flowers on the duplication of federal programs. good morning and welcome to washington journal on this monday, april 15, 2013. it is tax day. the house and senate are in this weekend. we saw the republican from florida take to descend a shot the tape to the sunday talk shows to address immigration. he is signing on to an immigration reform package. we expect see unveiled this week. we would like to get your impressions of this and response to the details. here are the numbers to call to weigh in on the senate plan to introduce an immigration bill this week.

you can also find online, send s a tweet by writing @cspanwj and you can join the conversation on facebook. or you can e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. here is "the wall street journal," covering the potential immigration bill we will see later this week. you can see images of senator mark rubio on a variety of shows, including cbs, abc, nbc -- he picked up his hearts of foreign immigration overhaul to skeptical republicans saturday.

be key to pitching immigration plans to conservative lawmakers. details of what he is proposing as well as with other senators are shaping up. we would like to take a look at more of the stories. what is going to be in the bill? a bipartisan bill to revamp u.s. immigration laws including giving millions of undocumented immigrants at pathway to citizenship is expected to be introduced into the senate this week. that is from "bloomberg."

the bill would be subject to hearings and negotiations as lawmakers and president barack obama's administration attempt to craft a major overhaul of u.s. immigration laws for the first time in nearly three decades. the to tell us more about immigration bill is -- talk to us about any sense of a time line and what we may see and fail regarding immigration. there's a chance this bill could be revealed as early as tuesday. there is always a lot of opposition to this bill, which would provide a pathway to citizenship to the 11 million people in this country who came illegally. senator mark rubio and the gang of eight do have a tough road ahead. republicans are very critical.

they believe the path to citizenship is a deal breaker. the want to see a bill that is strictly focused on the border security first. many republicans do not believe that is the case. mark rubio said or security is a top focus. >> immigration not the only thing. we are hearing about gun control. was the game plan now? there is the bill on the floor. what might we see? wally had keep people like senator susan collins saying they would vote for the compromise, people tell us they are not entirely sure if this bill has enough backing behind it. a representative believes it will be very slow. there are a lot of heavy hitters such as the national rifle association raid began --

national rifle association weighing in. host: we also had the president unveiled his 2014 but last week. will we hear a conversation about budgeting? caller: there always will be. republicans do not believe the budget unveiled and the white house last week represents a compromise. the president is not dealing with in the confines of sequestration. many folks who are in charge are coming out to defend the 2014 budget. not goingl issues are away, either. >> whahost: what else are you watching? all eyes are really on

the transition to 2014 when american forces start to get out of town -- when american forces get out of afghanistan. dearest love threat of further missile test from north korea. john kerry is in south korea this week. host: we also will see the head of the veterans affairs testify for the senate veterans' affairs committee. that is at 2:30 this afternoon why is that significant? he has been under fire from the recent backlog of disability. they say he has not done enough to make sure the men and women who served this country are getting the disability claims money they need to be cared for.

will faceupgressmen -- allow congressmen will show opposition. important to engage in a public dialogue with him. summers, thank you so much for giving us a sense someone to watch this week in congress. caller: law. host: there is a lot going on including a potential immigration bill. michael rubio hit the sunday talk shows. let us take a listen to what he had to say. [video clip] >> they don't get anything. what is the opportunity to apply for. the staff still qualify for tweet have to pass a background check, a registration fee, pay a fine, and then they have to renew it. this is a renewal thing. they do not qualify for any federal benefits. no federal benefits, no food

stamps, no welfare, no obama care. if they have to prove they are gainfully employed. they have to be able to support themselves of the never become a public charge. these are all the things we it would have to do to just keep that status. it will have to stay in that status until at least 10 years in lapses. all of that has to happen. the only thing they get is the chance to apply for a green card via legal immigration system. we do not award anything to anyone. fox: senator mark rubio on news. we like to get your reaction to the news that an immigration bill is expected in the senate this week. rina is our first caller on a are independent line. caller: good morning. i live in los angeles. the face of immigration here. republicans,the what the republicans do not want. they never have asked us what we

want. i know how difficult it is for the americans -- for african americans to get a job. have -- he jobs they i am angry at the president because this seems to be a tough issue to him. how are you gonna get americans back to work on america is going to have to start competing with illegal immigrants to get jobs? people need to be deported. this country can do basically whatever they want to do. i am really disappointed and i am seen the effects of it in our schools. our schools are overcrowded. they get free health care that we are paying for. i do not think they're being realistic. they never asked is how we feel about it. it is all political to me. thank you for letting me comment.

host: here is what joseph rights on twitter -- georgia and florida. -- george in florida. where you live? caller: horse country. it is a nice town. host: what are your thoughts on the immigration bill? they have no way did checking thousands of people who came here. he was no communication between a them and other countries. at the same time so many people walk from canada into the united

states. i remember having of goals that did that. maybe it is the spanish tearm that protects them. i am a service connected vietnam veteran. it took me years to find hospital records. freedom ofe information act. after 35 years of getting my records i commend 12 days. thank you very much. mentioned that trend -- the secretary of veterans affairs will be testifying this afternoon. that is at 2:30. he will be talking about 2014 budget. we also to expect senators to ask him questions about the backlog of cases.

here is the headline in the washington times. matt from aldrich, new jersey, an independent, what you think? >> just want to say that any attempt to restrict immigration at this point it's kind of fuel. look at the democratic population in 2015.

united states is quick to be left behind. the competition for resources like water, clean energy, food, etc. is going to be so keen from countries like china and india that we are going to need all of the people we can get in this country to continue to compete with those countries. those resources will go to the people who can take them or get them through either buying them or for taking them by force. the united states is going to have to open up its borders and let as many people in in order to continue to compete. this book of the population demographics for the year 2015. the scare the out of me. did you hear senator rubio yesterday? there are elements of this proposal --

caller: the thing about his proposal is it still restrict people who want to come to this country from coming to this country for legitimate reasons. i think open borders is the only way we are, to resolve some of the issues that we are going to encounter in terms of population and competition for things like natural resources in the year 2015. that is only 35 years away. ago,u think about 35 years it was 1967. think about all the things that have evolved since 1967 in terms of world population and competition. the difficulties that have evolved -- just look at oil. host: let us take a listen to what senator rodeo had a say in his own words -- senator rubio had a say in his own words. [video clip]

>> this is not amnesty. amnesty says do it illegally. under the existing law today, if you are legally in the that is you're not prohibited from getting a green card and ultimately getting citizenship. the only thing is is you have to go at your country and wait 10 years. all we're saying is we could create an alternative to that. stay here you will have to stay more than 10 years, you'll have to pay the fine, pay the registration fee, he will not qualify for any federal benefits. after that you will not be able to apply for anything until the enforcement mechanism are in place. it would be cheaper for people to go home and wait 10 years been through this process that i've outlined. that is why it is not amnesty. you have to qualify and apply for it. that is the key distinction. if somehow being in this country illegally is somehow cheaper, easier, and quicker, i would not

support that. i have not support certain efforts in the past. host: senate to repeal on fox news sunday. bloomberg news reports it will take 10 years for undocumented immigrants currently in the u.s. to apply for lawful residency aror a green card. a series of trigger's must be met before they can begin applying for green cards, including tougher border security and the creation of a nationwide worker verification system. they must also create an electronic system to verify whether foreigners have overstayed their visas. art is our next caller in new orleans. good morning. i have been paying close attention to what marco rubio is

saying. he is no more than a republican talking point. only placenot the that republicans are trying to win. what about these other parts in the united states? california, washington state, maine, why would they identify the hispanics as a burden on our country when people cannot walking from a communist country? for whatre is talk to do about what people -- there is talk about what to do when people overstay their visas. what do you think about that? caller: that would be great. host: here's what senator rubio says, the government must create an electronic system to verify whether foreigners have

overstayed their visas. can my foreigners use someone else's social security numbers and no one picks up on that? this whole thing is something the republicans have boxed and and they are using it trigger mechanism to win votes. i do not go along with anything more rubio has say it. host: here is more of what he said. more information from bloomberg news about a temporary permit -- clara from mountain view,

wyoming -- independent caller. host: thank you for taking my call. i believe there are a few drawing cards or holding cards that have not been put into this bill that i think absolutely should be there. host: like what? caller: first off their our anger babies. this has already served the original purpose. i think that should be repealed. i believe chain migration should be repealed if these people want their families. stay with their families are, cannot bring them in here on us. that do not believe individual tax identification -- i think that should .e repealed

i believe marker rupiah mention that he didn't exactly say "mandatory," but i believe it should be mandatory. host: what should be mandatory? verifying.e e- i also believe we need to hear from the border patrol before they make any decisions. -- theve they should chamber ofeven the commerce, i believe that it is

more important that we have input from the border patrol. i think these things would be more fair to the american people. i do not care about being fair to the illegals. they do not have any rights for us to have to be fair to them. i think we should do what is fair to the american people that have to put up with all of this. host: here's a comment on twitter -- with a different opinion we see other, it's coming in on twitter -- bill from pennsylvania he -- republican. welcome. pass a law to

in pennsylvania for 10% sales tax. the way you come to america. i wrote this bill but i want to pass when i come back i can. the bill is you have to have a sponsor before you can come into this country. americanget to the embassy they have to approve. after you get your green card then you come to america as an illegal. legal.s a you have five years to become an american citizen. that is the way you come. that is the way i came 55 years ago from europe.

illegal step is this -- workers are working in this country you find the people that $25,000 -- you find the people they hire them for $25,000. with nicee in peace and quiet no crime. of using illegal immigrants or out of the country there would be no crime in america? they have more crime than you can think of. aliens at 5000 illegal out of the country. host: mike from misery, an independent scholar. missouri, an independent college.

go ahead. be surprised if democrats along with that from what i've heard of it. i kind of like with the last caller said. it.ink they should expand i know around here it seems like all the stores and gas stations are -- everybody is in some of the country. it is not just spanish. the other caller was talking about the united states would be less behind if we didn't have an open-bordceer policy. o educated be able t5o our own kids. we are burdened with the debt of

all these illegals for un employment reasons. illinois is overrun in the chicago area up with the illegals. we are talking about unemployment in the economy and our economy is collapsing. financially it is a basket case. i thinkon illegals -- it is quite a bit more than 11 million. i think in its chicago we have two or 3 million. the stick to look at more details about what senator rubio said yesterday so other listeners can continue to weigh in on some of the specifics. here is what the new york times-

let's listen to what another republican had to say yesterday. [video clip] rubio's hearttor is exactly right. they have produced a legislation, it appears we may see another week before we see it come that will give amnesty

now, legalize at the one that is here effectively today, and become an enforcement in the future. if you pass lost a that appear to be effective it does not mean that they are on to be enforced. we have a failure to enforcement. that is a big deal right now. >> the center rubio have a point that those are here now are affected by amnesty. nobody is prosecuting the 11 million undocumented immigrants. >> we have a real problem that situation. what we need to do is analyze how to handle it, how to make sure that we do the right thing for america. i think it is incumbent of republicans, democrats, and everyone of us to ask what is quite happen to working americans whose wages have been falling since 2000, who are unemployed at a very high rate. it will impact them inversely. we need you how this flow of workers is going to double the current flow of illegal workers

in the future. ic interest isblci to figure out how we can deal with the crisis we face. host: republican senator jeff sessions on abc as today. he does not agree with the gang of eight proposals. we are talking about senator marker repeal in the sunday talk shows. here are some of the facebook responses that have come in.

you can join that dialogue and looking for c-span on facebook. our next caller is out of california, a democrat. caller: you had a caller earlier from los angeles. i want to expand on what she was saying about the immigration situation. it is very bad, particularly for african-americans. the democrats seem to think that the african-americans are the most loyal voters. they voted over 90% for

president obama. the unemployment rate in the african american communities is particularly high in los angeles. nearly 100 million working age americans are out of work. they want to bring in more people who will take jobs away from americans who were born and raised here? this is ridiculous. the number one priority the government should be dealing with now is unemployment. that is how you're going to fix this economy, not bring in more people when you do not have jobs for those of us who are here. there are a lot programs here in los angeles and california that pander to illegals. illegals can get free tuition at state university level when senior citizens to reach the stage -- senior citizens to reach the age of 60 have been denied this opportunity. that is unfair. these are american citizens.

what is going on here? who are these people trying to cater to? i do not understand. host: let us look at a story in "the baltimore sun the," -- debate overf the immigration has focused on the state of the estimated 11 million people in the u.s. without legal authorization, one of the biggest impact would be a sudden surge in illegal migration. an earlier caller from wyoming said she wanted to hear what border agents thought.

this is from "to washington post," -- furloughs and cutting overtime would be equivalent to reducing the patrol's work force by 20%.

what are your thoughts on the immigration bill? tony from alabama -- what jeff sessions had to say was about right. we are really hurting. i lost everything that i have. i am recovering from it. i have complained to everyone and their brother -- my to thesmen sent a letter secretary of congress. they were worried about what is happening to me. theent a letter to department of labour. the department of labor told me they were couldn't do anything from me they bring over and

immigrants -- bring over illegal immigrants. a federal government will send into -- just the other day a group of mexicans looking for a company were doing a route near my house. i do not know -- host: can i ask you to think about some of the specifics we are hearing from last week. we saw the members of the gang of eight talking about trying to find ways to assure that americans do not feel like they are losing their jobs. the chamber of commerce said that as part of what they want to see in immigration reform -- they want to make sure there is

wage stability so that immigrants would get paid the same wages as someone who was born in the united states. do you think that would help? caller: not really. construction workers are not hourly. it is a sub-contract. that is how they get around it. nobody will help. host: that as tony calling us from alabama. let us take a look at a couple of other stories on the news. reports -- "the washington post' says --

senator chuck schumer of new york was on abc this week. he addressed whether or not we will see an assault weapons ban combat of the senate. [video clip] >> we are going to fight as hard as we can for assault weapons bans and limitations on clips. the weak spot is background checks. it will to the most good according to the experts and the terms of preventing criminals and those who have adjudicated mentally ill from getting guns. at the same time it has the best

chance of passing. having said that it is a hard road. not all of the republicans who voted to allow -- it will be a tough fight to get the 60 votes we need. >> you are not going to have all of the democrats. you have a number of red state democrats who simply do not like what they are seeing. when you look at two of them, senator from north dakota said in our part of this country this is not an issue. this is how people feel. i am going to represent my state. the senator from montana said -- how we could convince democrats to get on board? >> tweet would have the majority of democrats on this. in the senate to cannot get anything major done because you need 60 votes without bipartisan

support. we are working really hard to maximize both the number of democrats who will be the overwhelming majority of those who vote for it and the number of republicans. the key battle is with a handful of republicans who voted for closing debate but have not yet committed on background checks, even the modifications that mansion and to me have proposed. host: center schumer yesterday on abc. -- adline on the usa today other stories in the news -- down in venezuela, hugo chavez's political winner was declared but the opponent demands a recount.

" the miami herald," has this front page this morning -- that reaching the front page of " the miami herald and." has died at age 70. the former congressman died in florida. term ohio democrat died of complications from a stroke he had suffered a beery 21st while on vacation in florida. the family released a statement.

some more information about the congressmen -- that is representative charlie wilson of ohio. onetime gop presidential contender rick santorum is canceling a trip to iowa after being hospitalized for an illness. that is the front page -- or rather a story, in "the hill p " while traveling in south carolina he became ill. abouttalking with you immigration but let us look at one more story before we move back to that. north korea talks hinge on ending a new plan. china sides with u.s. on concerns. after meeting with japanese leaders on sunday, john kerry

signaled the u.s. is prepared to engage in talks with north korea if it moved towards abandoning its nuclear program. they talk more about north korea later on in our program with fromor roger wicker mississippi. immigration, what you think about what is being proposed? let us hear from mark from winchester, virginia. hello. caller: i appreciate you having me on. host: ahead. caller: i think america can only be as liberal as it can afford to be. i think this tweet and all immigration. i did not know why people come on t d night after night saying that the public opinion fall is everybody is short a path to cinch it. we now have independence saying we do not like this. -- independents say we do not

like this. the closest thing i have come across is there is a great book called "the culture of critique." that is the only thing i can figure at this point. people i not get -- talked to on databases -- i never hear people say to foreign immigrants -- host: what you think the senator revealed on the sunday talk shows? we did hear some facebook comments and calls from people who pointed out that republicans did not get the hispanic vote in 2012. caller: so they are pandering for future hispanic votes with the legal citizens? how was that okay? if you are an illegal that came here from anywhere, why would you want a bunch of the legal people to come here? host: here is more from "the

wall street journal," -- hear from republican caller from new hampshire. in emergency medicine physician. i study this immigration issue for five or six years.

i think it is interesting from a public health perspective. i think it poses a real threat. i am; nto talking about illegal immigration. i think one of the great things about this country is how great our population is. i take pride. i think it is wonderful. even in small town here we have so many differenti backgroundsmany think it is great. i think what is dangerous is we have an unknown number of people coming in and out of the country every year. we have no idea about health background, vaccination status, where we rely heavily on vaccination programs to provide public health costs and disease -- it causes me to wonder. in the face of writing health care costs and as we talk about reform, at the same time we are

talking about giving amnesty. we do not have an adequate health care plan in place. host: what would your solution be? you talked about, in your perspective, these health problems come with the illegal movment. ement?you legalize mov would you really try to limit immigration? caller: i absolutely think that providing medical screening is necessary. what service to ellis island initially performed? that was outstanding and for the time period. it was diffficutl. -- it was difficult. and a president is elected takes the inaugural oath they are basically taking an oath

that protect the citizens of this nation. when you are not protecting borders anda llowing an unknown number of people in and out of the country -- you have no idea about vaccination staus, what emerging.are re-e we have almost been eradicated smallpox. you hearing talk about medical issues like this from many of tyhhe members of congress? caller: i do not feel like i am unfortunately. i did not see a lot of these issues talked about. the big the i'm curious about is why are we in this position in the first place? why is it even a question?

i think it sends a very disconcerting message to everyone in the country when people are -- an entire government is unwilling to step up and enforce laws that have been in place for it very long time. before you cut me off i just want to see what message does this send with regards to enforcing gun-control laws, for example? basically this is saying when the financial burden gets too high we arquebus stop enforcing the laws and when you apply that to gun-control and to apply that to the drug trade and drug war, what message are you sending? as long as the american government starts looking at this as too costly of the thing to enforce we're just when to stop. host: daniel from hampshire. a couple of tweets --

we'll see jan who says -- jerry from jacksonville, florida. what do you think? host: the last guy kind of stole my thunder. i was going to bring up this point -- i hear this all the time. we are a country of immigrants. you isd forget to tell years ago a lot of our forefathers came in and they did not have welfare. they did not have food stamps. they did not have free medical. even now my understanding is that 60% of the legal immigrants that come in what some type of public assistance. for people.

i think we need more prints coming in on this country. we do not need any more workers right now. thank you. host: we have a tweet from fish and sam -- bob from new york -- republican -- go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been following this immigration thing since reagan was president. they say there are 12 billion -- 12 million people in this country -- 12 million immigrants in this country. all of the illegals in this country that are here now that have a journalism degrees, they had doctorate degrees, they had degrees in political science -- the same people who are advocating for them to stay here would be screened and thrown out. i do not know if people are taking the time it to consider

the jobs that they have. once they have the jobs now they will have legal status. do not stay for those jobs. they will start applying for other jobs that have been held by american citizens. and they will get them. that is going to make our unemployment rate even higher. i do not -- at just do not understand what is politicians are thinking about. thank you. host: will talk more about immigration proposals with our next guest coming up, as well as a variety of other issues. joins us in just a few moments joins us in just a few moments. we will be right back.

>> orphaned at age 11 she lived with her favorite uncle, james buchanan. years later he becomes president and because he was unburied she served as the white house hostess. she was the first to be called "first lady" on a regular basis. beat harriet lane, a look at her life, and that of her predecessor, gene per se, along with your questions and comments. tonight on c-span and c-span3. patreaus ly general thought his private

communications were going to remain private. we should all have that reasonable expectation that when we are communicating with one person we are not communicating with the government. we are not laying out our whole life to the government. we should have that privacy. >> we want a government to be trustworthy but we do not want to see the american people ever trust the government. pass laws to protect people's privacy and their fourth amendment rights rather than say -- or the courts may come in and save the day. while we are here why don't we make to the law catches up. >> does the government need a warrant to read your e-mail is? tonight on "the communicators." journal,"gton

continues. host: start off by telling us what your group is about. national are a grassroots organization. we have 1 million members. reduced 50% in electorial work. our basic theory of change is if we work very deeply with candidates on the campaign trail, earn the trust, build grass-roots farming around them, and elected to office, we then have these great officers -- great offers once they are in washington d.c.. obamawe saw president until his 2014 budget last week. here is a story from politico, it looks at what your responses on the obama budget.

what is your response to the president's budget and how you want to see the members of congress come down on it? guest: it is definitely clear to us. you cannot call yourself a democrat and support cuts to social security benefits. we're not cutting the fat. we're cutting into the core of the democratic progressive legacy. if you believe in the social safety net and the role of government is to help people we cannot be cutting social security benefits. that is what progressive change campaign committee and others are making it very clear from the start that if democrats in congress support a democrat, and critic to support the democrats' plan -- we asked our members would you be willing to step up and run for office in your local community if you represented social security cuts?

over 1300 people have said yes. 700 of those are in democratic districts. these are union heads, business slowed -- business owners, school legislators. we're totally willing to go there when it comes to primaries. nothing is more pork than social security. host: is there danger of losing democrats if you run a more liberal candidates against the general? are you concerned about losing seats the democrats now hold? host: we are not. the reason is we never asked people to take -- we are living in such a weird time the politicians in dc just aren't there. nothing is more popular than social security. if we have a democrat willing to cut social security benefits

they are much more prone to lose. if you have a strong person like bezabeth warren, that would wildly popular. especially in redder states. being strung on these economic policies are key to being a democrat. if you like to talk to adam green hero the numbers to call. let us listen to president obama last week unveiling his budget and talking about what he sees as a need to make modest cuts to medicare to save the program. [video clip] >> both parties agree that the rising cost of curing a route aging generation is the longest record of long-term debt. for those like me who deeply

believe in our social insurance program think it's one of the core things that our government needs to do. if we want to keep medicare working as well as it has come if we want to preserve the ironclad guarantee that medicare presents, we're going to have to make some changes. they do not have to be drastic. making drastic ones later when we should be doing is making some manageable ones now. host: president obama last week. what is your response? president obama is saying you have to make some cuts in order to save medicare. guest: that is just wrong. in order to prevent future cuts that have cuts now is a little bit tweet. it is a weird premise. really it is horrible policy. people have personal stories about what social security and medicare mean to them. just last week we talked to somebody who, after paying all

of the bills in his month, had $3.71. this isn't about a balance sheet. these are real lives with people -- there's nothing left to cut. stop picking on grandparents, widows, of veterans. especially as we see over the last couple of decades the rich paying less than their fair share. that unfathomable to us these millionaires' tax that gets put into the bill. real corporate reform is not in the president's budget. he is willing to ask residents to reduce his one-grandparents to pay more. -- he is willing to ask grandparents to be more. ast: here is a tweet from bold progressive --

retweet. we are drawing a line in the sand. there are rooms -- is room for compromise. if democrats are willing to take on this issue -- they should run the republican line or should be repaired for a primary. we have done our homework. we pulled kentucky, ohio, montana, all of these red stains. even these red states, when you ask the security question in the most conservative way possible, "in order to reduce the deficit would you be willing to cut social security benefits?" 50% say yes and 10% are undecided. here is "the hill," --

is there an unusual alliance here? guest: i would not call it an alliance. the tea party is so crazy to keep blowing up whatever the president has put forward. even when he put forth a bad deal, from a progressive perspective they will kill it. because of dodge a bullet in december when it looked profitable the social security would pass as part of the grand bargain. that is our our backup plan is to work with some great progressives and one of them started a letter which basically says we will vote against any and every cut to social security, medicare, and medicaid benefits. some people said you will never

get this over a dozen. we are now approaching over 40 members of congress old enough to say we will make this promise to our constituents. we have a website called and no benefits.com where people can be a citizen planner. host: one of our followers on twitter -- is debt moral? the answer is it is immoral for leto use what we have to corporations not pay their fair share and then pass that on to children. it is immoral to go as long as we have with the growing disparity of wealth in our country, do nothing about it, then come up with the only solution been to cut benefits for widows and grandparents.

that's immoral. , aht now in congress congressman from illinois has a millionaire's tax that says we will go beyond the clinton era is rates, with the top rate 39.6%, and we will ask people making over million dollars to pay 45% on income above $1 million. 20 million, 47%. $100 million, 48%. if you make $1 billion a year in income, 49%, which is below the ronald reagan tax rate of 50%. if that was tax, that would put $1 trillion extra on the table. that means we could take our grandparents of security benefits and medicare off the table. we support the more progressive approach than the one that's more popular with voters, not with $3 in hise guy

bank account to pay more. host: -- guest: absolutely, for individuals. and there are corporations. there's a wall street gambling tax called a financial transaction tax. that will raise a ton of money. many corporations today, they should be paying their fair share. another tax reform would be asking people like mitt romney, was paying 14% or less in taxes, as we pay a lot more than that, asking those people to stop hiding behind loopholes. we don't have to cut benefits for our grandparents and widows and veterans. that's what we're asking democrats to stand behind as a principal. if they will not stand behind that principle, they should not call themselves democrats. host: adam green is co-founder of the progress of campaign -- progressive change campaign committee. ofs been the civic director

moveon.org krupa thousand aid charities in the press secretary for the national democratic committee in oregon during the 2004 presidential campaign, and communications director for the new jersey democratic party in 2003-2004. jersey.o host: let's hear from betty. caller: good morning. a couple years ago i had the pleasure of calling in while you were appearing on a c-span program to thank you for the wonderful work you do representing progressive spirit thank you again, sir. you are so right on. the american public needs to realize corporate tax rates and the tax rates on the wealthy are the lowest they have been in 60 years. this needs to be changed. need the chains dramatically. certainly not on the backs of the working poor and the

elderly. i cannot thank you enough for what you are doing. what theerate exactly journalists mr. bartlett said. he said "if you hear any politician saying at any time that earned benefit programs need to be tipped a way to solve the steps it, don't vote for them." thank you. host: adams talked about getting members of the progressive change committed to run for office locally. what are you doing in terms of involvement in your community? caller: i make sure i call the white house number every chance i get. they probably get tired of me, because i'm always calling and letting them know what i feel about whatever subject happens to be at hand. i am in customer service.

anybody that happens to talk about politics, i love becoming engaged in that. i write letters to newspapers. don't publish a whole lot of what i have to say, because i'm a little too progressive. we have a newspaper here in town that is solidly right- leaning. they don't publish a lot of what i have to say. but i do when i can and i call the white house as often as possible. host: thank you. guest: thank you again, betty. it's inspiring to hear from people like you. the gap between those paying attention to our political dialogue and those who are not, and actually taking action, that's a big step. it's great you are writing letters and making phone calls. i do hope you go to our website and join us, because we need a lot more people like you as part of our cause. one of the functions will play

is pushed the reset button on the conversation we're having in washington. oftentimes it's within a right- wing bring work that checkmates the republicans into thinking the only thing to do is whether to ask widows and grandparents to pay more. we are trying to say what you said, over the last several decades, wells disparity, the difference in pay between corporate executives and their workers has increased out of control. button to push the reset and makes the facts clear and put items on the table that are not being discussed, like the millionaire's tax, and like asking wall street corporations to pay their fair share. working with allies on the inside like elizabeth warren, we will get it done. host: surely in ohio, republican. caller: i am ins tallmadge, ohio. -- in tallmadge.

the thing i wanted to say was i think people need to be more educated about social security and that it is not meant to be a living wage. it is meant to be nice supplement.-- a so many people are struggling. we need to educate from an early age that it is a supplement. it was not something to be lived on. and that would be for both parties to understand. d progressive scares me. host:why? caller: because their agenda seems to me is not to fix a problem sbut to continue to raise taxes, dislike the rich,

which many of them are, but i'm sure they hide it. i don't mean to be mean, but i bunch.ink they are scary that's all i have to say. host: a response? guest: i can tell you are very earnest. thanks for calling. except social security the way it was meant to be was as an augmentation to people of their savings. we think about what is the world meant to be and how things should be. retirement was conceived as a three legged stoll. pensions, savings, and social security. been kicked in by the big corporations in this country. there's been a real move to get rid of tensions and the amount

paid to workers does not allow them to save much. ago the corporate ceos were not getting that much more than their workers, certainly a lot more, but today it has exponential increase. we're talking about hundreds of percentages increase. that means as productivity goes up for workers, as workers have done their job and broaden the pool of wealth, they have not gotten a piece of that. it has been accumulated at the top. the way things are meant to be has not really involved. social security for lot of people is their retirement. we need to make structural changes in this country and finally start asking corporations to consider and respect their workers and share the block with their workers. that's a down payment for the day where maybe people's savings and pensions will play a bigger role. but we cannot live in a phony world where that does not exist. if we cannot ask the guy who is

paying his bills and has $3 left in his chip in a little more. we need to protect social security. a senator from alaska has a bill to increase social security benefits. that is moral and very popular. so it should not scare you. we are looking out for people like you. host: what do you say to our uses caller as she words like "fear?" guest: it's interesting to hear that one would steer those terms. i mentioned the great dialogue we have now. sometimes voices that stand up for principle are called something opposite of one will solves problems. i reject that. it is somewhat true on the tea party end. in the red states we have a 75%

and a 15%osition populist position which says don't cut social security. to the extent corporations are asking for not to raise taxes on wrong.tions, that is on our side of the issue, there's bipartisanship on main street. republic and voters, independent voters, democratic voters agree on most positions we are putting forth. we should ask the rich to pay their fair share, hold wall street accountable, if wall street bankers who broke the law and illegally took away people's homes should go to jail, and social security should be protected for our seniors. things like that are overwhelmingly popular on main street. we think that we aren't using a pc with a common-sense approach from the outside in. our hope is for a day where republicans in d.c. actually represent the voters and we could have a good-faith dialogue

with them. to that extent that the party is sticking up for corporate interests and different minority, why ask the democrats to compromise. we need to ask them to give voice to the public will, like elizabeth warren does, and to win. host: atabrine. let's go to wilmington, north carolina. jack is an independent. caller: good morning. sir, i'm calling on our independent line. while i do agree that you make a lot of valid points, for instance senator carl levin was on last week and someone asked him what is the core rate? he said 35%, but the effective rates that they pay is more like between 12% and 14%. we also know that -- i am listening to simpson-bowles and

david walker and the comeback america initiative. on their side, they pointed out the fact that you have close to $1.50 trillion tied up in credits and deductions. willf all the filers, 20% be enough to itemize, they get 80% of that money. , 55,000 pages, the tax code. every one of those lines of code has a constituency behind a will to fight. you're never going to get all that. o feel that the president has taken a bold position of leadership and initiative on this. now the ball is in the republicans' court to begin to bring true tax reform so we can see many of the things you are speaking about, like the fact that the corporations are not

paying, like the fact that the wealthy are not paying their fair share. however, both of those bipartisan debt commission's have pointed out the fact that you cannot tax your way out of this thinking and you cannot cut your way out. you don't want to cut real heavy until the out years, after the economy has had time to recover. the last thing i want to say, alan simpson pointed this out and erskine bowles did not flinch when he said this, but the trustees report on social security, which was are easiest problem to fix, if you don't do anything, you step up to the widow in 2020, you will get 25% less. what are your fixes to medicare, which is the biggest driver of our debt, as the president had said? and god bless you. guest: thanks for your question. you pack a few things in there. but start with your last thing first. what are the solutions to social security and medicare?

right now, social security has a to $0.50 trillion surplus. that will take it several decades. for those who want to extend it several more decades, there's a simple fix. that is called strapping the cap or increasing the cap. the caps is on what amount of income you actually pay social security taxes on. george soros and one buffett and bill gates only pay social security taxes for on the first $113,000 of their income. all the rest is tax free. if that means we're asking grandma to spend more. social security would be solvent for decades more in the future. one-stop shop, e-6. it also has the effect of taxing the rich and not taxing the poor. medicare, one of the misnomers in washington is that progressives are not willing to address entitlements. that is not true. we're not willing to cut benefits. we're not willing to take money out of grandparents and widows

and veterans pockets, but we will find common sense savings. if we allow medicare and medicaid to negotiate prices with the drug companies, we would save $130 billion. that's a lot of money. that's a lot of grandparent's we are keeping from having a bus in their pockets on a very limited income. that's not something progressives would locally swallow as part of a progressive -- as part of a larger package. that is outwardly the progress of thing to do. you're stopping big corporations from ripping off taxpayers and grandparents. let's do common-sense reforms like that which bring down the cost of health care. taking away grandparents money does not do anything for the cost of health care and it's not a band-aid on health-care cost problem. you mentioned these commissions. alan simpson is a millionaire. erston boles is a millionaire. their commission is almost entirely millionaires. it's easy for them to setbacks

and be completely out of touch with people like i mentioned inore who have $3.71 left their bank account and proposed cutting benefits more. it's easy for them to say let's push the reset button and asked the poor people and a class to pay more and asked the rich detail little more. that's not courageous or old and it's horrible public policy. they are the least fit people to make these public policy decisions. they are illegitimate actors in our political dialogue. erskine bowles is a big corporate bill adair an mp -- a big corporate millionaire. we should not cite them as the authorities. the fact that they did not ask mitt romney to pay more than 40% in taxes aunt for the millionaire's tax which would raise $1 trillion, that shows their world view. finally, you mentioned president obama ringgold.

this gets to something we call it fight theory. what is your theory on winning the fight? if you start with the compromise position, you will lose. what we've seen in president obama's second term on other issues its boldness. not cutting a bad deal behind- the-scenes, asking the gun manufacturers what you would accept, but instead figuring out what has to be done and proposing it and then barnstorming the country and making republicans free out because they are having to be held accountable to their voters -- freak out. on this issue, for some reason, he has gone back to the weakest part of his presidency when he had the least leveraged and republicans had a fresh mandate in 2011, when he was willing to cut back deals. people like us have to say, no, we have to stand on principle and not just get behind him

because he's a democrat. host: do you think there's a strategy behind a strategy that if the president offers a deal republicans don't accept, does that give him more leverage contracts farther to the left? guest: some people call this 13 dimensional, and amazing mind game that he's playing with the republicans. and had more possibility before the election. bill clinton had wanted to reassert his mandate, showing he was a man of common sense. the election is over now. there's really no incentive for him to do that. i don't buy it. in this case, the republicans have consistently made clear they would not accept more taxes on the rich. they have been given multiple chances and they have made it clear. if he was only concerned about the optics, he would not be having private dinners with republican senators. he says to them i'm willing to cut social security benefits, please tell your colleagues

let's cut a deal. that would be unnecessary for that type of implant. the only thing that is in pursuit of its actual cutting social security benefits, which is what this president wants to do. people in the white house i have worked with in the past are under this idea that americans want compromise, it does not matter whether it's a good or bad compromise. somehow it will be a factor in the campus presidents if the cuts a deal with republicans even if the deal still money out of the pockets of grandparents. that's not true. people want this president to fight harder for families. if it takes a group like ours to mobilize 1 million people, pressure members of congress, that's what we will do. host: adam green. let's hear from byron in cleveland, tennessee, republican. caller: good morning. i would like mr. green to

explain exactly what a progressive is. the reason i'm asking is because the communist party usa and the socialist party usa and they also call themselves progressives. i would also like to make a comment on his wanting more,ies to be taxed because i worked on budget and the company i worked for. into thexes were rolled next year's costs. you want to pass those are to the consumer. i will let you comment. guest: i don't know what your business was. against small businesses, nothing against businesses badly by the rules or operate in good faith. but when general electric pays

$0 in taxes, that's a problem. we are against egregious things like that. host: it also talked about from his perspective seeing socialism and communism as being also labeled as progressives. guest: always happy to talk about what progressive means. for us, the fundamental question of do you side with the little guy or the small guy on economic issues? that's all. that can be applied to pretty much any issue. on wall street reform, are you letting me dig willing to let the banks foreclose on people's houses or will you stand with the people, as elizabeth warren did? she stands up for the little guy. on the health-care issue, do you stand up to the big insurance companies that profit by denying people care? the stand up for the pharmaceutical companies that want to overcharge people for prescription drugs? not to useecurity, and for the idea of picking the

pockets of grandparents and widows and veterans? or do you fight for them and asked the big guys to pay their fair share? that's what it means to us. social issues are a little tougher for us. being pro-choice is a prerequisite for a candidate we would support, but we don't make it a defining issue. fighting against the big money interests that have taken over our democracy in many ways. working to rally public opinion and to defeat those interests. while you say some others call themselves progressives, one unfortunate thing we've seen is even corporate democrats, people love to do the bidding of big corporations, and they get into primaries, call themselves progressives. it is important step up for the term. groups like ours actually play an educational function of informing our million members, after doing do diligence of who the progressive is in primaries, then we get some people like

elizabeth smart and others elected into governing mode so we can work with them. host: you have also gotten involved in gun reform, gun- control legislation. that theok at an ad progressive campaign committee aired in kentucky in february. [video clip] >> i was born and raised right here in kentucky. i served my country as a marksman and we were trained to use guns safely. it's unthinkable that guns and for could be used on civilians and children. as a gun owner and veteran, i support the plan to ban assault weapons and keep guns out of the wrong hands, because i know these guns. i know what they can do. senator mitch mcconnell is funded by the gun industry and he opposes common-sense reforms. senator mitch mcconnell, whose side are you on? progressive change campaign committee. guest: >> yes. this is an example of what happens when the president actually stands up for a progressive principles.

his base can be on his side, not fighting against him but fighting on his side. to my knowledge, the democratic party has not spent $100,000 in ads pressuring mitch mcconnell. 20,000 gun owners are on our list and we're elevating their voice. we're happy to be participating in the gun debate. towill be saturating that ad make sure mitch mcconnell is held accountable back home. between hishe dots special-interest campaign donations and his positions in washington. we hope it becomes the norm for all groups that advocate on any issue to make sure they connect the dots. we have to pass campaign finance reform, public funding of elections. we need to make the case on guns, health care, wall street, campaign donations, and health care policy. host: where do you come down on immigration? guest: there are great actors in

that field already. one group we work with. my guess is there will be some big action. if we are asked to help, we will. we're not calling to try to reinvent the wheel in that debate. this is another issue where republicans are coming into contention with a different base. it's obvious that the future of this country includes a large hispanic population that republicans cannot afford to be against this yet they are being consistently gravitating to the side of intolerance. it will be interesting to see the dynamics and we see a lot of the undercurrents on issues like social security, where french minority seems to have the republican party leaders at this. -- a fringe minority. host: our next caller from florida. noter: even social security

rising very much every year, a part b premium is. mine is taking 11.1% of my entire social security check. if this continues, i'm going to have to drop the part b coverage from my medicare. i will take your response offline. thank you. at @adamu can tweet me green. be a real hit for people like you and many people across the country. it's another reason we need to fight very hard to bring down health-care costs for seniors, increase social security benefits at some point, and asked the big corporations and the rich to pay their fair share. it should not be coming out of your pockets.

boldprogressives.org is our website. you can be the 1 millionth member. it's an honor to talk to you today and played a role we do in our democracy of getting 1 million members and being active in the debate process. host: lewis is an independent. caller: calling from mississippi. my comment to mr. green is i have heard him reference mr. romney's tax rate for the last year. i wonder what his opinion is of the president tax rate of 18.2%. i believe he earned a gross income of $600,000, but yet his income, his tax rate was only 18.2%. i would like to hear his response. host: stay on the line for a moment. you're not the only person asking that.

what are your thoughts on this? caller: the president campaigned that people of the upper brackets should pay their fair share. yet how did he get away with such a low income rates? guest: if that is a fact, i agree with you. is no excuse for people making that much money to pay less than an everyday family. it's just wrong. it is a symptom of the problem and the problem is the growing loopholes that fuel the wealth disparities in this country. that's why progressive agenda says let's have a long-term approach to asking big corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share so there's actual progress of taxation in this country and the rich pay more than a middle-class and the or.o host: mary ann, a democrat. go ahead. caller: hi.

a person like me that has worked all my life, i join social security and 70 years old and only $12,000 a year social security. i still have to pay tax on $12,000. that is ludicrous for seniors to have to pay when they make so little money on social security and still turn around and pay taxes on it. now i have to decide whether to buy medicine or go without food. for very heartbreaking seniors of my age to have to make those decisions. is there any help out there for us? guest: thank you for that question. if you could e-mail us at our goal progressives website, i would like to talk to you more. you are a perfect example of the kind of people who would be hit by the current president's plan. the poverty line for an individual is $11,490.

that means somebody making $12,000 will get her stephen moore under the president's plan. it is a fig leaf of helping those barely scraping by. what help is on the way? the help and asked the be always elected people like elizabeth warren, who don't let this kind of stuff happens. reason this happens is politicians when they need revenue look for a little ways of acting up prices on the little guy. on the state level, that would be increased car inspection fees and fishing licenses, things that will not be called taxes. this case, tweaking the system, making you pay more on your social security. that's just wrong. it is a symptom of big money interests carving themselves huge tax loopholes and then checkmating politicians into hurting the little guy. we are trying to elect people and support people in congress who are aware of the problem and understand democrats have to stand on principle to help people like you.

areks for calling and arms you're experiencing combat right now. host: adam riess teaches a class at george washington university on the internet. thanks for sponsoring this conversation. host: senator roger wicker, republican of mississippi, is our guest, next year it will talk about guns, immigration, the budget, and north korea. if later, looking at overlapping government programs. first, this news update from c- span radio. >> it's 8:33 a.m. eastern. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell still has not gotten over december posted fiscal cliff showdown and has signaled privately that he has no interest in sitting in the same room as majority leader harry reid to discuss a possible grand bargain on budget and tax issues. senate insiders tell "politico" the senator mitch mcconnell is fine with talking to president obama, but he does not want

harry reid there when it happens. along with budget discussions, the senate will begin debate on gun control legislation this week. a proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers picked up some key republican support over the weekend. republican senator susan collins of maine issued a statement yesterday saying that she would vote for a proposal authored by senator patrick to me and to senator joe manchin, requiring background checks for people buying guns at gun shows and online, but it exempts private gun sales. as guns around adopted in congress, the supreme court may decide as early as today to consider whether the second amendment's right to keep a gun for self-defense extends outside the home. the case under consideration is a challenge to new york's law requiring proper cost to carry a weapon in public. 10 states have similar restrictions, most have been challenged in court. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. she livedd at age 11,

with her favorite uncle james buchanan. years later, he becomes president. because he's not married, she serves as white house hostess. she's the first to be called first lady on a regular basis and is so popular that she sets trends and children are named after her. harriet lane, her life and that of her predecessor jane pierce, along with your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. tonight at 9:00 eastern. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: senator roger wicker is our guest, republican of mississippi guest: glad to be here. host: let's start with the sunday talk shows. a lot on immigration garrett senator marco rubio who edited the airwaves. he gave his support to this gang of eight plan.

guest: he was on seven sunday talk shows yesterday, setting a record. you have to say this for him. he is showing some leadership. he is in a unique position to do freshman, as a cuban- american, representing the hispanic community. my hat is off to him for trying to solve a problem that we all want to solve. here are two things i like about the plan. it does not kick in until the border is secure. 100% since the original awareness of what's going on, on the border, and 90%. . the situation right now is we have 50% enforcement. that just amounts to a porous border. one of the definitions of sovereignty is that the nation should be able to protect its border.

that is something that conservatives like me have been saying for a long time. let's first enforce the border. according to summaries of the law -- i have not read it because it will not be introduced until tomorrow, i believe it -- one of the summaries is that the law does not even trigger until we can certify that the border is secure. another aspect of it that i really like is a better system of e-verify. i get a lot of calls from businessmen who want to hire people and who don't mind hiring people here in the country legally even though they may have been born elsewhere. they say that e-verify is totally unreliable and sometimes is very slow and cumbersome. i understand this new proposal would require in states where

you have to eberts certificate to get a drivers license, it would require an applicant for hiring to present that driver's license. not a passport. in either case, citizenship would have to be proven. a if not a driver's license, passport. when you start enforcing the border, that's a good start. are a lot of questions. i know from having been out 13re as a representative for years and now as a senator for five years, there's a lot of skepticism out there. i was not here in 1987 when president reagan, one of the great conservatives, agreed to what has now been called an amnesty. i know it is something people who really worried about illegal immigration are concerned about, is this going to be a repeat of what a well-intentioned president and well-intentioned congress did in 1987?

so that's an overview of two issues. website saysco" the senator began his public campaign yesterday to win over conservative support for overhauling the nation's immigration laws. he offered a finely calibrated pitch designed to alleviate conservatives' concerns about reform. he pushed back against claims that a pathway to citizenship was tantamount to amnesty. he rebutted arguments that an agreement would impose dramatic new costs on taxpayers and defended the changes as necessary to keep the border secure. is he speaking? to your constituents back speaking guest: i think so. also, there's a broad support around the country to try to solve this, if we can. i remember the last time the effort was made in 2007, i was in the house. my predecessor was trying to take the lead on this issue and at least get the bill up to the senate floor. his phones exploded.

he could not anything done for a week. andcornyn senator on one of the talk shows yesterday said that he had the scars to prove it. -- senator cornyn. i have always opposed and misty -- i have always opposed amnesty. we don't want to put those people ahead of other people in line got here legally. rubio says this is not an amnesty. the american voters and policy makers will decide that. when he says is we are making it much harder and much longer for people who came here illegally. they gotd be better if in line in their native

countries and went through. that's not forgiveness, which is not amnesty is. so he is doing his best to make a point. my hat is off to this young senator for energy and for leadership. i want to say this. he is demonstrating the kind of leadership that we look for and will look for some day in a president of the united states. i am very high on this young senator from a florida. host: another issue in the news. gun control of the legislation. we see a major gun rights group is breaking with the powerful nra and coming out in favor of the bipartisan proposal on background checks by senator joe manchin of west virginia and senator pat toomey, republican of pennsylvania. the citizens committee for the right to keep and bear arms. this,gnificant is senator? guest: i don't know.

these people have a right to their viewpoint, but i'm a lifelong member of the national rifle association. when my son was born 26 years ago, my only goal gave him a gaveription -- my uncle him a subscription of the youth magazine of the nra. the second amendment protects gun rights for decades and decades. for another group to come along and claim to be the second- largest gun rights organization is fine. there's more of a schism than this article mentions. i looked at it this morning on the front page of the washington post, also. there's another group to the right of the nra. said the nra on thursday it's probably a good idea to get this issue to the floor, talk about it, poke holes in it, but

get the issue resolved for this year appear there's another saying absolutely no, don't even vote for the motion to proceed. probably athere are least four national groups out there with different viewpoints. decade in an, decade out, year in and year out, the nra has been a stalwart second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. host: if they came out for the background check, would that sway you? guest: they don't have veto rights over my point of view. i speak in terms of relying on their strategy is they have always been pretty good.

as a matter of fact, they have come out against pat toomey and joe manchin pose a compromise at school falls and unworkable -- holes and something that might need to a national registry. i would not support it. our guest served in the u.s. house of representatives prior to serving in the senate. he has also served in the mississippi state senator and was once counsel to senator trent lott on the house rules committee, has experience with both sides of congress. guest: before that i went to page, virginia, with him in the 1960's. i've been in this town for a while. host: he retired from the u.s. air force reserve in 2004 with the rank of lieutenant colonel. he's on the armed services

committee, the budget committee, among others. if he's ready to take your calls. ron in florida on our democrats line. caller: good morning. two things. we will start with gun-control. i am a gun owner. i was in the marines. guest: appreciate your service. caller: thank you for yours. i think the second and and it should evolve like our guns have evolved, from a single shot to 100 shots. should make it to keep up with the times if we want to have a strong second amendment like we had when it was born with our country, then we should go back to 1 shot. the thing i really want to talk to is taxes.

when i go to work and i come home and pay my bills, like you say a country has to pay its bills, my bills seemed to keep of commonecause sense, everything goes up. when i go back to work, i have to ask my boss for arrays. if i went as long as the republicans have gone without asking the country for arrays -- theise, we would be in poorhouse. we are in the poorhouse. host: are you willing to pay more on your taxes? caller: everybody should pay more on their taxes, to be even. host: let's get a response from the senator? that: well, i don't agree everybody should pay more taxes. advocating for

fairness. is no question about that. but let's make these points. automaticer, the taxes that were set to go on the top 1% of wage earners actually did kick in. we were able to get the president to sign a law making the estate tax law that president bush passed permanent, making the tax makingfor 99% of makingarners permanent -- 99% ofx rates for the wage earners permanent. payroll taxnow, the exemption went away for people like you and me and everybody else. so there has been a tax increase from an automatic standpoint.

it went into effect because there were not renewed. we have done taxes. had my, if i had druthers, and if i were making all the decisions in this country, we would not have even had those. to talk about it even more economy, which is still in the doldrums, i think that would hurt economic growth and job opportunity. that's what you're talking about when we talk about a budget. the president proposed $1.10 trillion extra in taxes in his budget. it was two months late, but it did come out last week and we had a hearing in the budget committee where i am a member. it proposes $1.10 trillion in additional taxes over a decade. i am opposed to that. proposed $1.50 trillion in extra taxes or they

say it's just $1 trillion the way they say it. bill, the ryan budget actually balances the budget within 10 years and it does so without a tax increase. it does so by limiting the cut spending. we can simply grow the economy by about 3.5% each year for 10 years and we can balance the budget. president's budget, with its huge tax increase, never balances the budget, not 10 years and not ever. questiont get to ron's about gun control, but i will be happy to take that. mentioned you now can get off 100 rounds. was when the constitution ratified and the bill of rights and sec amendment added, we did

not have such a thing. -- second amendment. my question is this, are we just looking at symbols or will we actually do something that will work? in gun-control legislation, we need to ask ourselves, is someone who is mentally deranged going to worry about what the law says? a someone who is intent on mass murder going to be concerned about how many rounds the law provides for a law- abiding citizen to have? i think the answer is no. anything that is cosmetics like that is simply a matter of trying to do something that sounds good, that sounds sympathetic to the families that have had horrible tragedies. mental healthat issues and school safety. i have to go back to the nra and

congratulate them for getting hutchinsongressman of arkansas to get a task force together and come up with two recommendations. that is school safety officers. and allowing school personnel will want to, to be trained to protect students. and better coordination between schools and local governments, and better coordination within the school system for school safety. withl safety and dealing mental illness is something that might actually have an effect on preventing the kind of tragedy that we had. something that is cosmetic and assumes that a criminal or mentally deranged person will obey the law, to me, is really not worth talking about. , you senator roger wicker mentioned the president's budget. let's listen to run the treasury secretary as he testified before

the house ways i and means house wayst this past [video clip] >> week> at the same time, the budget incorporates all elements in the administration's offer to speaker boehner last december. demonstrating the president's readiness to stay at the table and make very difficult choices and find common ground. consistent with that, the budget includes things the president would not normally put forward, such as means testing medicare to income related premiums for and adopting accurate but lest and it measures costs of inflation on a chained cpi. deal senator, is this the the republicans can work with? guest: well, no. think y, i don't even the president expects this to be anywhere near a deal. if there's a chance for grand bargain -- we had dinner with the president wednesday night. we all agree the chances are less than 5054 grand bargain.

a grand bargain. mr. lowe's statement, that would get zero votes on the floor. it would be attacks from the it never gets us anywhere near a balanced budget. it would be attacked by the right because the inflation adjuster. this is called the chained cpi. ring to it.inous i think we should call truth in cost-of-living adjustment. all it is is it says we have been measuring a little too generously the inflation- adjusted each year. ,hen i go on social security

when i became an air force retiree, that's not the check i'm going to get forever. each year there is a little of an inflation adjustment to help it keep up with inflation. that's all this chained cpi would be. it is just netroots in saying let's get it as accurate as possible in keeping our retirees up with inflation. can do something like that and saw a 25% of the social security actuarial problem, then we ought to look at doing that. -- solve. ] i have to congratulate democrats and the so-called gang of six and some democrats on the budget committee like senator boren, for saying this is something we should look at. if the inflation-adjusted is fair, we can save a little money, then we ought to look at that. host: senator roger wicker.

let's hear from independent caller mark in philadelphia. caller: i've been listening to your views on gun control and they sound pretty reasonable. the problem is the republicans are not getting their points across clearly to the american people, so the polls show there are a lot of support for things that if the american people were shown a real facts on, they would not support as much. as far as background checks, they don't seem to be very controversial. background checks would have had no effect on newtown, connecticut. when the president has these poor families around, he's being disingenuous, because it would not have stopped that incident. going after the assault weapons, the same thing. their proposal would not have stopped that. all those victims would still be victims of the matter what gun legislation they are producing. republicans are failing to address why people need assault weapons. the reason they need them is the

same reason all law-enforcement professional need them. they have determined it is the necessary gun to defend themselves and to prosecute criminals. we have the same type of individuals that law enforcement has. if the criminals come to our house, we need to defend ourselves. handguns will not defeat body armor. only an assault weapon bill. when they say we don't need them, they are dead wrong. host: senator pat toomey, a republican of your state, is one of the two brokers of the background check deal. what do you think about the politics? caller: i was really opposed to it initially. i spoke to the senator's staff about it. most of the proposals in it are reasonable. i'm a little concerned on the mental issue because that can be fine-tuned out to include almost anybody. that scares me, because they could get a whole list of people that would not qualify for guns and the people that really are dangerous and would get through it because they would not go to the doctors.

on average, i don't think closing the gun show owloophole would. there was a gentleman in new jersey that just went to jail for five years because he owned a long gun. he was a retired police officer. that scares me. he did not do anything wrong. host: let's get your questions and comments to senator wicker. guest: i commend you on making a statement that i agree with almost entirely and saying it well. one thing you alluded to that we need to emphasize is the most gun shows there's already a background check. and the people at gun shows don't mind this. they're happy to comply. when it comes to pat toomey's agreement, i appreciate you calling his staff and try to

clarify this, i do think there's a great big loophole that you can drive a truck through. until that gets fixed, it's not a workable. until i can be convinced that this does not infringe on second amendment rights and does not end up with some sort of list that law enforcement, state or national, can get ahold of and call that registry, no. there may still be time to fix that. the more we are looking at it, the more problems we see. you are absolutely right on the size of the weapons and the so- called assault weapons. it just comes back to this. what are we going to do to protect second amendment rights and at the same time if we can do something to provide better safety for schools, like a private schools have, and public schools are to have backup, too.

but to do something that is cosmetic and appear sympathetic, if it infringes on second amendment rights, that is going to be a no go in the senate the way it is currently configured. and certainly in the house of representatives. host: on twitter -- , here's what s.bthel what a lot to do -- intends to do, to identify felons ineligible to own a gun and people who for various reasons are not mentally stable enough. there's another aspect. we don't have good enforcement of violations prepare are very few prosecutions of criminals going to try to buy a weapon. name comes up on the national registry and there is no consequence in many, many

situations. before we start launching off into new legislation, why does the administration, which has been very vocal about this, why don't they say we will certainly the violations that we know are occurring? that would be really good place for the obama administration to start. that would be a good place for the obama host: administration administration to start. guest: we have the water resource development act which might actually boost the economy and get this ready for the panama canal expansion. that would be a good thing to do. we have not talked about north korea yet. this is kim il sung's 101st

birthday. secretary john kerry is over there in the region, offering to have direct talks with the young dictator. a really interesting editorial in "the wall street journal," where it says that congress -- concluding with moderate confidence that north korea may have a nuclear warhead small enough to be placed on a ballistic missile. i am afraid we are quite see some sort of show of force today from this young dictator. i hope we do not overreact with too many concessions in our talks. i actually have a good degree in

confidence in senator kerry that he will not give away the store. we have made agreements with north korea before. mistake to agree to anything that amounted to any sort of united states concession. we need to keep talking. we need to realize that they are very unlikely to comply with anything they agreed to. host: here is what secretary carious saying according to "th one of your colleagues was on fox news sunday yesterday, talking about the role of china. let us take a lesson.

[video clip] >> the last thing we want is the launch of any kind of nuclear missiles or nuclear weapon on the korean peninsula or anywhere in this world. we have to be escalated the rhetoric and the testing that is going on in north korea. we're turning primarily to china and saying it is time for them to step up and show some leadership in this region of the world. we are prepared to work toward a common goal of peace but we need the chinese to tell the north koreans that if they want to continue this kind of escalation of rhetoric is at the expense of the safety of this world as well as their own economy. on thehat your thoughts remarks? guest: senator kerrey is trying to reassure japan that we have their back and clearly if north korea does anything to either south korea or japan there would be major severe catastrophic

consequences come from the nine states america. senator durbin is right about china. soareds -- china has about this bad boy in the neighborhood -- has sort of allowed this bad boy in the neighborhood as a way to counterbalance the united states influence. there is no other way to look at it. china is somewhat glad that they are causing us problems and and extendto expand our diplomatic energy. china needs to, step up. this young leader is trying to assert his boldness. he is brand new, nobody knows him. he wants people to think he is strong. if he should do a birthday

display of fireworks today and something goes in the wrong direction, then he has brought devastation down upon himself and his people. i hope he has a mature people around him who are saying to breathe as much fire as you want to and if you could bring the secretary of state over here, good for you. but do not you dare do anything that endangers anybody's lives, particulate the laws of our allies. host: let us hear from phoenix joining us from marshfield, wisconsin -- an independent college. you are on with senator roger wicker. i like to know how the republicans feel extra security at airports and points of entry is are going to be paid for

without raising taxes. guest: that is not an area where i have been proposing cuts in the budget. the court says provide for the common defense. the pentagonuded in the last decade or so. not save money in terms of national security. i went on national television last summer giving the saturday response to the president's address and talked about sequestration and the impact on our national security budgets. our position has been when it comes to sequestration those harmful cuts should be avoided

in the first place. when sequestration did go into ago wea few weeks offered to the president take the top level of appropriation money and move it around if you need to. but the president said "don't .ut this monkey on my back we all need to be responsible for the sequestration cuts." i was disappointed at the president for not saying, "ok, since we have to make the budget ats and sequestrations' here least give the executive branch the power to do the nexessential things." host: i did is on our

independent line. welcome. -- ivan is on our independent line. welcome. at a question about the situation with nuclear warhead. host: what are your thoughts about it? caller: it scares me that [indiscernible] we do not know what will happen. north korea impoverished. the people are paupers to there. guest: absolutely. started out young. that is a hope we could have had except during the months he has been in powering he shows no real sign of having

learned anything from his education in the west. year i read a fiction book and a nonfiction book about north korea. listeners would be absolutely astonished at the level of repression and impoverished mitt and slavery -- ndd poverish-ment a slavery. it resembles less of a country than a criminal enterprise. they have no economy whatsoever. our goal should be denuclearize of north korea. they actually believe americans wake up every morning and the first thing on our mind is our

war with north korea. that is the farthest thing from the truth. we hope they don't become a threat to be caught -- to the continental united states and we hope the denuclearize. we do not spend every waking hour thinking about north korea. that is their view of the united states, that we are constantly at war. put hisg man constituency up into a frenzy about that. whenever we have gone into agreements the goal has been to do just what you have been worried about, to get them to lay down their nuclear weapons. --there is a proliferation if there is a missile capability in north korea there is going to be a proliferation. avoid it at all cost. to theer applied

secretary of state please call me up and remind me not to do that. i am not cut out to be a diplomat. we need our most skillful diplomats to keep pecking away at this. right thing will happen in the end. host: senator roger wicker, armed services committee member among others. let us go to north carolina and hear from chains on our democrats line. ourear from james on democrats line. caller: i would like to make one thing clear on background checks for guns. back rent checks for guns to more than just -- background checks for us to more than just make arrests.

if they just keep identifying a criminal before they get the gun that he would not have begun. but you concentrate more on how risk is beingind made. if the proper background check is set up to where we have identified these criminals before they get the gun we do not have to worry so much about the rest of them. this mixture they do not get it done. guest: let us agree to this. we certainly need to stop felons from getting guns. also, people who are mentally disturbed. we need to have the weight of law abiding citizens have their second amendment rights and keep criminals with mental illnesses from getting guns. if a phelan comes and says he is eligible to buy a gun -- but a

phelan comes in and says he is eligible to buy a gun-- if a felon comes ina dn says he is eligible to buy a gun there is he is committing an offense. he applaudedw .arquardt rubio this weekend he applauded the senator marker rubio. what i want to know is marker rubio's plan does not seem to me to include a comprehensive immigration reform. let me tell you why i say this. right now cubans are arriving on our shores and automatically within a few days they are moved

to the front of the line, getting immediate documentation. they are automatically on food stamps, medicare, housing sites, and cash stipends. how can he say the people who have been waiting here who have been living under the shadows for decades should be pushed back 25 years but cubans it to move forward? host: let us get a response from the senator. guest: you clearly know more about the treatment of cuban refugees from the castro dictatorship in florida than i do. i do not want to challenge to on the facts there. let us assume that what you say is absolutely correct. i have no reason to doubt that. but we still need to do something to enforce the border and make sure that our system of

employment is accurate so we can give the people that want to get folks to work the ability to hire somebody they know is legal. i think those two steps up positive. i have not read the proposal already. as i understand there is -- the actual bill language will not be submitted until tomorrow. from what i hear senator rubio is do a lot of credit for some leadership on very tough issues. i'm going to look at it and i am not going to rule it out. i am so glad i thought of this, he is right to say we need regular order. this does not need to come to the floor next week, it needs to go to committees. committees need to submit amendments, they need to have hearings. the caller from florida needs to be able to listen to those

hearings and see if indeed this concern can be addressed. theseeciate the work of eight senators. there are 92 other senators that look at it and four hundred 35 or so members of the house of representatives. but as go through committees, something we have gotten away from in recent years in harry reid's senate. calling in from manchester. caller: i would like to know if it is considered whether the chinese are the ones are missing north korea, that we are underestimating their nuclear capabilities and they are actually the ones that are supplying them and they actually are a stronger are meant -- meant that we could some credit for it but we give them credit for.

guest: i know that in many ways, particularly with non-nuclear weapons, north korea is a climate state of china. i do not have the intelligence information to be a comment on that. on in say this, further the wall street journal opinion , it saystoday's paper that the director of national intelligence issued a statement telling people not to worry. this is a statement of the national intelligence director of the obama administration. it would be inaccurate to suggest that north korea has a

fully developed and tested nuclear weapon. in any case he added the statement in an intelligence community assessment. the piece is worth waiting. we conform our own conclusions i think you and i can agree this is a very serious issue and regardless of if it is helps --m develop this capability they have nuclear weapons at this point. they just do not have the deliverable capability. korea andh intelligence, u.s. officials keep underestimating the nuclear threat. political reports that the former basketball player dennis rodman is talking about north korea. he would like to go back. what is the pop culture element of this? is this good for america to have a citizen going back and forth? is it bad for america?

host: i would hope that dennis rodman wants to go back because since he was over there a few weeks ago he has learned so much about the oppression, the murder, the slavery, the absolute impoverishment of an entire coveuntry. he says they would just hang out and have some fun. guest: while mr. rodman is having fun with the north korean dictator there are multiple generations of families who have no hope of ever getting out of the north korean prison camps. hundreds of thousands of this koreans's felolow

are in the most debased situations you can ever imagine. i hope it movie stars and athletes go over there we can have some more openness. i hope he will at least read an article or two. i read a book from the only person who has escaped from the north korean prison camp. the information is a short tweeted. before mr. rodman goes back to north korea and goes to a nice basketball game with this dicta tor it might not hurt him to read about the awful treatment that most north koreans receive at the hands of this regime. host: senator roger wicker, thank you for joining us this morning. coming up next, we will look at

duplicative government programs. first this update from c-span radio. >> is 9:20 a.m. eastern time. secretary of state john kerry is on its way back from its 10 day overseas trip. he plans to fly directly to chicago. 25-year-old man was killed when she and four other americans were walking from a military base to a nearby school to deliver textbooks in afghanistan. secretary carey will meet with her parents, tom and barry that, later today. that's your of washington the supreme court hears arguments on whether or not human genes can be patented. the high court's decision could reshape medical research, affecting biotechnology and even alternative fuels. the u.s. patent and trademark office has been awarding patents on human genes for nearly 30 years. turning to economic issues, international stock markets are lower across the board this hour

on news that china's economy grew at a slower than expected rate. disappointing u.s. retail sales also weighing on u.s. sentiment, the dow is down about 35 points. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> orphaned at age 11, she lives with her favorite 0, james buchanan. years later he becomes president and because he is unmarried she serves as white house hostess. she is the first to be called "first lady" on a regular basis. she sets trends on clothing and children and ships are named after her. meet harriet lane, a look at her life and that of her predecessor jane pearce. tonight's ons," the c-spanand c-span3. journal"ngton continues.

host: we'll get your money and how taxpayer dollars are spent on government programs. we will learn more today from nicole clowers. she is with the government accountability office where she serves as financial market and community investment director. last week released their third annual report on federal programs that are duplicated in the federal budget. why did you get this report. tell us more about it. this the third report we have looked at duplication. we required a few years ago to study these issues and this year we put out a report where we identified 31 new areas that either we found evidence of duplication and fragmentation or opportunities for cost savings to. host: define for us the overlap of duplication and fragmentation. guest: you can think of them in tiers.

fragmentation is the lowest level where we have multiple agencies working on the same broad national interest. for example you might have multiple agencies in international affairs. then you would have overlap, which would have multiple agencies working in the same area but also providing the same type of activities or benefits to -- or similar types of benefits or activities to other populations. at the highest level you have duplication, which is multiple agencies providing the same benefits or activities to the same target or population. you can imagine there are a number of programs that would be fragmented on any type of issue that is broad and probably has multiple agencies working in it. the only included fragmented programs were refined attendance in the region where we find in efficiency. -- fragmented programs where we find inefficiency.

we identified 17 programs that we found out have addendums of duplication and allow fragmentation. the fragmentation we found was in the area of renewable energies. we did a study where we identified over 679 projects related to renewable energy such as by a few, solar, wind -- we found that is fragmented across 23 agencies and even over 100 sub-agencies that are working on this issue. it is fragmented and needs to be coordinated. host: how does that happen? does that start to occur over time? guest: these are long standing issues. the program develops over a number of years for policymakers see a potential need and want to do something about it. or they feel the program is not working so create additional

programs. it becomes an layering thing over time. it is made more problematic because there is not a comprehensive list of all federal programs just make it go check to see if a program already exists. if it exists we just make that better rather than creating a new one. in addition of the area of going back to renewable energies, this is what we wanted to include the fragmentation issues in the we drove in the study, down projects and a dignified 82 wind projects. in that case we did find duplication and that there was federal government support for multiple sources going towards a single project. it was not clear that duplicates support was needed. host: you also look at a veteran health care. there is a backlog for the services.

find in terms of veteran health care? guest: we found potential overlap between the dod and va health systems, which are two of the largest health care systems in the world. the cost over $100 billion together. these facilities are often located in the same areas. there is potential for collaboration providing similar services to beneficiaries. what we have found is often there is not a systematic approach at the federal level to identify potential -- or that collaboration breed a more systematic approach was taken -- or the collaboration. if a more systematic approach was taken we feel more money could be saved. host: a caller from union, washington on the republican side. make a i want to

statement about fraud and abuse in the federal government briefly. i am a sub-contractor in a software project. i am in the mix of 80 employees, independent. we are working for fat -- working for a couple of projects for the federal government. in a nutshell on every product there are six to seven developers working on something that should take one developer or two developers six months or three months. the projects are lasting a year with seven developers and a project manager. probably three out of five of everyone working on a project is an h1b . i was wondering if there were any studies done on whistle- blowers. thank you. guest: this report examined a duplication of fragmentation and instances of cost saving. it is not its duty -- it does

not address the issue of fraud in particular but we do have a series of reports on fraud across different federal governments. we include those types of issues in our high risk series where we identify the potential for fraud and identify the potential solutions for them. also look at drug abuse programs. give us a sense of what you have found. guest: we found over 76 different types of drug abuse and prevention programs and they are fragmented across 16 agencies. they are overlapping in that they provide certain types of services or target certain types of populations. they are not adequately coordinated. better coordination among these programs could more efficiently use the resources that are provided, which are four $0.5 billion. -- which are $4.5 billion.

host: what did you find? guest: we have a large body on the defense issues. in past reports identified a number of dod related issues. this year one of the identified issues was combat related uniforms. military services have increased the number of camouflage print uniforms from two to seven in recent years. in doing so they have not taken a coordinated approach and it has been very fragmented. as a result they missed the potential opportunity to leverage their buying power. we estimate that they could save $82 million at least by federal court nation. it's beyond the money. we also find that the fragmented approach -- it is a safety issue for our military personnel who are often in joint combat zones. it is important that they have consistent performance and

performance based uniforms in this situation. nikki clowers is our guest. froms hear from doug severs the region from several from silverom doug cities, colorado. the a.he whole issue of responsibility goes to records. -- of va responsibility goes to records. there are stories about them being in the reviewer's office, back up to the floor. i think i heard that on c-span one morning. that is absolutely incompetent. i am a physician. i am in practice. we have been computerized for 20 years. we can get records from the hospital.

there is no reason there should be paid for charts in the va system. -- there should be paper charts in the va system. i am not an expert in the issues but i know that we continue to look at this issue between electronic pressure to between the va and dod and whether there is opportunity for cooperation. host: as we mentioned the head of the veterans affairs will be testifying before congress today. he will appear before the senate veterans' affairs committee, talking about president's 2014 budget. you can find that live on c-span 3 at two o'clock three today.

nick is on our independent line. hello. i want to know how much money we're spending on the part of home that security -- the department of paul led security. -- of homeland security. are they aren't to fight america? for national defense or anything else. bring up a good point with sequestration. that is on the mind of a lot of people. that is one of the issues we point out in our report. fiscal pressures built in the nation so that the need for us to make to the government is working efficiently and effectively and opportunities to produce overlap and

fragmentation is more important in terms of the fiscal environment. of theng d.h. s one issues we examine this year was their research and development program. what we found was the department as a whole does not have good visibility over all it is spending on research and development projects. as a result i cannot tell us how much they're spending on these projects. we found at least six different components that are providing grants in the research development area. one report a sample of those -- when we report the samples of those we found a different context. we made recommendations in that area to help the department did a better understanding of what they are spending on r&d. from wests joining us palm beach pam is joining us .rom west palm beach, florida

host: i want to address your statement that there is no comprehensive list of government agencies. if that is true you can understand how all this fragmentation and overlap occurs. my first question is has such a list been developed and has there been some requirement going forward that before any program or money is spent we verify we do not have an agency or group performing the same service were you can coordinate. number two it is, as a taxpayer i have listened to this story more years than i care to repeal -- care to reveal. we have duplication and fragmentation and overlapping government agencies. we hear about what the government is doing about it every year and every year the numbers are larger.

is there really some end in sight to how this is corrected? have overlapound or to petition are required to get it fixed. i will take my response of the air. thank you. he brings of the number of good points. the first regarding the comprehensive list. today there is no comprehensive list of all federal programs. there is a requirement in the government's performance and results act, the moderation at devils past few years ago, with the office of management and budget began developing that list. they expect to put out the initial list in may of this year. in just the few weeks we will have initial list of 24 agencies and programs. it is a list inventory they plan to continue to update moving forward. we look for to examining that

list as it is developed. of -- i agree this a longstanding issue where we are applying this report as unique and we are putting together a number of issues. previously highlighted and continues to highlight problems across the government. have heard a lot of these issues in the press. i would say that we are seeing progress. increasedrts bring attention to these issues. thething we do is track extent which government agencies take on the issues we identified. over the last three years identified 380 actions or recommendations that we want the congress or executive branch to take on to address issues that we have found.

we are finding that they are making progress in tackling these issues. developed a new website, you can find it at gao.gov, which contains all of the different recommendations we have made in these areas. a member of the public can go on and search by the public and see what type of progress has been made. host: nicole clowers is with the government accountability of this. she is a financial market and community investment director. federal news radio has a story from last week about your most recent report. it says it is the final a three-year study of congress -- a congressionally requested the gao studies.

guest: this third report marks the completion of a systematic government that we started three years ago. it was our way to break it up into managing pieces. this year we identified 131 new issues in next to replant to continue to look -- and the next year we plan to continue to look. as i mentioned before, in 2011 and 2012 at the five almost 300 actions that congress or the executive branch agencies could take to help identify and address this duplication or fragmentation. what we found is that almost 80% of those actions or recommendations have been addressed or partially addressed by the agency'ies. we will continue to report. host: renee is calling from

bellevue, nebraska on the independent line. caller: the comment i wanted to make was made by the previous caller. it is the exact same thing. what nicole is stating about the overlap in services has existed for decades. it is nothing new and nothing that anyone in state or federal current has worked to in any degree. even if the recommendations are made there has to be somebody who action takes those recommendations and follows through with cuts. since there is no master plan there is no one person responsible for doing that. then?appens do you go to the individual people in the department and say, "let us look it what you can trend."

and are they going to take the recommendation heart and follow through? and who is accountable for seeing that all of this happens? we are so fragmented that there is no one person responsible or followinge for through on any of these recommendations. bring up a number of good points. one of them was the need for sustained leadership of within congress and the executive branch to tackle these issues. as you say the work a lot and the overlap and duplication fragmentation occurred over a number of years. it is likely to take time to untangle the web the we have identified. it will take leadership. we are highlighting an issue to keep the pressure on by

reporting the progress that is being made. host: let us look to some of the cost-saving suggestions. you can expand on them for us. improving irs enforcement of tax laws is one of recommendation from the gao. also modifying the federal crop insurance program, cancel medicare advantage quality bonus payment programs. let us start with those three. where they significant. host -- t: the irs issue the amount of taxes versus taxes selected is a gap. we have highlighted this issue in each of our reports because gao believes it is important that we work to address the tax fountain and reduce it. in this report will continue to

identify additional opportunities for the irs to continue to take this tack steps. one of the issues we highlight this year is a return on investment. .t is some whole idea instead of focusing on everyone equally, focus on the issues that could yield the highest return. for example, focusing on audits from lower income tax returns to those of higher income tax returns. you get a better bang for the buck for example. and behind the plot -- and the high cost of crop insurance, it continues to increase every years -- to increase over the years. the subsidies the federal government provides to farmers to pay for their insurance premium -- unlike other federal programs of the farm programs are more specific.

it is not tied to the individual income of the farmer. the adjustments to the program to take into account those issues to save taxpayers $1.2 billion each year. in another issue that you highlight was that the medicare a bonus program. the medicare advantage is a health coverage program alternative from the traditional medicare program in which health coverage is provided to private plans but under contract with the centers for medicare and medicaid services. cms -- have found was we found flaws in the design so it makes measuring the effectiveness of that program

overall difficult. the bonuses that are being paid to encourage that performance are going to plans that just have an average performance. therefore we recommend cancelling the remaining year of that program, which was six two billion dollars. host: one other recommendation was modifying tobacco tax rates. why? guest: the tobacco tax rates have increased in recent years but have done so in -- they created a disparity across the different tobacco products and different types. as a result we have seen a marked shift on both the consumer examples and producers to lower the price of tobacco products. there is potential for revenues gained here if the taxes were equalized. we're talking in the neighborhood of between $600 million and a little over a billion dollars per year. host: let us hear from

manchester, new jersey. marlene is a republican. good morning. caller: off of the last caller's back, there was a gentleman who is concerned about the contract situation that appear to be duplicates sales. they have two or more companies that they haven't approached to sell the same problem. initial contract is done to find out which one has the better approach. it is contracted it is contractually run at the same time to get the opportunities to .ind out what the bugs are it may cost more money to run this with two or three more contracts at the same time. doneinal contract will be

for projection an. it would be much wiser to find out the buttocks in this initial phase -- to find out the bugs in this initial phase. with tens of millions of dollars producing something that is not the best and results. host: let us get a response. guest: we have done work the looks of the importance of proper testing phase for any type of r&d initiative. there is a number of reports we issued on properly testing something before rolling out. this report related to contracting and increased use of strategic forcing which could save the government a good significant amount of money. what strategic sourcing is is

rather than letting individual contracts over multiple agencies or within departments looking for ways to leverage their .uying power by doing so we found an example of agencies. we are -- if they spend more expansively dick is a $4 million budget increasing that strategic force by 1%. about a are talking government accountability of this report. it is looking at federal programs that are duplicated in other branches of government. nicole clowers is our guest with gao. fromis it tweet coming in moscow -- coming into us from rich. is there any exchange in terms

of the research? guest: we are frequently in contact with members of congress. the report is addressed to a number of congressional committees and also addressed to -- we talked to them about the issues that we are studying. i keep them -- host: let us hear from tom from eastlake, ohio. good morning. theer: i am a veteran from end of world war two but have not had to use the va until maybe 10 years ago. the what i see int he cleveland area -- they have improved their system. i am worried this directive is

improved in a certain area. i have one further comment that the fact that we are in so many wars that our veterans and this system is so much more compromised than peace time. there are people like you who are trying to improve upon our fine system and are making strides and heading in the right direction. i appreciate c-span and very much. i watch it all the time. e.st: hope guest: we certainly appreciate

the sentiments and i thank him for his service. one of his questions, about whether this is isolated in duplication and fragmentation, unfortunately it is not. what we have found is these issues span across all governments. when you look at our ports you will see that we identify issues of duplication and fragmentation in all areas of the government. we now examined and identified issues in all 15 cabinets, and independent agencies. when you look at the actions that we identified four agencies to take to address these issues while they can stand the government, they are a focus -- the are focused in particular in certain departments such as health and human services and treasury. this represents 50% of the budget. host: a question for gaz on

twitter -- guest: sequestration at g a zero, we have been planning for these types of situations as soon as we heard about them. we have taken prudent steps to matching this effectively as we can. we are currently at the lowest levels in terms of our work force. as the consular general has said quality will be maintained. we will continue to work in a prudent manner. host: nicole clowers is a community investment director at t zero. chris is on the line. how thei was wondering work around the dod budget?

youroes that figure into overall reference as far as the g a zero accounting of all the programs within the government. -- as far as the g a zero accounting of all of the government's rigid -- of all the gao programs within the government. guest: 1 of the areas of the side in terms of our review was intelligence. and we also made some decisions in terms of dollar threshold's. anything under $10 million we have taken off the table for now. that does not mean in the future we will not include those types of issues. we started with the budget, looked across the budget, our rate them across arrayed budget functions -- arrayed them

across a raid but it functions. be a raid that information across the department which started to indicate where there is potential overlap and our institutional knowledge about some programs to help identify the issue. host: tell us about your process and where you started how you figure out some of the overlap. you started out by talking about how you look at fragmentation overlap and duplication. very big product for the office of the past three years. i think every group within gao has produced a report. we have been able to pull together a number of reports the issue of the last decade or so. we have been highlighting these issues of overlap fragmentation

and duplication but we did was hold them together and put them in one place for policymakers to consider. help organize3 to our work, we spend a systematic approach where we started with a budget, a rate that information across the agencies. by doing that in sort of graphic sense we can check to see whether there is tensions of fragmentation. we took budget documents, agency documents, went out into the field, interviewed people, went out and observe the progress of actions to further conduct our work on these issues. host: freeport, florida. alex -- go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i had a couple of questions for nicole clowers. the two undercover any kind of

underhanded doings in your research? -- did you uncover any kind of underhand dealings in your research? to do research the fed or u.s. treasury? have one big cumulative number of how much could be saved if the government took your suggestions? will start with your last question first. guest: in terms of savings, we addressed the issues we found, the government has saved tens of billions of dollars each year. we provide that information in a magnitude order because in some cases we are not able to get good the funding information from the federal agencies on the amount of spending for certain programs. we are able to provide a specific number or a range. we are confident that at minimum tens of billions of dollars

would be saved. host: he asked about a treasury department and the fed. guest: 1 of the issues we included was the asset forfeiture program. it was administered both by the department of justice and treasury, which is where they seized different assets that are involved in criminal activities. and that we cited potential overlap program. we found facilities closely located together within 20 miles and they will provide better cooperation. there's potential for savings. host: bill for massachusetts -- a democrat caller:. thank you for taking my call. i watched c-span all the time and i also watched the senate and house and have a pretty good idea of what they are doing up there. seeuestion is i always senator cauldron always marching

out these documents from europe aretelling us how much we having duplication of different positions and different jobs and fundings. can you answer that question -- is what he is saying accurate? host: senator coper uses heavy use of our words. i've seen the presentation as " -- where he will present the information on the floor. republican call-up caller:. of gao looked at the impact the sequestered by the sense of by the time you get through everything you will actually be losing money? in the dod you cannot do any long-range planning or coordinate. if we get under international

stress we're going have to actually come back and redo things in a very efficient and costly matter. have work that is just beginning to look at sequestration and i imagine that we will get additional requests to examine those issues. -- what of this report this report does highlight potential for savings, which is especially important in today's's fiscal environment. this information is available on-line. is it in a digestible format? guest: it is. we have made it as user-friendly as possible. and you go to gao.gov will find a link there. you will be able to see the