areas like education, national parks, air quality. when we go to cut these pieces, it is not having this big impact on an annual basis. let's remember that when you do not give an inoculation to a child, that child may be sick more often he may be going to emergency hospitals. -- more often. he may be going to emergency hospitals. we could cut here, but we may be opening ourselves up to a higher

cost across the nation, whether it is on our local governments or state governments or the private sector. host: what have you respond to what the speaker said yesterday, at a news conference yesterday. clip] >> the president says we need another tax increase to avoid the sequester. well, mr. president, and you got your tax increase. it is time to cut spending in washington. instead of using our military men and women as campaign props, if the president was serious, he would sit down with harry reid and begin to address our problems. the house has acted twice. we should not have to act the third time before the senate begins to do their work. guest: speaker boehner was the chairman of the education committee when i sat on there when i first came to the congress.

he is usually a very reasonable person. i think some of that was a little bit of politics. i do not seek the president using our armed men and women as props. certainly, i think there is some gamesmanship going on by both sides the bottom line is -- and both sides could the bottom line is, speaker boehner, there are many people that want to be at the table with you and want to start to make smart cuts -- both sides. the bottom line is, speaker boehner, there are many people that want to be at the table with you and want to start making smart cuts. if we need to save defense, if we cannot cut deeply to defense, then sit down with us and decide how much from defense is really fat and waste right now, and

let's figure out how we make up the rest of that money. that is called a new revenues. host: republicans have been saying, what we need from the president is entitlement reform. that is how we avoid the sequester. this is the washington post editorial -- guest: to somehow suggest that the president makes law, go back to the constitution. the legislative branch, that is where this falls. with all due respect to our speaker, i have had a very good dealings with him over the time i have been here, there are plenty of us in the middle who want to sit down and say, how can we make some of this work?

he really has not called on any of us to really do that. we have been meeting. there are different groups meeting. they're talking about, or can we find, how can we find, what we do about social security? it is sort of like the president, speaker boehner, the republican leadership, the senate always try to be cordial with each other and have something in the middle, and now they're finding that they're having a hard time getting something over to us. they keep forgetting that there are many of us who for many years have been experts in many of these areas. we can find cuts. we can also find revenues. host: your part of the moderate democratic group. are you specifically open to entitlement reform as part of a deal to avoid sequestration? guest: absolutely.

i have said from the beginning when the simpson-bowles cannot, where they said -- came out, where they said we have to look at defense, social security, some of these programs, taxes, i was one of the first to say, this is a blueprint. it allows us to open up the discussion. a lot of people just turned away from it. it took 18 months before people started to embrace this and say, you know what? everything has to be on the table. it is both the blue dogs, some moderate coalition members, the tuesday group, from the republican side. i think there is a group of buss core saying -- group of us saying -- look, that does not

make tv shows. this is one show that lets us talk about the issues. it is often too, nats of who won the round of boxing. it discredits what many of us are trying to do. -- two minutes of who wobbled around a boxing. it discredits what many of us are trying to do. caller: i am listening to the representative and her liberalism. there is an old expression that says lies figure, but figures lie. she forgot to add that all the cabinet secretaries had an increase in their budgets. janet napolitano has had an increase in her budget. if somebody gets laid off -- i worked in the private sector until i retired -- we face danger every day in the private

sector. i got laid off almost three times. i do not see anybody from the public sector climbing on my shoulder. i say, that is life. it used to it. life is tough. put 1 foot in front of the other. get a response from's the congress woman. guest: first, i will say, i am not crying. i run every two years. i have no job security if you think about that. i will say this, constitutionally government exists and is the people. it is a tool. government is the tool that people use. for people to say government is too big or too small, we should always examine what type of

government we have. we should always examine where the sweet spot is and how we use government to help form of better and more perfect union. it exists constitutionally, and it is like saying i am holding a hammer in my hand and i keep hitting myself. a hammer is a tool, we just have to know how to use it wisely. i think it is great when the american public can come in and talk about this. let's talk about real issues and how we get to the sweet spot. a lot of people did not realize how often the federal government touches them every day. if you happen to get in a crash, the sake of the highway your drive it on. the air traffic controller who is helping you to get to

somewhere in mississippi or alabama. the government is a good tool it will use it effectively. it is not a bad thing. certainly we tried less government along time ago. our forefathers figured out that did not work. let's make it work for us. host: some have said this is not spending cuts under sequestration. all we're doing is slowing growth. tom keller rights i wish someone would explain why it there are no actual cuts, why there needs to be furloughs. guest: one of the problems is if you have a particular contract, you are in agreement. it is very difficult to go back and say to lockheed martin or

one of the companies to say we have less money, we have to go back and rearrange your contract. you say we are going to sue you. under contract law, the federal government would probably lose. a lot of programs already pre- planned in this fiscal year. some of them, unfortunately, those were doing this for us have either put in inflation or increased costs or have agreed to increase costs. so if we cannot change the contracts, then the piece where we can be more flexible is to furlough or to say to an obsolete one day a week you will not work. it will effectively be a 20% cut on your pay. that is the easiest place to go to to do this because of existing contracts and programs. >host: democrat a calller from

virginia. good morning. caller: i am calling because i personally believe the republicans would like to see the sequester happen, and the reason for that is because once the economy tanks, then going into 2016 they can say the president, which they are tried to say it is his fault, but they will have a better argument for 2016 to say he failed the economy and failed to do what he wanted to do, therefore positioning themselves to have a better 2016, but i think they should tread carefully because of that hurts the economy as bad as some of the predictions are saying, i think they are not seeing what they should be doing

through clear eyes, and i think it will have a much more damaging effect, and therefore the price they are born to pay the price we will pay as a country will be a lot worse than just the consequences of an election in 2016. guest: this young lady is a pre- plan are going all the way out to 2016. i have not even looked at 2016. i have a little problem with saying people are just doing this to make the president look bad. first of all, he is a lame-duck president. he is not running again. to say that somehow the economy is bad because obama was leading the white house for the democratic contender, i think it is too far away. host: does it transferred to you and your colleagues at art up again in 2413-- that are up

again? guest: i do not think it does. i go home every week and talk to people. and i think people should have to stay in touch and understand what you are fighting for, that this whole source of issue -- if anything, i think this will be a savior for the speaker. a lot of people -- a lot of democrats ask me all the time, the speaker is -- i say he is not a bad guy but trapped in a situation where his own house of republicans are really battling it out. i think the american people realize that. i think it's the economy takes because of inaction in washington, d.c., that is -- the largest part of the blame will

be put on the house republicans. host: about the president's style on this issue and other issues, here is "politico" -- gguest: well, to say my colleague in the senate -- what is a moderate these days? i said you were conservative when you came in. now they're tossing you under the bus because they think you are too liberal. labels, go away with that. he is thing the president is being aggressive. when the president is not aggressive, nothing gets done. then tuesday leave, mr.

president, that is what the republicans -- the speaker is saying leave. if you guys do not change what is going on in the house, that we will have these things happening. that is a form of leadership, saying move this. now they're saying you are being too aggressive. you can never win in this way. if you% -- 50% criticizing and 50% happy, you are probably in the sweet spot. i would say if he has a better grasp in the senate with what is happening with colleagues, but i will tell you in the house, many of my colleagues on the republican side. report back to me to say it is crazy in there. host: boston, independent

calller. caller: i would like to pick up on the point earlier that this is not a cut, a slowing of the growth of government, which is a key thing that people should really take into account. the slowing of the growth and the result of this is the sky will fall. all the services will be cut from things that are important. what about the millions of people in the federal bureaucracy that do nothing or do very little? why can't we go after their jobs? why doesn't have to affect the people that are the front lines -- does it have to affect the people that are the front lines? host: mark on twitter has a similar comment. white is the focus on the federal employee layoffs. guest: if you are contractor for

the federal government, then you think your program is needed, because that is the way you are making your living. but if i stand up to say we really do not need the program any more in need to cut it, that is congress' job. it is their diet -- job to decide what works and what does not appear yen congress people need to look like they're fighting for that, but overall, over the history of time, more or less, we have been pretty much able to say we do not need typewriters anymore. now we have come into an impasse where that is unacceptable to do, for people to say no. i believe every piece of government has an opportunity to

cut. every piece of our government. so if you say congress, if you do not cut this, we will do automatic cuts across everything. if we could not get together on agreement for what should really be eliminated, this is what we have received. bad: so it is not an idea then? guest: it is not a great way to do it, but it does begin to pare back the federal government, which is what the majority of the americans told us that is what they really wanted. host: republican calller and chattanooga, tennessee. good morning. caller: what do you believe the federal government's primary

role is? >guest: well, certainly defense is an issue for us. certainly justice for all. certainly to regulate interstate commerce. certainly, the health and welfare of our people. again, it is dependent upon -- some people say just the fence, and they stop there. others say if we do not have a federal government figuring out some employer is making we work in a sweatshop, there has to be lost. there has to be lost. that is why we have a letter of berlin and clear yet the -- that is why we have to have laws. that is why you have three

pieces supposedly checking each other. when we get over the line, the supreme court has the ability to say the law is that. a lot of people talk about the individual mandate and it was on staff -- unconstitutional. is that pretty much it is unconstitutional, but they still said we could do it. there are all these checks and balances going on all the time. if you have a contract dispute, something going on, where are you going to go? are we not want to have any judiciary? at no judges to help us with this? no federal prosecutors? i think there is always a question of what this developer of you at the federal government. again, government is a tool. we should always question what should the federal government be doing, what should the state be doing at the local level? we limit the

department of education and department of energy? they have made things worse since they were created. caller: the obama administration ihas continued quantitative easing and has not increased in the bank lending. that is a problem. we have bill gross from him co claiming we are in a self-consuming fire storm. the problem is with retirement. h r 129 would return to predict spending act. i was wondering if you would co- sponsor that? that is the classical -- glass- steagal.

85 billion per month to bail out banks. guest: thank you for the call. i would tell you that before i came to the congress, i was a financial analyst, financial adviser. i was in the bond market and putting together instruments of credits. i would tell you that i am a co- sponsor of the classicglass-stel aact. egal act. i certainly disagree with many of the things that happened. at someone who voted against park. -- tarp. i have had many people tell me that is wrong. there is a lot of congress people who do not have the background. i remember in the boat, it did

not pass on tuesday but passed on friday morning. i voted the first time when it did not pass. the stock market will go down you have to test this. we did not pass it. the stock market went down. then we came back friday morning and passed it, and the stock market went down and everything was in flux all the time for wyatt. you know, i did not get scared by that. i definitely believe separation between commercial and investing things is probably a good thing for the united states. >> the senate banking committee will hear from ben bernanke about monetary policy at 10:00 eastern time. look for live coverage on c-span 3. bob next. democratic calller. caller: my question is this, i

am a retired food inspector. i heard on television the department of agriculture would be affected to the point that a lot of inspectors will not be working. how are these things going to be able to produce inspector content without inspectors? i think that will create a big problem. the inspectors would be required to bring them out of the plant. it would not be government inspected. >guest: thank you for that. thank you for making people understand what federal workers do. we had a couple calls where these people do nothing. again, go back to every day you are affected by the federal government.

you go to the store and pick up your ground beef. you just assume that it is good. who we have? we have food inspectors, because what we find out is when we do not have enough people on the line looking out for your health but there are some bad players in the market. in europe they are grinding horse meat. hopefully we're not doing that here, but the food coloring, that they are taking the oldest fleets and grinding it up and putting red food coloring. you look at that and say it is ground beef. host: we are going to be talking about the impact of sequestration on agricultural department as part of our series looking at the different agencies. one last quick, on call if we can. robert in maryland. independent calller. caller: good morning.

there have been seven times in our u.s. history where we have had economic holocausts because the people who have money have always got access to policies in washington. right now the five big is big in the united states are setting on nine trillion dollars. you try to refine the money out of washington area during the 1890's depression, the 1920's depression. now the current economic problems. each time these greedy people got access to our politicians, freed the money, and then the economic chaos started. >host: we will leave it there

because we are running out of time. guest: certainly money is incredibly influential in politics. my own former treasurer of california said monday is the mother's milk of politics. certainly as the democrats, i am pretty upset about the fact that the supreme court has ruled under united that corporations are entities and can sell money, so i think there is way too much money. it is very difficult to run these days. honestly, it is very difficult. that having been said, if people wake up and understand what is going on and there are more shows like this where we get a chance to come, and people begin to say we have had enough with the scare tactics, we have had

enough with the name calling, and really listen to the people trying to make change, who are really trying to make it right, who are trying to say government is a good thing, and we have to analyze where it is involved, but we should be doing this, then i think americans will go back to believing in their governments. they will keep politicians in check, and it will certainly do something about the massive amount of money. that is one of the biggest problems. the money is just -- it comes in waves, especially against people who are not all the way to the left or right. sanchez,ngresswoman thank you. coming up next we will talk to reid ribble. >> in the headlines this

morning with the political standoff over spending set to trigger major cuts starting friday, economists surveyed by the associated press say the impact is the biggest drag right now on the economy and could persist well into 2013. 23 of the 37 economists who responded to the survey said the paralysis in washington is a significant factor in slowing the economy. a deeply divided senate is moving toward the boat on president obama is choice for the defense department. with the former senator on track to win the confirmation. 12 days after republicans stalled the nation, they were slated to vote on proceeding with this election. is that it comes in at 10:00. it will be live on c-span 2. trans union says there has been

a seasonal spike on those americans who have fallen behind on auto payments. the late payment rate on auto loans declined on an annual basis and have remained near the low was pointed over a decade. finally, investors are worried about the income -- the outcome of italy's elections. on monday the stocks have the worst drop in more than three months. the dow fell 260 points. the biggest drop since november 7. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> on route 66 people were travelling, either traveling looking for a job, maybe on their way to the grand canyon. so it first, route 66 was just a way to get somewhere. your destination was in california. later on, after this date pits

started walking up and a tourist traps and attractions in the cafes and motels and the trading posts, when those things started springing up, it became like a big and use it -- amusement park. it became the destination. it was more like let's go down route 66. all the fun stuff is there. like a big, long amusement park. >> get your kicks on route 66 in new mexico. one of the things you will see looks atend as the scspan life in albuquerque. host: congressman reid ribble is a republican in wisconsin and member of the budget committee. that begin with your budget

committee experience. we heard from calller earlier. these are not cut under sequestration. you are just slowing the growth. could you explain the difference? guest: if you look at defense spending, there is a reduction in the first year, and that it turns back up and the rate of growth continues at the same rate prior to sequestration, but starting with a lower starting point. there are reductions in the rate of growth. every year it is like an automatic right to refund that the programs. we do not go to zero. we start of the previous line and build from then. what this does is it retards that a bit and slows it down. host: you put together these slides.

what will the budget look like it sequester happens? there seems to be very little bit of a difference between with or without sequester. guest: very modest. you're looking at spending going back to years ago. this is not the catastrophe everyone says it is. one caveat to that. if you are the employee tickets furloughed, it this impacts your family, it is a real problem, and i recognize that concern. however, as that fiduciaries of the tax payer dollars, we have to recognize this country is over 16 trillion in debt, and we have to begin to address it and fix it. important for step. host: budget cut seen as a risk to grow in the u.s. economy.

h guest: if you take it from that perspective, it could seem like a slowing. there is a lot of reasons for the stagnant growth. there are a lot of things that need to be fixed. until we can get our congress and the president of the united states to work together and resolve of friction point, we will continue to have slow growth. if you look at the slide that you had up, it shows the sequestered as it relates to the overall economy. there is a tiny red line. that is the sequestered in relationship to the u.s. economy. >> during an economic recovery,

is it bad timing to go ahead with a sequestered? guest: do not think it is. i think it is probably be appropriate time. instead of a husband and wife sitting at the dining room table deciding whether there will buy a new car this year. the white says we really cannot afford to buy a new car. the husband says we have to buy this car because someone at general motors will lose their jobs if we do not. if we continue to lose -- use the logic that we restrained government at all because you will lose jobs if you do not, then why don't we have everyone send in all their money. host: you do not believe then that sequestration is a bad thing, and should it be reversed? if it goes through, should they try to undo it? guest: no, they should not.

i put a bill in the hopper loss like that would allow transfer of our hunt ended ahead of spirit above where sequestration and went wrong is the cuts go across every single line item in every agency budget. there is no availability for the secretary of aquaculture to prioritize. my bill basically allows each agency head to watch the pipeline -- the top line # establish and watch the funds in the way that is most appropriate. they know where the waste is and what are lower and higher priorities and the ways to manage their agencies effectively. i put it in the hopper last night. we attend code as sponsors ride out of the bat. it will get some attention. host: someone on twitter wrote

when my boss tells me to cut, it's a reduction year over year to spending. not a decrease from what i requested for in the budget. caller: i hope sequester goes through, because i cannot see them cutting the budget in any way, shape, or form. from what i understand, there will be an increase. it is going up $15 billion in spending for the entire year. i would like to know why there has not been a budget in four years. what is wrong with harry reid that he could not get along with a house and set up a budget for them so you could go to congress and have a budget? i cannot believe after four years there has not been one. guest: it is really surprising. congressman jim cooper wrote a piece of legislation, no budget, no pay. it required the congress to

pass a budget resolution. the set and house agreed on it and did the appropriation bills on time. it the senate did not do that, they would have to give up their pay until the work got done it. -- if the that it did not do that, they would have to give up their pay until the work got done. i was a sponsor of that bill. within minutes of having that legislation passed, harry reid came to the podium and said this year the senate will pass a budget. it is a critical step forward. at this point we will be able to see what a separate report -- priorities are, and hopefully we will be able to pull those documents together and have this country work on a budget for work, work with inside the budget framework so we can control the rampant growth of government. >host: an individual on twitter tes, why does savings pay

less than inflation rate? guest: historically interest rates on federal debt have run between 4.5-5.5%. today it is 1.2%, 1.25%. if interest rates would move back up to historical levels, the cost of interest to the u.s. treasury would go over $800 billion. it would be a catastrophe. budget planryan's calls for closing loopholes. now the republicans are against closing loopholes. guest: we are not against closing loopholes. our budget this year will do the exact same thing. we will close loopholes and take the savings and reduce tax rates for every single business in the country.

what the president wants to do is continue to pick winners and losers that is a non-starter for us. we believe we need national, total, and complete tax reform, and that is what we will be working on. host: the shell on twitter, your bill sounds like common sense. -- michelle on twitter, your build sound like common sense. guest: right now there is the blame game. republicans in the house blaming democrats and the president. it is this blame game that drive the american people crazy. you want to know whose fault this is? it is my fault. i voted for this. we voted for it. it is the president's fault, because he signed it. we all should embrace this to get our fiscal house in order.

i think it is common sense, and i think that is what the american people want and expect from our leaders. here is why republicans might oppose it. it gives the administration too much power. what happens if they picked off a republican district and try to cut more to make a political statement? they are fearful of that. my response is that it's ok. if they do it, it is visible because it was their choice. i think democrats would maybe oppose it, because then it would actually placed the blame on the president for the choices they make. host: a headline about gop drafting plans to give the president power. that is your bill. you are working with leadership on this? guest: leadership got yesterday. we're starting to move forward. the senate has a similar bill. there is one geared specifically toward giving the authority to

defense. it is a good idea for the secretary of defense, it is a good idea for senator bill sack. -- villsack. host: democratic calller. caller: i wanted to know why the politicians cannot take a five- year pay freeze and not get any more parks or whatever? just close all the loopholes. if politicians show up for work offhow for two hours to show their tie, they should get paid by the hour. guest: i will talk a little bit about pay. i came in as a freshman member in 2010. i am entering a third year. this is the third consecutive

year. i am advocating removing the pension programs for members of congress. i have offered several different term-limit bills to restrict careers for members of congress. i believe we should put more requirements and members of congress to do their job. that is why i co-sponsored on a the fall, no budget, no pay proposal. we're hoping we can get back this year so we can require congress to do the job the american people expect them to do. host: budget cuts would hit congress, but not members. why is that? guest: that is not true. our budgets get hit the same light. they have been frozen for three years. -- our budgets get hit the same way. there is an impact directly. i think is appropriate that we

will say to federal agencies and discretionary portions of the budget that everyone else has to tighten up and we also have to do it. i agree with that. host: jocelyn, independent calller. caller: my question, first of all, i would like to state my husband is a decorated naval veteran. he served our country for six years honorably. he has been working for five years in connecticut for the department of navy. we serve our country and do not take much money. we make about 90,000 per year. we're talking about a 20% pay decrease, about $900 per month. that is devastating. we're talking about a devastating. i have two small children. i want your pledge on national television that you and every other member of congress, but specifically you will take a 20%

pay cut in your pay. my husband has also had a pay freeze for three years, has received no additional money for three years, even though health care has gone up. i want you as the secretary of defense has pledged, that you will take a 20% pay cut, as will every member of congress, including the president, before you hit an hon. veteran who is disabled, who served his country for less than 100,000 per year and has a family to feed. guest: thank your husband for his service and think you to your children and you for the sacrifices you have made. this is where the rubber hits the road in this discussion. that is why i mentioned it earlier. it is a problem if you are one of the families that will be hit with a sequester. this is one of the reasons why my legislation this morning is

so critical. it would give the secretary of defense, rather than this every single line item in the budget has to be cut by roughly 7.3%, it would give the secretary of defense the ability to manage it and say there are lower priority problems in defense. we will not spend it here. instead we will preserve wages there. the sequestered itself and how it was done is not how you would manage anything. regarding members of congress, i cannot make a pledge for anything, because the constitution does not allow us to change our pay. i can only vote to change the next congress pay. i hear exactly what you say. i have the very same concerns that you have. i am trying to get the fix in place so it does not have to happen. thank you for your families service.

-- famiy's service. host: you say you have 10 echoed the sponsors' right off the bat. you need a lot more than that. -- 10 co-sponsors right off the bat. guest: there are couple of things that have to change. we can let the sequestered go through and immediately followed with a continuing resolution. this is the methodology we fund the government with. a continuing resolution is what we do by march 27. we can move that up to next week. we can do it this week, prior to sequestration taking place, which would be my preference. the uncertainty would disappear. host: what have you heard about this bill? guest: i have not heard

anything. i will talk with the speaker immediately after this. we have our regular conference meeting where i will presented to the conference. there have been a lot of conversations and different ideas. like i said, there is pushed back for republicans and democrats. if something is common sense as this, every single american gets it. i am hoping common sense will prevail. host: to win next in maryland. -- joann next in maryland. caller: this is something i think that is really important. sir, i find you disingenuous. republicans are willing to sacrifice programs like head start, meals on wheels, a number of poverty programs, tax breaks

for the rich. that is what it really comes down to. as far as people losing their jobs, a federal employes are people, too. they have families and have to feed their children. secondly, there is a lot of contractors. those contractors are often at small businesses, very small businesses. they are going to be cut. when they lose their federal contracts, they will not be able to feed their children either. guest: think you for your comments. i apologize for you finding week disingenuous. -- thank you. these cuts will roll back federal spending to a point just three years ago. in fact, it could make the argument we were underfunding, food stamps for example. food stamps jumped from 53

billion to 76 billion, even though simultaneously unemployment went from 10.1 percent down to 7.7%. food stamps and these programs for the needy, the truly needy continue to rise. i am not opposed to having these types of social safety net available for the truly poor. we have to be careful of those making sure the truly poor are protected and do not get squeezed out by other priorities in the country that -- that might be less important. what we're trying to do is make sure the financial resources available to the people that have a need is actually there and those people who are able to support and sustain themselves do not get the benefit any longer. host: savannah, georgia. republican calller. caller: i do not understand why

obama who says i inherited this debt and this debt, but he has doubled the debt from 7000 to 14,000 by redoing the oval office. that office has been that way for 40-50 years, and he goes to change everything in it. i am a military spouse. my husband is deployed. you are talking about cutting the military? our men, our husbands, wives are over there fighting for our freedoms, and the government is treating them like they do not even matter. you are just another person we pay. and every other country is building over -- building up their military. guest: think you for your comments, and thank you for your family service. regarding your husband service,

his pay is protected. service, hisnd's pay is protected. right now we are spending six times more than the next closest nation on defense. at some point there has to be a slowing down of how we're spending money to defend the country. we cannot sustain this. this is particularly true in the light of the fact of the ever- growing social safety net for the senior programs, primarily medicare and social security. 10,000 americans every single day are entering those programs. 10,000 every single day. that is scheduled to go on for more than a decade. as the baby boom generation goes through, that amount of money will begin to compress what we can do on the discretionary side. just in the past two years, discretionary spending in this country, when i first came it

was 41.5%, today just over 38% because the other programs have continued to grow. they are squeezing out essential programs that we all value and feel that are important. this is why the american people, along with members of congress, have to begin the long, a typical conversation about how do we protect our seniors, children, and grandchildren? host: 80 billion is a nice cut, but how will we get to 1.2 trillion? guest: 1.2 trillion comes from the decade-long cut of sequestration. it is a significant reduction in the rate of growth. i would like for you to look back at some of the slides i brought. when you look at this, it you can see federal spending with and without the sequester. the gap between the lines is the

cumulative amount of 1.2 trillion dollars. some of that savings coming from infrastructure. -- coming from interest. still a modest reduction. government spending continues to grow each and every year. for our friends and family serving diligently and our military and country bravely, i want you to know we are concerned about that, and we are aware of it, but we have to measure this with all of our priorities as well. host: democratic calller in wisconsin. caller: good morning. youmedicare, why can't instead of raising the age, let people buy in at 55, and then go back to when hundred

approximately when they are 55 and have more money into medicare, and it would help the small businesses that are insuring the older people? guest: that is a great idea. thank you for calling from wisconsin. i hope it is not snowing there today. those are the types of ideas we need to get on the table and start talking about. we recognize the medicare program will continue to grow based sheer demographics of the country aging. there are fewer pleasers -- fewer workers replacing those that are retiring. ideas like yours should have a hearing and voice in the halls of congress, and i really appreciate you coming up with suggestions like these, because these are the types of debates that have to happen. thank you for waiting in this morning. host: ohio on the line for

republicans. philip. >caller: my question is if the sequestered is only a decrease in the increase of the budget, how can we have of you were calling to say her husband will have a 20% decrease in the wages because of the sequestered? how could the president go out and talk about all of the jobs that will be lost because of the sequestered? there is no difference. we are operating the same today as tomorrow, except the increase will be less. am i wrong in my perception of what is going on? guest: you are about 90 percent correct. in the first year, particularly on the defense side, and this was the point of the call earlier with a husband in the navy, there is an actual reduction on the defense side. it goes down for the first year. there will be some feeling there. you cannot make any type of

decision or cuts in this country without affecting somebody. in the past four years there has been an additional cut 130,000 new federal anopheles at haskell in years. callously retarded that, it will have an impact. this is the difficulty we have tried to get control of responding all of because every single time you restrict spending, you will affect the real, living breathing american citizen and their family. these are difficult choices that have to be made. te are responding to pas promises, and we have to begin to find a valid point. it is not about protecting taxes for the rich. january 1, and i voted for it, i voted to allow some of those tax increases to go through. i voted to put the payroll tax back in place. we will have to have some revenue increases, because the

gap is too large. i do not believe this is the doomsday that is being presented by the president or prime some of my colleagues in the congress. -- or by some of my colleagues in this congress. if we look historically, the last decade, those taxes yielded roughly 16.9% revenue against gdp. spending has historically been around 19.5% of gdp. still a gap there. deficit spending without regard to that. the gap is too large. if we could pull spending back to the historical levels of 19.6% of the nation's gdp, i would be more than willing to bring revenue up to that. host: rep reid ribble, what cuts to republicans want to make to

make -- do republicans want to make to entitlements? guest: i have done some town halls and wisconsin. my constituents and wisconsin centered around three basic things. we should take a look of the cap. right now they pay taxes on roughly the first $110,000 of income. we could raise that 200,000 or 300,000 to pull in additional revenue. that would be one option. several people favored that. some people said why don't we raise the age? we are being unfair to the grandparents who came in at age 65 but died 68. if we were to age adjusted for them, they should have started collecting at age 59 based on current age levels. we might have to increase the

age by a year. why can't we means test it? this was really a social safety net for the poor. i think all of these ideas have merit, and real reform might include elements of all of those. host: joe, independent calller. go on tho ahead. caller: this sequestration is already affecting my friend in the army. he was supposed to go to afghanistan in august, and now they stopped because they cannot afford to send them to different locations. i am kind of afraid if the

sequestration and ends tomorrow, or even a month from now, my son will not get the training he needs to go. i went to iraq and needed six months of intense training to go for a year. host: how much training has your son had so far? caller: a year of training, but you have to have specific training to go to afghanistan. you have to learn that some of the language. you have to learn some of the equipment of the vehicles. you need to learn a lot of things. guest: thanks for your question and concern, and thank you for your families service.

here is the reality on afghanistan. some of this might be related to the sequestered, but it is more likely related to the fact that the war in afghanistan is starting to wind down. greens are starting to reduce manpower, and we will continue to see a reduction in force over there. deployments will be shorter. -- marines are starting to reduce manpower. that is something i support. i think we should get out of afghanistan and let the country manage its own civilian population on its own and provide whatever assistance we need from an educational standpoint to help the economy. that would be the type of policy going forward, and i think that is what will happen. your son could be caught up in a combination of thing. one is the reduction of force in afghanistan, and what the defense department will do it sequester takes place. things are on hold. i put a bill in last night that would provide flexibility for

the secretary of defense. rather than having the cuts go across every single line item, they would be able to prioritize how they spend the money, which may choose to put more money into training and remove money from some other place within the department. thank you for your call. >> the white house put out a state-by-state breakdown of sequester and how it will impact different areas of the country. times- "the richminond dispatch." "the hartford curourant." what do you make of this strategy? guest: i think it is the political strategy, and working.

the present has a very loud a bully pulpit. what the president has not talked about is what will happen if interest rates go to 4%. we pay 260 billion in interest. we're looking at a balanced budget that is in an eight- tenure windrow out there. we will continue to add debt. we have to recognize and be honest with the american people that these are things we cannot afford. right now the government, the federal government is consuming almost 25 percent of the nation's full productive output. if we continue spending the way we are with career rates of growth in the economy, it will not be long before taking a third of the nation's economy. we have to control it to protect

our children. we have to get our arms around this. it will be painful. we're going to feel it. wisconsin is one to feel it. every single american will feel it. the counter to that is what they are want to feel later if there was an economic collapse would be truly calamitous in this country. host: 8.5 million in funding for primary and secondary education. 3000 civilian at department of defense employees furloughed. 661,000 cuts in funding for job search agencies. have you heard from constituencies? guest: in part, but i am likely to hear the calls i have heard today, americans do not believe the hyperbole. this is how politicians are. the media plays into it. they use words like devastating

and take an ax and all these things and they make it much worse than what it actually will be. if in fact we could get transfer authority to the agencies so they could pick and choose, how can you root out waste this way? if every agency knows where the waste is in their department, it will allow them to get rid of the waste rather than get rid of critical programs. host: we use impact here on c- span. reid ribble member of the budget committee. thank you for talking to viewers this morning. our conversation about sequestration continues here. the last hour we will break down sequester and the impact on the labor department, as well as housing industry and housing and urban development agency. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> ben bernanke heading to capitol hill this morning to give his semi-annual report to

the senate banking committee. members are expected to question him about the future of the fed's bond buying program, his views of the economy, and thoughts of the budget impact between congress and the white house. that hearing will be live at 10:00 eastern on c-span radio and television, and the maryland state senate will take up a gun control measures supported by martin o'malley. one of the most contentious provisions would require people to submit fingerprints for handgun licensing. that bill would be an assault weapon -- assault weapons and prohibit people of been in voluntary committed for mental health reasons from owning guns. the governor of delaware heads to capitol hill today to testify at a hearing on the employment of disabled people. that will take place before the senate health education labor and pension committee. officials from washington state, oklahoma, and utah are

scheduled to testify. finally, the vatican has answered some of the questions future when heope's retires. he will no longer wear his trademark red shoes. the vatican also saying pope benedict himself makes those decisions. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> on route 66 people were travelling, either traveling for fun or traveling looking for a job. maybe they were on their way to the grand canyon. so it first route 66 was just a way to get somewhere. your destination was in california. but later on after the snake pits started popping up in the tourist traps and attractions and the cafes and motels and the trading post, when those things

started springing up, it almost became like a big amusement park. route 66 became the destination. it is not like can we go to the beach in california? it was like let's go down route 66 because all the fun stuff was there pi. >> get your kicks on route 66 in albuquerque, new mexico. c-span will look behind the scenes of the history and literary life in albuquerque. host: in our last hour of this week we are taking a look at sequestration and the possible impact, what could happen on different agencies of the federal government. this morning we are joined by a journalist from the washington post.

we're talking about spending -- possible spending cuts to the labor department. how big is the labor department in relation to the rest of the federal government? guest: of verily moderately- sized apartment. it does not house that many employees. the biggest expense is unemployment compensation, but -- overall the department has seen across-the-board cuts of 5.3%. host: what impact would that have on different programs within the labor department? guest: compensation is exempt. -- term compensation -- long- term compensation is not exempt. people who have been on unemployment will see cuts in their benefits of up to 9.4%.

other programs like job corps, job centers aid to veterans tend to find work will be cut by 5.3%. host: the labor department sent out a letter laying out what you were just talking about. they say the long-term unemployed cuts to the program, a loss of $400 in benefits would impact 2 million people. how do they know this? is anyone questioning those numbers? guest: i have looked into those a little bit, and they seem fairly credible. this is a unusual recession and that most recessions people get back relatively quickly, but we have this large reserve of one bus terminal for people. -- long-term unemployed people. the 2 million members seems about right, but there is

always the people who could about to become on the program. then again, growth is not likely to speed up the cuts take effect. host: what is the impact of this on the economy? guest: not devastating, but- generally. the cbo estimate was that you would see gdp growth of about 0.6 percentage points lower than you would otherwise see. that is a lot. in a good year the economy will grow about 3%. we have been growing about 2% per year since we started recovering. about a quarter of what we will be growing at. it amounts to about 700,000 jobs according to macroeconomic advisers. host: on march 1 when we reached

the deadline, does that mean that unemployment benefits are reduced? guest: so the way that the sequestered happens is you do not just cut by department or even program, they have to be equally distributed across projects and activities. the last time we had a sequestered, activity was defined to avoid controversy. one person told me about a program for navigation project to decide what buoys were needed for nautical navigation, and that activity was a specific buoy in the water. so there is really little discussion to avoid things like that too long-term unemployment compensation. host: will workers at the labor department be furloughed? guest: almost certainly. they're in a bit of a bind and

that they're not allowed to mess with federal pay scales. if you are a federal worker, you will still be on the same pay scale, but they are required to reduce activities. among those is payroll. the way that you reconcile not being able to reduce people's pay is to have them work fewer hours. i would expect on average labor department workers will see a 5% less working hours the last year host. caller: host: we're talking about sequestration and the impact of the labor department. colorado's springs, a republican. caller: think you. i think we need the

sequestered. . -- thank you. i think it would be useless if we did not close the loopholes. i used to be an accountant. i can tell you raising taxes on the wealthy will do nothing unless we can eliminate offshore accounts. if we could just do that, i think a sequester would almost be unnecessary. it would close the existing loopholes. i do not know what to say. congress, having them lose 20 percent of their pay would do nothing. they would not even notice a 20 percent cut. guest: 2 points. one is our spending cuts like this necessary and a good bit? the second is what about taxes? it is interesting because what

carol is proposing a cutting loopholes and deductions is on the table when is the poster was implemented in that i know the obama administration was more partial to a proposal where we would see across-the-board cuts in deductions, which would disproportionately hit the wealthy. that did not a ticket -- that did not get agreed to for fairly obvious reasons. house republicans do not like that as much as revenue cuts. even if you believe you need $110 billion in cuts this year to the federal budget, almost no one thinks this is the way to do it. i did "i would want discretion to cut travel expenses and training programs, other than reduce services."

this would reduce services. host: we have this on twitter. host: are they impacted by this? guest: about $44 million. it is an area like disaster prevention that in my end up costing us more than it saves us. host: why? guest: one thing that went wrong with the stimulus package in 2009. they have these thesegdp numbers optimistice -- theygd

gdp numbers. getting an accurate sense of the economy is really important. that is almost what the sequester is. they will cut all programs across the board. there is already a federal pay freeze and will likely be a hiring freeze. there might be some hiring for some critical positions if nuclear missile launcher retires we will want to replace him. it could look very much like what he is proposing. host: what are the american job centers? guest: centers that provide

basically social work to help people get resumes and provide skills for applying to the job market. there is mixed evidence on how much good they do. some studies suggest people would have gone to the jobs anyway. about making it easier for people to access the job market, they are an important tool. host: there were be reductions on the job centers across the country. they would be close down. the centers have not been as effective and there would be closed for an amount of time. guest: the secretary sounds

optimistic to do that. be that each job center would have to be cut by c5%. it could be even worse. host: jane in cincinnati. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. i wonder about the vietnam pensions instead of the ones that should be in effect now from the war that we're still in. i wonder if they have considered cutting some of their pay that they are getting. they are considering social security. everybody needs of their money.

i wonder if they have discussed the pensions from the vietnam war. i appreciate both of you on the air. host: thank you. guest: i have some good news for jane. the department of veterans affairs is exempt from cuts. no one wants to balance the budget on the back of veterans. that does include -- there are numerous protection for others. social security is totally exempt. checks will not be reduced. host: maverick on twitter. do you know if that's true?

guest: that is an interesting point. this is one area where there will be more discretion for how the cuts are done because they will be done by private companies. if the government is supposed to cut pay scales, but if they reduce payments to a contractor, there is no law preventing that contractor from laying off 5% of its employees. they have so much more discretion than the government. we are talking about the impact sequestration could have on the labor department. the office of the job corps,

what is it? guest: a program meant to provide a federal service for people that might need training or support in their communities to get in the job market. it was from the clinton administration. host: who is it for? low-income youths? guest: i don't know on that point. it is mostly targeted for low income people. host: veterans employment and training services. what do they do and how could mpacted?i guest: veterans who might need

skills or support. this was not included in the exemption for veterans' programs because it is house within the department of labor. that would be cut like everything else. i think the total is $4 million or something. it is 5% of the overall budget. host: john in virginia. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i started under a program when i was 14. that was a low income work program for teenagers. it was a great thing for me growing up. i have been working since i was 14.

i have since become disabled. the corporate cuts with government. they should look at some of these corporate cuts and close some of the loopholes for the multibillion-dollar companies that are not paying any taxes. i don't have a problem with cutting some of the services we do have. host: dylan matthews? guest: this will be an area that congress will be working on. the most popular proposal is to reduce certain loopholes. you would also reduce the rate. the top rate is currently 35%. most people want to reduce that to 26%, 27%.

also, how you treat the money you earned abroad. territorial corporate tax system where you are taxed on the money you earned within the united states. there is the world wide tax system. your tax on the money wherever. we are somewhere in between. there is a tax incentive to leave it over there. you could say no taxes on that money or that we will start taxing money as it comes thin. host: dave in new jersey. caller: i think the problem that i see -- not so much that the

sequester should take place. the programs that they are cutting. it is almost like we're being sent to timeout. the programs they are cutting are so critical for day-to-day operations. i do not understand the mindset as to why they choose these specific programs. it seems to me they are picking these programs that are so critical as opposed to some other programs that could probably be cut. guest: the important thing to remember about the sequester is that it is a timeout. it was designed as a punishment

for congress if they did not put together a balanced program. now these are taking effect. that is what you hear from congressman. they were designed to be painful so that congress would come to a deal. they are a blunt instruments. host: they picked programs or was it across the board? guest: there are certain exemptions. the obama administration fought hard for low income people. there was no appetite to cut social security checks and that was exempted. the cuts for medicare was limited. it doesn't look like you're

cutting services for people. but it is a problem in that they are cutting discretionary spending. there is a lot of discretionary spending in the defense department. is it ise learning hard to cut those programs without hitting something that americans want to preserve. the money is going to be in health programs because of the cost growth in health care is so fast. appetite to have an be told they could buy last madison. edicine. host: there is a comprehensive

sequester primer put together by our guest, dylan matthews, in "the washington post." caller: my name is john. host: got it. caller: does he know how much the federal budget has increased this year or they proposed increasing this year? when did the more cost saving just to put that back to last year's budget? i am assuming that would be less than the sequester. thank you. guest: discretionary spending will be lower this year because of the sequester. there will not be an inflation increase. what would be entailed by what

john is proposing is a lot of cuts to medicare and health care costs. you go to your doctor and you buy your services and they are paid. medicare has an obligation to pay for whatever services you purchased if you are over 65. setting a global budget for medicare saying this is what we are going to spend. that is something to love health-care experts want to s ee. host: there is a letter laying out the impact of the sequester. how would sequester impact that program? guest: osha was started by

richard nixon. it is the workplace safety and injury part of the government. they have the inspectors to go into offices and make sure manufacturers are not cutting off fingers and that people are not getting injuries at their jobs. people sitting at their computers to not get carpal tunnel. there will probably be furloughs of inspectors. osha is already overburdened and has too many cases and i think this will exacerbate the problem. host: george from ohio. caller: i understand you cannot cut the pay of the congress and the senate. what about the support programs,

the rail system that takes them back and forth, the travel from their home state to washington, d.c. i am not talking about security. are they being affected by the state dinners? it's not going to be $85 billion . no one has ever brought that up.] let congress suffer a little bit. guest: legislative functions, staffers salaries, everything is considered domestic discretionary spending and it will be caught like everything else. host: not the salaries of

members of congress. that is saved from sequestration. we have this on twitter. jacksonville, florida, hi. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question for you, dylan -- i feel like people have not talked about the sequestration being a gamble on the american people. .e're seeing it unfolds now it is just a gamble. it is crazy. guest: there are a lot of things we are gambling on.

i talk to someone who ran the national institutes of health and did research in this country under george w. bush. he said this will set back science for a generation. people would have become biologist but are not because they are concerned about funding. grants will not be levied to save lives. the national institute of health has about 140 nobel prizes to its name and it is being cut the same as everything else. host: because they are looking at sequestration for over the next 10 years? guest: they are being cut the same as any other agency or department.

it means fewer grants that lasts for a number of years that could lead to interesting conclusions for the country. that is an interesting fog. joe manchin wants to do exactly that -- that is an interesting thought. it would basically give agencies more discretion. you could say that you'll be cut 5%, do that how you like. they could target programs that need to be cut first rather than doing an across-the-board cut. i think that would appeal to a lot of people. it would put a lot of strain on

administrators within those departments. there would have to make some hard choices to figure out how to make that work. maybe people go to fewer conferences every year and have less professional training. host: 1 last tweet. guest: that is an interesting thought. that is a possibility that transfer authority would be able to play around a little bit. host: dylan matthews, thank you very much. guest: thank you for having me. host: what now turn to the housing agency. jon prior is here to talk about

the sequestration on housing. let's begin with the current state of the housing industry. guest: we are seeing some good news. 2012 a big turnaround for the housing market. 2012 was the turnaround. go are seeing home sales co- up. borrowers are seeing some equity return. it is a fragile recovery. we have taken an off life- support but it has not been checked out of the hospital yet. host: what could be the impact on the housing industry? guest: the lesson we learned is

how attached the jobs market. if you take away 750,000 jobs, you will see more rich performance suffer going forward. there's a lot of people heading nine. 2.7 million people that are scraping by on savings. if you take away another income, you could see more foreclosures or delinquencies go up. you can see the turnaround began in home prices. it could go back down. the possibility for more delinquencies. it could be a real setback for this year. host: the housing and urban development.

how does it compare to other agencies? guest: it is big. the budget is about $45 billion . regulates thousands of companies. it provides financing through the fha to low income and first- time home buyers. it is not as big as some of the other defense organizations in d.c. it will not take the brunt of penalties some of the other agencies will feel but it is sizable and has a big footprint. host: let's listen to what the hud secretaries have to say. [video clip] >> it would be destructive to hud programs and those who rely

on them. it would cause significant damage to our nation's housing markets. sequestration would mean about 125,000 individuals and families losing assistance provided through the house insurance voucher program and becoming at risk of homelessness. more than 100,000 homeless and formerly homeless people being removed from their programs and putting them at substantial risk of returning to the streets. host: what is the secretary talking about? guest: the biggest hit will be to the voucher program.

the biggest hit will be to that program. the issue is 125,000 people are not going to be thrown onto the street on march 2. they will first look at -- they will try to target the outstanding vouchers that have not been paid yet. the vouchers that they are still seeking someone to work with a landlord, for instance. they would withdraw that money first. then dodgers that maybe expire in two or three months. those people looking for a new home, expected to leave soon,

but that's a process that will take place over two or three weeks into march. is not that 125,000 people will hit the streets on march 2 but it's still a painful cut for those people who depend on those vouchers. host: hud put out a letter outlining what happened. host: what does that mean for the foreclosure rate in this country? guest: it has become something of a disaster. it is elongated in places like new york. there are different settlements coming down from different agencies here in d.c. they do provide more options for

homeowners to avoid foreclosure. it is a lengthy process. .ou'll need a counselor people who go through these agencies can access some of those options like a refinanced through some of those new programs. if you take away those counselors, the process becomes difficult for people to navigate. i don't think you'll see foreclosures spike initially. there is such a backlog in this country. there is 10 million or so people trying to get by in the delinquency stage. if you take away those housing counselors, there is less help

to navigate through that complicated process. host: our top . is the fha-backed loans slowed. guest: most for minority communities and first-time home buyers. hud possibly cut some of the administrative people that operate fha. fha faces $16.3 billion shortfall from actuaries study. the white house budget is supposed to come out i marcn march. they will have their own assessment as to what the

shortfall will be. or some policy changes. a lot of people working very hard to cover the shortfall. if the sequester goes into place, they will be taking manpower away from that agency to cover that. they will pull another housing bailout. that is probably more unsavory than some of the budget cuts being considered. host: first phone call, bob in minnesota. caller: good morning. my question regarding a financial institution hanging onto foreclosed properties and roppedg the market porppe up. win the release of those

properties have a greater effect than the sequester problem and the impacts ? tost: that's one theory -- release these foreclosures, that will relieve some pressure on the banks and that can free up more lending. we have an inventory shortfall. a lot of people are keeping their homes off the market. if you reduce the housing counselors, some funding for that, you could see home prices sink again. if you bring out foreclosures -- they typically sell less than former home sells. i am not sure that is a theory people want to experiment with right now.

there are signs of recovery in the market. these foreclosed homes are being managed. that could throw off the momentum we are seeing. host: we have a tweet. is it a big deal for hud? guest: it is. it is not something that should be taken for granted. the house recovery is not something we can all be counting on to continue going from here. if you go in and cut people for fha that are supporting 1/3 of the market, it seems backwards to what congress is trying to do for the housing market.

it is not something that should be washed over. host: thomas, republican caller. caller: i am a disabled combat veteran. i just got into a home. are you going to cut the disability pay or the educational benefits? is that affected by the sequester? guest: i'm not sure where the cuts or for education. the homeless cuts are going straight to the shelters. hud will cannot possibly laying off employees and cutting back some of those services that you mentioned. 100,000 homeless people might be put back on to the streets.

it is perilous for people at the lower income of our society but those kind of things could go away. host: we have this on twitter. jim in alabama. caller: hi. i meant by the leak graduate and not 74 and a ban on social security -- and have been on social security. my friends and i -- they are fairly politically active in all three parties -- we do not believe this devastation that

people are warning us about will actually happen. we think it is like crying wolf. i wonder why the administration and other agencies are not telling us about the way they will adjust to it, all of this scare tactics. why were all bus social security get aents, we didn't raise in our social security at all. we did get one this year, a couple of percent. we all adjusted. there will just run themselves more efficiently.

they will get rid of the dead wood. host: what about that? guest: that is an interesting point. one official told me he never had to prepare for something like this. i think that is the issue. hud has not put out guidons to some of the local affiliates. we're still trying to figure wrapped what we need to adjust. it is almost on a principal what congress is up to right now. we should not be dealing with these sort of self invented crises. there are a lot of things that those in the industry are looking to possibly start home

shopping soon. there are large reforms that need to be undertaken right now and are long overdue. we are instead dealing with these budgetary issues that seemingly have no end. they keep coming up and our kicked down the road. yesterday we have the bipartisan policy center introduce a very well thought out and choreographed plan for what to do with fannie mae and freddie mac and how to move this market into the next generation of tit. a lot of people are strolling about why we're not taking on those problems and why we are settling for tackling these political issues that keep coming up when we should be

forming more housing policy and more concrete plans that could help homeowners and lenders to free up more credit and help the housing market a little bit better. host: how does sequester impact relief to those on the east coast impacted by hurricane sandy? guest: it was brought up in the committee hearing. the congress did pass some help that will go to these communities affected by the storm. we're considering cutting back some of that. it puts in limbo that money and plans for getting things back to normal there. the cuts are real and could pull back some of the assistance to

build up some of the homes damaged in the storm. you just approved these funds and now we could be cutting into them again. host: virginia in cincinnati, ohio. caller: i'm wondering if the sequester is as bad as the president is saying it is an scaring all the people to death. why is see flying in air force one, what is in heat in washington, d.c., talking to the democrats and republicans to get this settled? sale of all the these planes and tanks to egypt, why couldn't that have been stopped? that's not fair for us to be

giving them all that kind of stuff. host: got it, virginia. guest: that is some of the frustration. this administration and congress are doing things, they are tackling issues that some of us back home are wondering, why are we doing some of these things? a lot of these things are distractions away from more thorough reforms to put things back together again. the housing market is not a normal place right now. we are relying so much on fannie and freddie and fha. if we continue down this path, we will not get to the

complicated and policy-wonk task of dealing with these issues in getting the housing market back to where it should be. host: speak about hurricane sandy, governor cuomo wants to use parts of federal money to buy out homeowners and they will get 100% of their home's m value. homeowners could receive another 5% if they relocate on staten island. host: tony in florida it is up

next for jon prior. caller: hi. i want to say something on the sequester. i am a federal firefighter. we're getting ready to be furloughed where we will lose 30% of par paour pay. my wife is on disability. the crying wolf thing is not crying wolf. this is happening. anytime you lose 30% of your income, that is tough. our rates for housing and flood insurance and wind insurance, everything continues to go up. we have not had an increase in over three years.

we are not crying wolf. i don't know what your take on that would be. guest: that is a good point. that is the issue. places that are hard hit by the housing crisis are just now starting to come back. home prices in las vegas showed their first double digit home price gain since before the crisis. there are still 10.4 million people that are under water on their homes. there is still a lot of people just hanging on. the recovery is growing. people are putting their lives back together.

we are at a level that we have not seen since the early part of 2007. congress is about to put in cuts that could damage the economy and set people back again. people are not prepared for another hit. housing is not equipped right now to take the kind of blow it could possibly receive. host: we have a tweet from one of our viewers. guest: right. that is the issue. before the crisis if you ran into trouble, would refinance or sell your house. home prices took a plunge.

we cannot refinance these home owners. if these prices sink even further, more and more people will not be able to refinance. they will not be able to afford the payments. it goes back to what congress is trying to do. there are bills in the house and the senate. if you do something like the sequester, the damage the economy again and send home prices down. more people will not be able to take revenge of those opportunities. host: 70 in missouri -- cindy in missouri. good morning. go ahead with your question or

comment. caller: i have a comment about the shelter care program. i mentally ill. because of that, i lost my home of 33 years. i live in joplin, missouri. i got a notice saying my shelter will come to an end next month. i feel i'm going to be out on the street again. i'm just wondering, is to anything to be done about that? host: jon prior? guest: there are local housing officials i spoke to this week

who are trying to -- they understand there are people at risk of hard times ahead if this goes through. they are trying to develop plans to ease people into some other option and maybe find some other funding for them, privately funded shelters. there's a lot going on right now to figure out how to make up for these cuts that are coming simply for political reasons. host: explained the local housing administrators, the chain of command up through washington and who controls housing on a state level. guest: the state and the local officials. they are the ground troops for taking direction and taking money from the government's to

the ones that are operating these programs, the ones setting the money to landlords and sending subsidies to homeowners and to the shelters and organizing these things and making sure that people are in the right place. these budget cuts, they have not seen anything like this before. this all theall t sudden, it puts them in a bind on the ground level. some people say there's not enough funding to make up for some of the stuff that government is considering taking away our right now. even though you take away vouchers that are outstanding,

usually that money does not comeback. you will see fewer doctors going forward -- you will see fewer vouchers going forward. host: how big is the federal housing program and other programs like that? guest: a lot of people depend on that program, something like 2.5 million people and most of those people are minorities. they will be directly affected by those cuts. host: joel in georgia. caller: how are you? i have a question about the independent full closure review

settlement that was reached in january. they have stopped all reviews, case by case reviews. how were they going to decide the distribution if they are not doing more reviews? guest: that is an interesting question. in april 2011, 14 banks saddled with the office of the comptroller and the regulators over past abuses. they pledged to offer reviews to homeowners to see if any of those abuses cost financial harm. those reviews were more expensive for the banks and