look at the american diet and the obesity and diabetes rates. "washington journal" is next. ♪ >> and is the final weekend before congress returns. they will talk about control and the federal budget. we get a glimpse of the president's plan for a budget that includes cuts to social security and medicare. the new york times has this headline -- . to get youre response to that this morning. here are the numbers to call.

you can also find us online. you can send us a tweet or join the dialogue on facebook are looking for c-span two way gain. you can also e-mail us. "the new york times" this morning. president obama next week take the political risk of formally opposing cuts to social security and medicare in his annual budget in an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with republicans and revive prospects for a long-term deficit reduction deal. in a significant shift in fiscal strategy, mr. obama on wednesday will said a strategy that departs from the usual wishlist

>> we will look at some more headlines with regard to the story.

they fear a change to the consumer price index would reduce benefits. reveal hisepares to budget next week, he is under pressure to try do reduce the deficit and has already signaled he will call for tax increases, but liberal groups are freight he will embrace changes to social security and medicare. robert rice said yesterday that the obama administration should not change the way the annual cost-of-living a judge -- cost- of-living adjustments should be decided.

we are getting a sense this morning of what president obama 's 2014 budget will look like. he plans to send it to congress next week. we would like to get your response. what does it say to you to hear a said -- to hear a headline that social arounds are finding ? setback with president obama proposea's budget will a new inflation formula.

our first caller this morning is john on our independent line. i heard the headline this morning. obama never learns. social security is not responsible for any part of the deficit. healthcare is the problem. ,t's when obama and tom coburn you could say between $70 billion and about $150 billion year by streamlining healthcare and doing away with the fraud which is rampant in medicare, i .ean a and obama will be coast the republicans have paid him already.

host: what would you like to see him sent to congress as a budget? caller: i know the rep combo pins want to fight it, but he gives you a clear idea of where they stand to we still have the lowest tax break in 50 or 60 years. it just doesn't work. austerity in europe has been a massive failure. they are in their third recession. i would turn a deaf ear to the republicans. the haven't come up with anything that makes any sense for the general population, particularly those on the lower end of the income scale. host: was good to republicans. welcome to washington journal.

i am a social security recipient, retired any years. 77 years old. my issues simply the government is corrupt with our money to my with taxpayers money. we see it in the food stamp program. we see it in the promotion of disability in that area. earns an income over the years and paid into social security really doesn't count. those are considered conservative. isthe government -- froming to those those who did and do work to

those who don't. and that really fraud is what we are faced with there is nothing that government really does and the service arena that can compete if it has to go against the private sector. , overst office, services the years have gone up much faster than comparison of others. the oil companies are supposed to be the villains. 10the 1915's, you could mail letters for a gallons -- in the 1950s, he could mail to letters for a gallon the gas. today, it is four dollars and $.50 for 10 letters. we have another caller

from hi linda. what do you think about these headlines we are seeing? why he i can understand allows the republicans to touch social security because the poor people are the ones who got him reelected. that is the only income they got, social security. i was just wondering why would they want to cut that. that is ludicrous to me. at of everything to negotiate with, old people, that is all they got.

[indiscernible] their whole entire life that they have worked, 20-30 years. and then they want to touch social security. i think it is crazy for me. out of all the budget of anything that they wanted touch, why social security? caller host: this is a tweet. more from the new york times about president obama's budget

jst let me know wh caller: we've been paying into social security for years. i am in sioux city, florida. i have cancer. i have a son in michigan who has

down syndrome and an ex-wife in michigan who isn't making it. like to help them out. but i can't. i can barely make it here in florida. host: tell us about how the cost-of-living works for you. caller: i am on food stamps. i am very out. fortunate. unfortunately, where i need to go next for therapy, my insurance company won't pay them enough money for me to get the

therapy i need to get back on my feet. host: while we are asking for people to share their opinions, you can share your thoughts. us a tweeto send and we can share your thoughts on the air. peggy ended kingstown, pennsylvania on our independent line. air.re on the

turned on your tv and talk to us. maybe if was thinking, obama started cutting their paycheck and everything instead of cutting social security or for the troops and their meals and stuff, maybe we would be able to have money where we need it. host: what do you think about potential changes to social security, medicare? i think it's a bad thing because people worked all their lives to get social security when they got older. i think it's unfair. republican line. say that just want to social security won't survive anyway because it has no enforcement arm.

you have tens of thousands of people who are working on paying in. so he can't survive anyway. host: so what would you do? would you get rid of it or make sure people paid into it? caller: it's a failed program. it's going to fail anyway. host: are you on social security? are you planning to use it at some point? caller: at some point. but all the jobs are gone to all the manufacturing jobs are gone. let's hear from steve nine richmond virginia. caller: good morning, how you doing? think social security, leave it as it is. why not just leave that alone. just get ridcaid,

of the corruptness that is in it. president obama, i think he should stick to what he believes in. because the republicans they don't care of about america. the only thing they want to do .s destroy this president ca so just keep on the path he is going because he is leading the country in the right direction. here are some tweets coming into us. our: george's next on independent line. social programs are facing a cutback in obama's budget. caller: i have come to the

conclusion that obama has no backbone. he has no fight. he gives in all the time. i wish the man would stand up and fight. he is a prime example of the way this country has become. we have become a bunch of pansies in this country. congress has the one that has the congress has been the one that has fought for all of our laws. they are the ones who can retire after five years and a pension of $60,000. they are the ones that work a part-time job with full salary come full health care. this cut they take from us, that is what we need to deploy it will stand by and allow them to cut our benefits without cutting there's then we become a country of pansies. theydoes nothing to what put into their pocket. it tickled hundred 70 four thousand dollars on a part-time job, the work less than 150 days per year. go after congress. stop giving our country

expecting our money to other countries. with one hand we borrow money from china and we have to pay interest on that. with the other hand we are giving them tens of millions of dollars a year in financial aid. wake up america and stand up and stop being a country of pansies. host: criticism from franklin, ohio on the independent line. caller: the reason i'm calling -- it cracks me because it democrats or republicans coming in -- the program was set up to work to a certain point. when they did the studies on what age you should start, the average is 62. the average life span was 62. the whole program was set up where a majority of people are

going to pay into it and not everyone was kind and taking out of it. when you have a program that is set up for an age and progression of dennison makes that age range -- and the progression of medicine makes -- everyone is blaming the republicans and democrats and the really the big issue is modern medicine. you cannot keep taking money out of a program without having an aadequate base model number. it is mind-boggling that people do not want to make any changes. the average wages change. you have to make changes. >> give us a sense of how old you are. >> i am 24. host: as a young person what you think what the future looks like? caller: it is bleak.

the irony is i have been in the union my whole life. i consider myself an independent. i see the progression. people want everything to stay the same and people to not want to make changes to anything. i wish i could read this quote verbatim. when you take the wrong path you take -- the wrong path to get to a point where the most press aggressive idea is to turn around -- the most progressive idea is to turn around. host: thank you for sharing your opinion. to new orleans on the republican line. my concern is the people on social security have been working for 40 or 50 years. be ashamed of themselves. this is outrageous.

[indiscernible] the government has to pay for them. the younger people are making babies and old people have to pay for it. for sharing your perspective. one of her followers of twitter is responding to an earlier call. let us look more at the "the new york times" story we are quoting this morning.

mary, franklin, tennessee, a democrat, what do you think about this? caller: it is crazy they are after us instead of going after wall street. they do all those transactions and it completely disappeared, any thought of a transaction fee. those people play around with their computers thousands of times a day. just imagine the revenue that could come out of that. what isally frightening going to happen to our kids and grandkids. had it seems like we easy as baby boomers.

generalnd went from motors to the railroad. i made decent money. i worked at gm. now $7 per hour, you cannot live on that. now they are talking about cutting food stamps. , social security, that is the majority of people's income. that is all i have to say. look at the beginning of the story from "the new york times," to remind ourselves what this is about --

looking at the end of this story, it says -- john, an independent caller, go ahead. he is a scapegoat. he is a puppet for the rest. to be honest he plays both

parts. as far as someone who is on and disability and has the right to be on disability, there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system. but at the same time no one is peoplea care about the that can do anything about their situation. they have to go into the system because there is no job. split the wealth. if you take everyone from the poverty line and make them into -- you have no poverty. it cuts right off the bat. host: what you think about the specific it tells when it comes to medicare? the president proposes that cutting payments to health-care providers like pharmaceutical companies. he also proposes that the hiring beneficiaries pay more

money for the coverage they receive. both of thosek proposals are going to fail. cutting funding to the pharmaceutical company is going to increase their own revenue. all they are pointed do is charge more for the medication. basically now the medicare coverage -- there are people on medicaid who i know personally hardre not -- they have a time feeding their families on food stamps because it is such a hard time. cutting spending limits for congress. the president is only one person.

host: this is from the twitter -- mississippi, francis the joint is on the republican line. i love your show. i want to say something very simple and quick. we pay social security every month. corporations matchett. place. into a safe all of a sudden they tell us that that money is no longer hours. it will be there for our retirement. thank you.

host: "the washington times" chose this for aircraft -- shows us this photograph, and he has this to say -- cincinnati, ohio, democrats line. caller: i am very concerned. called the greatest anti- poverty program in history. we have had to spend all our money down. some of our people have alzheimer's. they needed medicare and medicaid.

asideyroll taxes are set that we are all paying for years. it is independently funded, that is why it was put together that way. why is president obama -- we know he is wealthy. not one person who is wealthy has been indicted by the justice department. we have cuts as a security and medicare. the least of us out here who have lost so much, our jobs are being outsourced overseas, people cannot earn a living. i am amazed the democratic president would stoop this low. host: did you vote for the president? 2008 i the first time in voted for him. it is like calling a 911 ambulance for a country. we needed help.

what was the choice? mitt romney? had that debt ceiling deal in 2007 -- from the program is heritage foundation. they were hiding in the white house. they did not want to talk to us. my mother is fine right now. i might be next. host: you have been motivated call our program this morning. caller: do you know who could

have been in office? minorities and women. i sat for hours in the hot sun and looking for the opportunity to vote for this man. i called my senators and congressmen. i do not know what is wrong with this man. host: that is, in ohio. we will get some perspectives and opinions from other callers. social programs are facing a cutback in obama's budget. steven from virginia beach, an independent, what do you think? caller: i think everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room. they are cutting programs like social security and stuff. what they need to look at is the amount we're spending on our military. it is over half the budget.

your children did not have health care or education, would you be spending half your paycheck on guns and weapons to bomb these other countries? than a bigger problem social security. we need to stop spending money on bonds. the other headline really adding to the president's pocket -- relating to the president's budget -- the headline in "the financial times," -- a republican,o,

hello. caller: good morning. i was wondering if you could hold up that paper that you continuously held up this morning. this is what i think c-span's big problem. host: which paper? caller: "the new york times," it is the subhead that interests me. the way the other americans would read it is it is slower way ofis a increase. it is still increasing so i find it hard to call that a cut. property --s famed framed propertly. has potomac fever.

it is still growing. it is just at a lesser rate. the lady fromor ohio, we should agree on hardly anything, kudos to her because nobody on wall street has gone to jail. host: before you go. you raised a fair point. let us show you what we are looking at here directly. this is where "the new york times" leads their story -- let us go into more details of this story. just to be clear we are reading from the papers. only headline we are sharing with you this morning. we are seeing in other newspapers that focus on other ankles of it's the story.

you said your big take away is that it is a cut to increases. what else do you think about the rest of the president's budget? we saisee he is when the heart f tax cuts for the financially wealthy. caller: i have to tell you a small vignette -- my accountants as i am in the 1%. a get into the 1% i lived in garage in a trailer for six years because my wife -- we did not have enough money to keep our business going or bite toilet paper. we kept our business going, we are in the 1%. i am a blue-collar worker. i just feel like the president more successful blue-collar workers. host: here is more from "the new

york times," -- that is according to administration officials. cpi idea known as the chain- has infuriated democrats and advocacy groups and they have already mobilized opposition. aboutning a little more what the term "cut" means. democrats line, a good morning. i would rather pay a

higher payroll tax at an age where someone is willing to hire a job inried to get my 50s or 60s when no one will hire me. regardless of the work, no one wants to hire an older man or an older woman. it raises the cost of insurance. they are not going to be there for 20 or 30 years. i would rather invest more into the payroll tax system and have a decent age to retire. i am 40 and i cannot retire until i am 67 because that age was already raised on me. in order to avoid these problems i say raise the payroll tax a couple percentage points and definitely take capital from so security. -- from social security. you: how much generally do put away in terms of a

percentage? do you set goals for your own savings and investments? a couple of more percentage point for payroll tax, do you take the equivalent of that and to pay that yourself? caller: i probably have 10,000 saved. i think social security should be there. i do not intend on lifting a fancy lifestyle. i am happy having a house and pay my bills. i would be happy with the monthly social security income. we could live comfortably in our old age like that. either one of us try to get a job in our 50s and 60s is just not going to happen regardless of how old we live too. no one is quite hire us at that age. host: here is a tweet coming yen --

kelly from river falls, wisconsin on our republican line. on our -- line. caller: the idea of cutting social security has got people talking. stockman on your program on a couple of occasions. i thought his presentation, while i never agreed with him, i think he is probably right about a couple of things. i am a hard core lefty. i agree with a lot more than we realize. wall street put us in this awful predicament and yet they bought all of the politicians in washington. i think about the military. all of those young men and women who are serving in the war, if they were brought home and spent all of those dollars we paid them here in america, what would

that do for our economy? i think we ought to have a social safety net. we cannot just throw our older citizens into the street. some point in at our lives. -- common man on the street let us say you are a conservative or liberal or a republican or a democrat, we agree on a lot more than realized. thank you for the program. happy easter. it was easter just this week. nasty crowded time that is supposed to be a rap reconciliation and peace --

supposed to be about reconciliation and peace. from "the is washington post," -- a majority of americans support legalizing pot, that is the headline in "the baltimore sun." look at this from "new york daily news," -- you can see the connecticut senator richard blumenthal embracing someone who lost children at the new town and school shooting -- at the newtown school shooting.

other stories relating to gun legislation are in the newspapers today -- here is what a senator from that state says -- and "the washington times" has this headline this morning --

a couple of other stories, president obama tells donors about the tough politics on the environment. the new york times reports that the president was at the home of an outspoken critic of the keystone xl pipeline. on sunday 149 air-traffic control towers are slated to close. the governor of -- andd and congressmen

the house's minority whip trent this in "the baltimore sun." we have been talking about the headlines in the paper, including this one in "the new york times." social programs are facing a cut back under president obama's budget. last caller on this topic in the spurt, virginia. -- in leesburg virginia. caller: those calling and saying we should pay into payroll tax -- that is nonsense. it is a pay-as-you-go system. for those receiving benefits right now -- there is no lock box.

it is nonsense. second point, the military theet is a majority of discretionary portion of the budget. over all it is a very small portion of the budget. i think what is important, i like the gentleman earlier talking about finding common ground. can we not agree that the country is broke? can we not agree on that? do the math. look at the budget. the money is not there. i know plenty of democrats did not like to talk about illegal immigrants. to me the people who are rich are the people who work, and i call them tax payers. we need to get our budget in order. i hope a common ground is we all

agree we cannot keep pressing money and borrowing to get ourselves into solvency. we have to get ourselves in order. .ost: john from virginia here are a couple of comments from twitter and facebook -- thanks for all of your comments ont his topic.

coming up next we will discuss the role of religion in politics. later on the editor and publisher of "the nation" joins for a conversation about progressive, politics. to help understand the history and development of the city, here is a short clip of an interview we did with mayor scott smith. have some unique personalities. it is a pioneer community that has come into the modern age, still embedded in its pioneer heritage. it is warm in roots. it is a big city, but hundred 40 square miles. -- 140 square miles. it still has a lot of small town attributes to it. -- is aa microcosm of

microcosm of the state of arizona. .e are 30% hispanic we are almost 140 years old. cities are living, growing organisms. they have a variety of life's. we have seen in big cities how they have prospered. they have fallen on hard times and the reinvent themselves. mesa is in one of those reinvention boats. from the time it started in the first big day its your building the band east of were mason wasme a crossroads -- where mesa was a crossroad. in many ways we went through it. where the talents -- in many ways we went through a period

where the towns -- we were never a bedroom community until the 1890's. we are reinventing ourselves, going back to where we were, which is the economic center. >> "washington journal" continues. host: he is with the president -- he is with the southern baptist commission. good morning for be here. let us start up with the basics. but as the southern baptist convention and how does your role relate to it? guest: it is the nation's largest non catholic denominations. they have over 40,000 churches. my role as president of the ethics and religious liberty commission is twofold. baptist christian about moral and public policy. and then we speak for churches

in the public square in the political arena. host: you have a background looking -- background looking working on politics. started as an intern for congressman taylor. great memories. host: what you see as the role religion should play in politics? guest: religion deals with ultimate matters, what the value and what it is -- how we see the world. i think religious people must be involved in public policy matters because as citizens we have a responsibility to care for the good of our neighbor, to maintain the common good of the nation. i think the nation has an interest in seeing to it that religious believers are involved in the process. after all what religion teaches us and shows is that the state is an ultimate, the culture is an ultimate, there are alternate

priorities beyond those things. when we come as christians or welims or choose -- or jews, are speaking to one another not to oppress one another or to -- not to oppress one another but to persuade them that it is for the sake of the common good. host: how does the ethics and liberty commission make recommendations? how do you determine what methods you share with both of the met this convention and the general public? guest: a variety of ways. southern baptists gather once a year in an open and free democratic process where southern baptist begun various issues we are concerned about. issues wen various are concerned about. helps to form a consensus.

and then to speak to one another, calling churches to give attention to things that we have not given attention to in the past. host: we see this piece -- that thecoincidence marriage, and control, and immigration are all in the news this month. the prominence measures a critical political shift: indus culture wars, the offense and defense have switched sides. what issues do advocate for their losing in the polls? guest: i do not like to think in terms of culture wars. we are not at war with one another. we have very deep disagreements on issues that matter. but i think we come to that with civility and in conversation. i do think as the tentacles we need to recognize that we are not speaking as majoritarian. we are not standing and saying

everything we are concerned about is by necessity with the entire country agrees with us. we are omitting issues that -- let's think about what it is you are bypassing. that has been the case with evangelical christians and with baptists particularly come all the way back to the founding republic that the.g seem to be a priority for many people. peoplehe percentage of who pulled in favor of same-sex marriage, you can see how it breaks down on religious lines. unaffiliated, 77% favor it. you could see other groups in the middle.

catholics, 48%. how do you hope the supreme court rules on the gay marriage issue we saw argued last month? we are looking at proposition 8, the defense of marriage act. guest: i hope the supreme court allows this conversation to go on in american society. i believe that marriage is a conjugal union between a man and a woman. but i think that is the kind of debate we need to have within american society, what is marriage? how what we understand this definition? because i believe the state does not define marriage, it merely recognizes something that already exists. i hope the supreme court will recognize the goodness of that ongoing debate in american society and as you circuit. also recognizing that the government has in interest in providing a definition and maintaining for the protection of children and families and future generations marriage.

i hope that the supreme court will take a prudent -- host: here is a piece you offered a couple of years ago -- how do you believe the issue of immigration should be handled right now? i think we need to recognize that those who have emigrated to this country are persons created in the image of god. they ought to be loved and respected. the kind of language we use in this debate ought to recognize that. the terms of direction towards

immigrant communities, words like anchor-baby, i think are de-humanizing. we ought to be standing for our neighbors who have emigrated to this country and say these are not things, these are persons. i also think we ought to welcome the kind of growing concensus that is happening on both the left and right. few people believe we are goign to deport 12 million people. what is the just way to move andpleople out of the shadows into the fullness of american life? i really think we are moving closer to one another on those questions. host: if you like to speak with dr. russell moore, here are the numbers.

our first caller is alfred in maine, of republicans lined -- democrats line, good morning. bring to lightto the legislation that is on the state legislature in north carolina, about declaring a state religion. i think the religious law right are engaged in a war against the rest of the country or "non- believers." they want this to be a theocracy. they are working towards this country being a theocracy to rid -- theocracy.

people in the military are coerced to either be religious orexpress their religiosity be subjected to discrimination within the military. religion has no business in politics. this man, from a religious point of view, has nothing to say about who gets married. host: let us get a response. guest: first of all, the last thing we want as evangelical christians is a theocracy. we believe as christians that people are reconciled to god through the power of the spirit and the proclamation of the word not reaction of the state. theot through the action of state. having state and forced religion would not moving towards the

gospel. that would make religion the equivalent of a driver's license. are foreligious -- we freedom of conscience, religious liberty, where we can have the playground to seek to persuade one another about those things we believe our ultimate values. i am able that i am able to speak to my neighbor about the value of the bible and my neighbor is able to talk to me about secular values or buddhist understanding of the bible. that does not mean we do not bring our sense of what is important into the public square. we all do. we bring our perspective of marriage. we do not claim every relationship to be marital. there is a reason why the state has an interest in marriage. that is highly -- hardly

theocratic. no one in the military believes .n coercing anyone what we want is for our chaplains to be able to practice and empower those servicemen and women to be able to live out religious beliefs freely. muslim chaplains being free to be muslims, catholic chaplains and evangelical kaplan -- chaplains, and with everything that means. that is not a theocracy. that is religious liberty. florida. david, independent line. -- seco vistaoore more, you talked about immigrants. is the southern baptist convention not a very wealthy

convention? guest: we would largely be a lower or middle class convention. seco -- six months ago did you not have someone have to step down because they stole money? guest: no. my comment is if you have an attitude like that, who is going to feed those people. " because we have enough financial problems in this country in my closing argument is if we stop complaining and we start doing something about it, and so start changing in this country. host: all right, david. but get a response here it guest: many -- let's get a

response. guest: many of the immigrants are not coming to this country to take, but get a better future for their children. of course, the children -- the church needs to be on the front lines of ministry to all of those that are impoverished and vulnerable, putting immigrants in our communities, and that is what churches are doing. go to an evangelical church and are a roman catholic church, and you will probably find a ministry taking place at the front line with immigrant communities being welcomed into the country and helping them to get their feet on the ground. i think that is already taking place. what we should not do is see immigrant communities in the way that your question would imply as takers. we should see what these immigrant communities can bring

to this country and how we can help to give them a step ahead. host: let's look at american perspectives on how illegal immigrants should be dealt with. we recently saw evangelical groups calling for what they say should be a clear path to citizenship. guest: i support a path to citizenship and i think those numbers bear out a growing consensus that says we actually agree more than we disagree. nobody is for totally open borders. we must have border security. nobody is saying we ought to have the kind of police force that would come in and deport 12 million people. what is the alternative? how do we just we, fairly and

humanely help people to become continued in parts of the society and have the kind of future they came here looking for. many of them are holding two ourican values and christians, i would add. a question of what is the path to citizenship mean. we want them to move forward with us as a country. talk tow do we republicans who do not agree with you -- senator ted cruz and others who are self-professed christians. how do you speak with them about this issue? guest: most people on either side of the issue had valid and legitimate concerns. some that are fearful or concerned about a path to citizenship are arguing what we

do not want to do is somehow penalize people who have played by the rules and have come here and we also do not want to tear down the rule of law. i would argue we have been giving mixed messages in this country to immigrants all along and my predecessor as president of the ethics and religious liberty commission has said that our message at the border has been simultaneously keep out and help wanted. i think that is true. since that is the case, we need to find a way to take the next step. the concern is valid at the front end but i do not think ultimately it is workable. host: russell moore is our guest. he is the president of the southern baptist convention. he mentioned his predecessor, richard land leaving that position. you are 41 years old. what does it mean to have a young person in this position?

am not sure 41 is young. host: compared to 66 it is. guest: i think what is happening is there is a connection of generations. some of the generational fragmentation we have seen in our churches is starting to be resolved. young people are active and vibrant within evangelical life. we also have a great tradition. bridge between the younger baptist christians and older generations. host: albert) -- albert on the republican line. there really is a war you have to wage and it is that the secular left is trying to turn this country totally around. there were is against

christianity, any form of it. do it in our schools, have tried to take away the values this country was started on. what infuriates me is i see no christians trying to involve themselves in the secular left and how they approach their religion. it is in schools, work, every phase of american life. in rhode island here we have a statue up that said god bless veterans that died in world war ii and we had to take it down. we have to get these judges to stop these decisions. there is a work the secular left is waging against the christian society in this country. host: let's leave it there albert and get a response. guest: where i would agree is there is an understanding that

having separation of church and have aeans one do it in our sct secularizing influence that marginalizes the voices of religious people and people of faith. christian and as an american i do not believe that is the way to go. you need to not silence voices but in power voices so that we have more conversation including about those things of ultimate importance, the faith that animates us, and had disagreements about those things. i would agree with him that there is often a misunderstanding of religious liberty and separation of church and state that leads to some really serious threats to religious liberty in this country that i think we ought to be concerned about in the future. sometimes the debates we have in terms of how we frame this as a war on us are less than helpful, but i do think it is an important conversation. host: caller right here in

washington, d.c. thanka democrat. caller: you for taking my call. i think this man pots voice is important in the discussion. developed ave not true position. i am still grappling with the idea of not forcing anyone to be like i am. my ministry and one part of my ministry is a way to compel people by the way i live him and if that happens to be what i moreit is one thing, importantly by the way i live. if they choose to take that way of life, that is what we are called to do. peopleights, i think should have the choice to choose. host: are you talking about gay marriage? caller: i am talking about any aspect of life.

including gay marriage. i am not for gay marriage, but i do not want to force my beliefs on anyone, just as anyone who chooses to be an atheist, it is not my right to make it legally where they have to become a rich and. i -- a christian. i, like many people, are going in that direction. we cannot force anyone to be what we are. by the same token, i do also believe that those that are not in agreement with them do not have the total right to define something like marriage already exists between a man and a woman. host: a quick question before we let you go -- how much does your religious faith increase -- influence your vote and your politics? caller: it does impact it had to what degree, -- impact it. to what degree, i am still growing, and i cannot give you a number.

guest: i agree that nobody wants to course people to hold believes -- believes they do not hold her at the with saying that is -- hold. the problem with saying that, for instance on the marriage argue thatoth sides marriage is important in the state has to address the question of marriage. we both agree on that. we simply disagree on what the definition of marriage is. so we cannot simply say the state is going to ignore this and be totally neutral on the question of marriage as the state has an interest in marriage. what i would say is why is the state interested in marriage and i would say there is something unique about the a manal union between

and a woman that is different from other relationships and congress has an interest in that because of the harm that can be done to children and families in future generations. we should not coerce each othern and a woman, but that hardly takes all the issues off the table. host: a recent poll asked people whether they thought the legality of same-sex marriage should be based on the constitution or individual laws in each state. what does that say to you? guest: i think you have a lot of conflicting visions what it comes to the question of marriage right now. how are we going to frame the discussion? of sides recognize it is a complicated matter if you are going state-by-state. what happens to someone that is married in one state and not married in another state -- that was the intent behind the defense of marriage act before the supreme court. in terms of the federal government, we are going to recognize a certain definition of marriage and i believe the

state has an interest in man- woman, conjugal marriage. hostility no way a toward neighbors that are living lies in other ways. that is sadly to say this is a unique relationship the state to an interest in -- solely say this is a unique relationship the state has a interest in. host: carl, ohio. caller: i must be getting old because 20 years ago we would not be talking about these issues -- lawbreakers raking the law, gays getting married -- family values are out the door. they are gone for good. i am scared because the liberals have really ruined this country and the republicans have not helped much. they have made things worse. we are not talking about getting jobs. we are talking about getting rid of social security and medicare. i do not believe how much we

have changed in this country. thank you. i agree with carl that we have had some sudden changes. consider the same-sex marriage argument. this conversation has changed dramatically since 2004 and even in the last month or two. that is one reason why social conservatives would say that we ought not to have radical changes on the basis of this cultural moment. if you have something as important as marriage historically and culturally we ought to protect and conserve it. host: a question from twitter, jonathan writes what will be the position on fiscal issues? guest: christians disagree on what particular fiscal and economic policies ought to be, so you will not see a specific

policy on what next year's budget ought to look like from elrc, for instance. we should have the values that shape the way we see economics and hours spent ability to live within our means and to provide people with the ability to provide for their families and children but we will not be in a position that assigns bible verses to everything. host: our guest is the president elect of elrc, who will start in the job june 1. florida. angie. good morning. it is great to hear your voice and stand up to the christian belief. i think everyone has the opportunity to make their own choices, but i think our country

was founded on the principles of the bible. i do not think redefining what things are is good. marriage is marriage. he created man and woman from man. i think the last three colors thatyou had -- callers you had expressed a great deal of concern. as christians, he did not want to see our country fall by the wayside -- we do not want to see our country fall by the wayside. have financial problems. i am praying for you as a leader and a speaker that as you get up in front of people and you speak the word of what is true that people understand you are just trying to present the gospel in a way that i fork we should stand up what is right as christians. thank you for taking this time .o do that this morning

guest: thank you, angie. one of the things that is important for christian such as myself and for all people is to see what we are dealing with ultimately is an optimistic scenario, not a pessimistic scenario. the situations we face are important and in many cases direct, and the consequences are crucial, but if we such as y believe that jesus has said about the kingdom of god and the ongoing march of the gospel in history than we do not come to this as losers or people who are frantic or outraged. he come with a quiet confidence. andpeak to our neighbors seeks to do what is right, opposing evil in whatever form that is. we do not do that as people who are terrified. we do that as people who are confident in the power of the

gospel era -- gospel. host: russell moore, former presidential candidate mike huckabee has talked about residential candides being too moderate for evangelical. he said in the last individual presidential elections -- believe that jesus has said about the kingdom of godshould g further to the right in terms of social values? guest: i do not think the question is right or moderate. it is due these candidates care about the -- it is do these candidates care about the issues important to evangelicals and christians. having a candidate who really believes and articulates a position of protecting the unborn and the way that connects to every other aspect of the way we deal with each other as human persons, that is something that

has been missing for a long time. you have some evangelicals that feel they are simply taken for granted as an interest group. i think the answer to that is not for one party or the other to co-opt evangelical christians as an interest group. i think what has to happen is we have to make a compelling case for the importance of these issues and long for candidates that will be willing to not only listen to that, but also to articulate that vision of human life. host: what does it take for the ethics and religious liberty commission at the southern baptists to sanctify a candidate and say they support them, for example on abortion issues. does the candidate need to be polite to the extent that they believe abortion should not happen in the case of rape or incest?

guest: we do not endorse candidates. we deal with issues. we say to christians and churches that these are the whations on the table and we believe we have a priority to be concerned about -- the life of the unborn and a whole list of issues. also, speaking to policy makers to say are the things christians are concerned about and this is why. the pro-life issue is not a generational blip. it is something increasing. thenext generation have concern that we communicate that to elected officials and others but we do not endorse candidates. host: massachusetts. susan is a democrat. guest: good morning. my comment is about the bill of rights. when they mention the freedom of neligion, it seems like the gu

part -- they never focus on that second part. the first part is freedom of religion, and the second part is there should be no law that the government could make that would prohibit the free exercise of that religion. thisnk sometimes separation of church and state, which is offputting to some, is not really mentioned anywhere in the constitution and they start to get overboard on not allowing, say about a christian -- say, a christian group, having an area in the school to meet, or children in school talk about christmas or

hanukkah and explain to other kids what that is all about. i think tolerance and the more children know about each other and their faith and in their ethnic backgrounds, it makes for a better melting pot for our country. the other thing that i wanted to mention on the abortion issue, it is tough when government gets involved in those issues. they did it initially because women were doing horrible things to themselves to abort their children, and then they said well, they should get hospital care. then, it went overboard. , for any reason, is supposed to be fine. i think most people feel that

abortion is not right, but i think it is also between a person and god. he is the one that reads the heart of the person and makes the decision. we can say that it is outlawed or that it is fine, but either way it ends up being between the person and god. guest: except that there are italy will persons involved, -- that there are two persons involved. , is this, the embryo in fact a person? if so, then we hardly could say about any other person that that person's right to life is dependent upon someone else and that person's relationship with god or his doctor. we would say that person has an inalienable right to life that

is rooted in the image of god. life is not meaningful simply because of one's utility or wanted this. i human life is precious and worthy of protecting. that is the argument we are having. ?s this a person, our neighbor if this is our neighbor, we ought to see to it that this andon has a right to life, to work to help women and children move forward. that is the reason why i am for laws protecting unborn children , and for creating the kind of adoption culture and widow care culture in our churches that we would welcome in children whose adoptionhers have made plans and we would welcome in pregnant women in crisis. you see that around the country.

host: columbus, ohio. justin. independent line. caller: i had a quick question on the religious freedom aspect. you said you looked at religious freedom but a couple of issues have been brought up. you said there have been faith interests. what goes into the evaluation of whether there is a state interest or it should be left up to the individual? guest: that would depend upon the influence of the act on the rest of society. how does this affect our neighbors, the civic arena? we would all agree there are things we do not agree with, or that we would not choose ourselves to happen. i do not want to smoke cigarettes but i do not think smoking cigarettes ought to be illegal.

abortion, for instance, is something i believe does not simply impact a person. it is not just a moral decision. it takes the life of another person, therefore the state has an interest there. when it comes to marriage, most of us in this country do agree that the state has an interest in marriage. that is the reason why we have divorced laws, for instance, child support -- the state enforces child support because it is in the state's interest to see that children are not left without the safety net of stable families. the question then becomes what is the way to do that and what is the definition of a marriage , that is not restricting religious freedom. it is saying we have a responsibility to maintain a just society. host: dr. russell moore is president-elect of the ethics liberty religious commission.

southern baptist convention did an interview that gain some attention. here is the headline in "the huffington post." that reverend fred lutt -- said host: what did he mean, and what is your response? since thenas spoken and said he was not make any connection between gay marriage and the north korean nuclear

threat. what he was saying is we are living in a time of great tumble and change and all of these are pressing issues facing us right now. obviously i do not think he believes that north korea is in response to what is going on in the united states of america when it comes to same-sex marriage. he has clarified that. er is a heroic man, a godly man, who was one of the anchoring figures in new orleans after the katrina in leading the community toward recovery. i have nothing but respect for him. i do not think he is intending to say these issues are directly linked. he is simply saying we do not understand how to read our times with the great tumble going on around us. that is something many of the callers have expressed. , stephenveland, ohio

is a republican. , miss: good morning casey. i invite her -- admire you as an interviewer area -- interviewer. soundigned and 8 -- anything but cheerful is because i have not had my coffee yet and i am going to be 80 years old. i would like to ask a respectful question. host: we are listening, stephen. go ahead. guest: i am a baritone, i am a -- caller: i'm a baritone, i am a singer. roman catholic but i sing in the choir of the first baptist church in cleveland, ohio. the reverend dr. is tremendous and i listen adamantly to his service and i just want to ask wherer that -- mr. moore

wereys that joseph, mary illegal immigrants. host: are you saying they were illegal immigrants? caller: he said they were illegal immigrants, and asking what basis does he used to say that? guest: i said earlier when we are welcoming the sojourner into a strange land that we need to recognize that our lord jesus was an immigrant in egypt. his parents took him into the egypt after the threat coming into arid after living in a strange land in exile. people that follow the lord jesus have compassion upon people who are taking their children out of difficult situations, going into a

strange land where they do not know the people, do not have connections or support networks and show mercy to them. host: go get some coffee, stephen, and we will move on to bobby in oklahoma. , bobby. caller: how are you? host: good. caller: you have had callers today that take it as a secular war on christianity -- this gay marriage issue. i am a homosexual. i am almost 40 years old. i was raged -- raised in the church here i am very familiar with scripture. i do not see it as a war. i see it is finally we are able to speak up for our civil rights. i do not think it distances me from god. i think that the definition of marriage would be a lifelong commitment between two people, male or female, that love each

other and want to be together in the eyes of god forever, making a commitment. it is heard mention that for protection of the children and the future of family values. i do not see how that is different from two people who are straight being married and having children when i have been in the same relationship for 13 years and i do not see ever being outside of that relationship and i have never have been. i think we are finally able to bring this out in the open. there are so many laws that are based on christian sexual morality and i think we are tired of having it shoved down our throats. host: bobby, we are just about out of time. let's get a response from russell moore. guest: i would not say that

christian morality is shopping marriage down our throats. recently, there was a broad consensus in this country about what the minimal definition of marriage was. that does not mean we have been living in an ideal society when it comes to marriage. we have had a marriage crisis when it comes to divorce, cohabitation and all sorts of issues, but i do not think the answer of that is to expand the definition of marriage beyond natural limits. having said that, that does not mean that evangelical christians or catholic christians have hostility toward gay and lesbian neighbors. we do not. we have respect and love. we disagree about what the proper purpose of human sexuality is, which we believe is consigned to the marital union of a man and a woman, but we do not believe there is a war going on. most of us have gay and lesbian friends, neighbors.

we do not seek to oppress people. we seek insteadwe do not. we have respect and love to saye believe this issue is important because god has designed sexuality to work in a certain way for the good of the people and human flourishing. it is not hostility, but a matter of disagreement. host: that is russell moore, president-elect of the southern baptist ethics liberty religious commission. we have the jobless numbers in. here is the unemployment rate for march -- 7.6%, that are then february, which was 7.7%. 88,000 jobs were added. coming up next, we will talk to katrina vanden heuvel, editor and publisher of "the nation," and later on we look at how the american diet has changed over the last 50 years. we will be right back.

♪ >> they had a very political marriage much like john and abigail, so she was lobby in the halls of congress. now, she was always very careful to save my husband believes this and advocates that, but she herself was doing the pitch. one of her husband's opponents said he hoped that if james were ever elected president, she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman, and she said if james and i are ever elected i will neither keep house or make what are. >> monday night, one of the most politically active and influential first ladies, sarah polk.

we will look at her successor and take your comments by phone monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span three. >> all of us here in the colorado river basin are talking about somewhere between 35 and 40 million people now in the united states and mexico as well. we all depend on the colorado river as our basic water source. we need it for municipal use, houses, mining, industry, but most importantly the biggest user is agriculture. we cannot grow anything without it. it is considered to be the most litigated river in the world, and that is active. more lawsuits, compact laws created to regulate what is

collectively known as the law of the river. there are probably 13, 15 major laws that have spanned the whole 20th century, really, up until the present time, that talks about who gets how much of this water, who can take it -- how much every year, how to share it, and our relationship with mexico and the water as well. >> this weekend, book tv in american history tv tour mesa, sunday. saturday and >> "washington journal" continues. katrina vanden heuvel, --tor and publisher of the of "the nation joins us.

the article says the president plans to propose a new inflation formula that would have the effect of reducing cost-of-living a means for social security benefits. that would be protections for those in the low income bracket and very old beneficiaries. what do you think of this? guest: we have seen the new job numbers come in, and every time those numbers dip in the it is hopeful sign that there is a place.y kicking into i think the misplaced obsession with debt and deficit, of which -- socialction 30 security cut is part of, is crazy. social security should not be in the same sentence with the word deficit. at this point in our economy, we should not be cutting the pillars of the time and security for millions of people. i would argue, and there is a new report out from the new america foundation, that we

should be expanding retirement security -- the pillars of security for millions in this country. we've seen our economy blown up by financial institutions, banks too big to fail. to not let them send the bill for this mess to a battered middle class, a battered working-class. i think there will be a real fight. , kindk the president in a of, jujitsu politics is putting out a compromise to expose that the republicans have no compromise. to fighte important

back and to insist this is not the way to balance the budget on the backs of those that never truly shared in the so-called shared prosperity that so many talk of. host: you mentioned the budget battle we will see unfold in the next couple of weeks as congress comes back. we also expect to see immigration come to the forefront. react to what you know about immigration reform proposals here we have seen the gang of eight in the senate, with some ideas. theou have concern between ai clo and the chamber of commerce? >> i have not studied it -- guest: i have not studied it enough, but it is important that those entities, which have been at different views and i would recommend you read a piece that exposesn" the chamber for being the voice of big business and , butnational corporations i think we need to see the details of the deal. the history of the guestworker program in this country has not been a happy one. it is also resembled indentured

servitude. if workers get a living wage, that would work. i think the big problem, and again, this is a fluid process -- this gang of eight working on immigration reform. my concern has to do particularly with republicans, but democrats pushed hard to focus the time on the security side -- present obama has put in more security than any radius president. that border cannot not be more hyper securitized. -- previous president. hyperorder cannot be more securitized. i think you need to focus on a pathway to citizenship, not throw in too many obstacles, understand this is an inevitable process and find ways to do it that are humane and practical. i think both parties have a vested interest in reform.

the republicans understand it is political suicide to oppose immigration reform. on the other hand they have to be worried that the new ways, the new demographics, are not necessarily their voters, choose one -- which is one reason we see so much of this voter id legislation designed for a problem that does not exist, but republicans talk a lot about voter fraud and in many ways it is aimed at trying to deter people of color, young asple, latinos from voting fairly and squarely as they can. host: as we look at what the key components of immigration reform might be, we see securing the border as an element, the low skilled worker program, and reforming the visa laws for high-tech workers and also, a pathway to citizenship. some republicans are talking ."out a pathway to "status

what does that mean to you? guest: there is an effort by the republicans to out this family visa program which has been at the heart of immigration policy for years in favor of high skilled workers, but that will affect women disproportionately because many women are not coming for work reasons, but they are coming with family. the status factor is one way to put obstacles in the smooth pathway to citizenship which should be at the heart of a smart and in the -- humane immigration bill. host: katrina vanden heuvel is editor and publisher of "the nation. let's go to the phones and hear line.erek, independent i think we lost them. debbie, fort lauderdale, florida. she is a republican. caller: hi, katrina.

how are you? guest: fine, how is florida? ander: it is raining today i'm a middle-class american, what we need to do is grow our $.33my is tax wall street on every transaction. europe is going to do this. this do not do this, country is doomed. this is a republican speaking. i am telling everybody to vote out every single republican that does not agree with this. guest: debbie, i love that idea and i have written about it at ."e "nation i think the idea of the robin hood tax, financial transaction tax, speculation tax, it is an idea whose time has come. it is taxing a penny, worth three pennies on every hundred

itlar transfer of stock, and would slow down the speculative machine, and depending on which legislation you go with, it would provide maybe 350 billion dollars or more over 10 years from and the great thing and i am so glad you are republican -- this is the moment. there is a lot of talk about how we cannot have bipartisanship. i think we can find bipartisanship or even trans- barthes and ship on a slew of things -- trans-partisanship on a slew of things. financeervative german minister has been a strong component of a financial transaction tax. 11 members of the european union have supported a financial transaction tax. we need to bring on republicans, independents among democrats emma people of conscience, who

understand that the way our country is going without additional revenue, particularly revenue from those that have made out so well in the last 40 years, particularly the last 10 years, should be part of this rebuilding and reinvesting in america. host: to speak with katrina vanden heuvel, here are the numbers to call -- a recent piece she had in "the washington post" is about eight sick leave. she writes "more than 40 million americans, is proportionately low income black and latino paid time offo when they or their children are ill." , if youvanden heuvel could change federal policy in terms of helping workers, what

are won or two of the big items you would go for? guest: probally the biggest is to really restore the collective bargaining power of workers in this country, which has been ripped away the last two decades. restoring the power of unions in this country -- they brought us the eight hour day, weekends. many of the new jobs being created are low-wage jobs. you need to restore the bargaining power of workers as a force to the growing, excessive power of corporate america. it is a scandal in this country that the minimum wage is not where it should be. $20hould be at about $18 or if you factor in inflation or cost-of-living. there is a fight over

increasing it to $10 or $11. to me, people who work full-time should not be living in poverty and that is the case for to many in this country. then there is paid sick leave. talk about pro family. a bipartisan issue, things that people of common sense should rally around -- if you work hard and you get sick, you should have 5, 6 paydays. i am very glad that my city, new york city, after good organizing from groups time they got a piece of legislation through in nancy pelosi in the house has a good piece of legislation, but i think the main thing to focus on is the fact that over the last 40 years worker wages, salaries, has stagnated. what ec see as a result this terrible inequality in this country -- what you see as a result is inequality and it

leads to unfairness, disparities of wealth, education, housing, lack of social mobility and in this country, built on an unfulfilled american dream, social mobility is not when it is in parts of europe, which is also under stress. i think restoring workers borrowing pop -- bargaining and building in the social safety have earned,ers and it is not entitlements, just a term that i dislike. host: wyoming. autumn on or republican line. caller: hello? host: you are on the program with katrina vanden heuvel. caller: i had a comment on the immigration issue.

i do not think we need immigration reform because there are people here from turkey, greece, russia, poland, all over the world, and they are able to find their way to an immigration office, take the test, pledge allegiance and try and become nationalized american , iizens, but the issue think, is that we have people from central and south america that come here and they really do not have a desire to become nationalized. they just want to be here and work and send all of their money back. i'm a blue-collar worker, so i have done a lot of food and beverage, so i have worked with a lot of people from central and south america. -- they dom even try not have a desire to become american citizens. they are here, and i think that , because they are

existing outside of -- guest: i hate to stereotype and categorize millions of people from a part of the world in one swoop, with all respect. i think many of the people you are describing do want to come out of the shadows, and i think you just cannot deal with reality if you think that some 11 million people are not seeking some form of living legally in this country with the rights and protections accorded with that. what is interesting is president obama goes to mexico in may. there is a fantasy about all these people coming across the border, which have been secured. the greatest portion of the budget might be on this ice program and security, that there has been net migration back to mexico or zero

countryn into this because so much as to do with the economy. the economy is strong in mexico. people do not necessarily want to leave. when they come and seek work, they come and seek legal protection. i would hate to consign millions of people from a certain part of the world in the way you did. trina vanden who will, we saw the president on the road -- katrina vanden heuvel, we saw the president on the road, talking about gun control and doing some fund raising. he balances his agenda with hopes of getting the house to go democratic in 2014. is the president spending too much time on the road, spending too much time in washington -- not enough time in washington

trying to get issues hammered ?ut with republicans guest: not a lot is happening in washington. we have had a lockdown in senate where we have seen abuse of the filibuster in ways we have never seen in the past. every piece of legislature seems in theilibustered senate. the house is lockdown in a battle between tea party extremists and i do not know who, but i think it is in port and that the president gets outside of washington more to install the healthcare program, to be out there talking to people. there is a different element, which is the fundraising. how you work in a system to transform it while at the same time trying to win an election is a big issue, meaning i think the president should speak more clearly about the need for fundamental campaign-finance reform outside of washington more.

he has supported overturning citizens united, a piece of legislation that has corroded our country, given to us by a right-wing court. i do think the president could show more of a commitment to step forward toward empowering small donors and not just do these big fundraisers, or organizing for action. i think it is very complicated and a lot of good public watchdog, campaign-finance accountability people inc. it is a mistake. i think there needs to be -- think it is a mistake. gunink there needs to be a control, the rights of women, immigration reform as part of the agenda, but you need to speak more clearly about how it is our priorities in this country are so distorted and one of the central reasons is you have entrenched interest -- big- money interests, lobbying interests, getting their way inside of washington and state

capitals when ordinary voices are drowned out. we need a level playing field and we need to tackle what senator elizabeth warren has called a rigged system. people feel it in their got. the sense of a rigged system working on behalf of the powerful is something that this money system in our politics is really reinforcing. host: what would you do with organizing for action? would you put more of a firewall between the white house fa is doing? rant: the president brilliantly on mobilizing a small donor network and i am sitting in new york city, which has perhaps the best campaign finance model right now because existed indown what arizona and the state of maine, .ix-he has supportedto-one matcg

we have a candidate running for mayor of new york city who is the city's public advocate and he was in our office yesterday and he said without the matching system it would be hard for someone like him, a true progressive, to have run and be as effective as he can because it has leveled the playing field. ofash the president with was building a small donor network and not going to the big bucks as much as it appears to be doing. also, mandatory disclosure -- i think there is a voluntary disclosure agreement with ofa. it will be interesting to watch. this is unprecedented in many ways. obama leaves the white house with this apparatus. it will clearly not be as powerful when he leaves the white house, but it is a new

fangled instrument and i think it should be as clean as it should be and mobilize to fight interests around gun control or immigration, living wages, the minimum wage. so, many times these problems are not black-and-white. you do need to allen's -- balance. the forces of big-money undermined economic justice, common sense gun legislation -- all of that has to be taken on, but how one does it, i wish it were more organized people as opposed to organize money. host: katrina vanden heuvel is editor and publisher of "the nation." she joins us from new york city. you can read her writing at the nation.com. you can also read her columns in the washington post.

henry is in michigan on our democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning, katrina. i would like to let you know that i have the utmost respect for you, but i will tell you i have a laundry list of things and i hope the moderator will give me time to let you know what i think is wrong with our site. i am a staunch democrat. i am really upset because i do not believe that the president has enough soldiers in the media, which you represent. i think republicans play hardball. what we need to do is change some of the words that we use because i am sure you are familiar with the power of words and what words can do it you use them -- do. you use them