of public integrity discusses the work of the health administration. washington journal" is host: house and senate both back in town after taking time off to spend some time in their home turf. there are items of the congressional agenda but dealing with the budget distillate top priority. speaker the mayor wrote in an op-ed that is appearing on line this morning that republicans are doing more with less to fix the budget. that is how we are going to start this edition of "washington journal." today is monday may 6.

the numbers -- as always you can reach out to as by a social media. this is the op-ed we found on olitico this morning by speaker john boehner --

the speaker is talking about republicans doing more with less and we are getting this from an op-ed he had in mind a's politico. monday'sthat -- on

politico. we found that online. he goes on to say -- our first call regarding speaker boehner's op ed, gary in sterling, virginia on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: thank you very much. first i would like to say one little thing about the sequester. march 1 was my 39th wedding

anniversary and a week before that my wife asked me if i knew what special state was coming up. i said march 1 and her face got all lit up and i said, "that's when the sequester starts." i kind of blew that. look at all the problems we have with the department of transportation. this thing in montgomery county, silver spring transit center, the liabilities for montgomery county went from 13 million to 120 million. out where i live we have an interchange that was underbid by 63% and when ithey finished it was the most accident-prone

interchanges in northern v irginia. host: we are going to move onto a toledo, ohio on our line for democrats. caller: i don't think mr. boehner is doing anything. if what he's doing is helping then it's nothing. nothing helps nothing. i think they should be placedo n hourl on hourly salary. idiculous. really r everytime there is an election they say, "jobs, jobs, jobs." they are wasting so much time and there is no excuse for it. host: let me read a leittle

bit more of what speaker boehner says -- your thoughts on that? talking from just the side of his mouth. everything they have done is to stop mr. obama. they have not done anything for the country. everything they do is to block whatever he is trying to do. nothing can succeed if they are always running against the wall. host: thank you for your call. we want to remind our listeners and the respect you too can didn't fault in the conversation -- our listeners

and viewers that you too can get involved in the conversation. here are the numbers -- dustin is on the line from omaha, nebraska on our line for democrats. aller: i think peter is doing little bit of grandstanding. is doing aboehner little bit of grandstanding. host: you would say that while calling in on the republican line? caller: i am a republican, not a conservative. $100 is $10.

big deal. what are the actual numbers? there is an organization that comes up with recommendations at a year and the most recent one was $185 billion in one year that they can cut. republicans are not going to do that. they claimed to be fiscal conservatives but the easy thing that this group identifies, they cannot even get rid of that. host: that is tested in omaha, nebraska, on our line for republicans. more on speaker boehner's op ed in "politico," --

chris in tulsa, oklahoma on our line for independents. you are on "washington journal." if the republicans are doing more with less how come they aren't working with people on the other side? nobody can speak for their party. if speaker boehner cannot even get his people in line for his party how can they do more with less? congress does not do anything for anybody that does not have a lobbyist paying for it. it is frustrating he talks about how they are going to balance the budget. tulsa,hat is chris in oklahoma. ed is on in newtown, pennsylvania.

what do you think about what the speaker had to say? caller: i think it is a start and a good thing. i called because of the last lady that called and said that they are grandstanding. i thought to myself how ignorant are they? you give the facts these people and they still colin, i do not understand the education people still call iny the, i do not understand the education of all of the people. the house of representatives will spend 15% less -- "when republicans took control

of the house in january 2011, gaynor, the new speaker, said house spending would be a priority." three years ago the average lawmaker had a $1.5 billion budget. those budgets, buried by office, cover everything from staff salaries to district office and bottled water. the cuts trend a $18 million in 2011. they are on track to save $205 million in 2015. back to the phones, douglas in san diego for republicans. you are on "washington journal." i wantedood morning,

to say i am a financial planner and wealth manager. i concur with the summary that -- he did article a lot to improve the tax code in the grand bargain this year. he took a lot of uncertainty out the peoplellowing who are responsible for the retirement of our clients to better plan for the future. a think he did a very good job. host: that is douglas in san diego, california. this is in "the wall street journal" this morning --

let's take a look at a couple of tweet have got coming an- our topic for the first 45 minutes of the program, speaker

boehner writing in an op-ed in politico. new jersey, are lined for democrats, go-ahead. caller: i agree with the last lady that spoke, paid them by the hour. they're doing nothing and getting paid. you can clean up the act a little bit if you stop giving service people $5,000 to move from state to state. that is just wrong. host: tyson in some land, california is on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. the gentleman was a little baffled by the diversity of the callers. that is the beauty of c-span and freedom of speech. i embrace it. great station, thank you. the word i'm looking for with the inner -- with speaker boehner is "hypocritical."

in hise his balance checking account is in the green and his finances are taking care of. it is year after year, decade after decade, it is not going to be our problem. obama is still flying over the place. they are not stupid, they are just corrupt and they are doing the wrong thing. has this op-rugman ed in this morning's "noew york times," -- back to the phones, doc is on

the line in the past and rouge, louisiana. -- in baton rouge, louisiana.

the person from california did not hear it in a's office. all of the republicans are taking a 50% decrease in what they had last year. every american that wicks up in the morning with $1 million in owes -- right now we 150,000 per person. every time you see a child you can pat him on the head and apologize to him for the total financial collapse that will happen in this country. it is the 1960's crowd that has taken over. they do not care and they will ruin everything if they get a chance. host: dc any folks or

coalitions -- do you see any forecastle coalitions that addresses with speaker boehner claims? republicans are doing more with less? i think mr. cruz is going to be on speaker boehner's side on this. he is the one that i can see them doing something. host: that a stock in bat and rouge louisiana. both the new york times -- that l doc in battenrouge, ouisiana. back to the new york times, they write - -

regarding these strikes, it was one of the topics discussed on the sunday shows. we are about to show you what might mark -- what mike rogers said regarding the situation in syria. [video clip] >> i think it is deteriorating by the day. hezbollah is moving troops financed by iran across syria.

you have an al qaeda organization showing up in the thousands. if this continues you could have f excess of 10,000 foreign ighters through the year. this is as bad a situation as i have seen in a long time host: more from the "new york times" article -- the other side of the aisle

is the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. he was also on "face the nation" and was asked if president barack obama backed away from his "red line: comment regarding u.s. involvement in the serious dilemma. [video clip] >> i do not think he backed away. i think he understands that if we are to be involved we need all of the facts and information. we do not -- we cannot be the sheriff of the world. when we make the move to get in we have to do it with a

coalition. that no otherces country has. we need to make sure we use them. some of the resources are training of the people fighting. , theresue about weapons are a ton of weapons in syria on both sides. it is a matter of coordinating those weapons and making sure they are being used in the right way. chemical weapons is something we will have to deal with. we do have information that chemical weapons have been used. host: we are talking about speaker boehner talking about republicans doing more with less from an item we picked up "politico" this morning. if you are calling from outside the united states this morning, 202-585-3883.

next caller from virginia. caller: thank you. i think speaker boehner was doing it just to make a point. the lady earlier was saying the republicans are doing everything they can to block the democrats. the republicans have held the house for three or four years. they spent over six trillion dollars in four years. i would kind of agree with her. the republicans have blocked the president. six trillion dollars over four years, that is more than any other president combined. i think speaker boehner was doing it to prove a point. host: moving on to crag in scarsdale, new york, on our line for independents.

caller: i agree with all of the college here. i just do not understand that if you can cut this small amount of money each year from the budget, what are you going to do? are you going to say, "listened, we have to tax the people every year more and more and more to cover these expenses?" or are we going to find a way to cut it? each department could choose where they make the cuts. what president obama -- president obama is refusing to do that. "let's cut where it will hurt the most." it makes absolutely no sense. there are ways to find a lot of

money that is being wasted in these budgets. to thent a letter embassy in mexico telling illegals that if they come here they cannot get status to get food stamps. there are people in this country who need money. to me it makes absolutely no sense. host: lyonnais in new castle, indiana on our line for independents. caller: thank you. al elect at when it comes to the politicians in washington i do not care for -- i would like added when it comes to politicians in washington i do not care for democrats or republicans. they have no intention of ever reducing our pocket. -- reducing our budget. they are paid for by the taking

institution. we have no need for any taxes to be raised. taxes should be reduced. there is ample money being hidden from the american people. if they would get their heads out of the stand and to their study -- and do their study on the cafr reports they would see the need to impeach. host: we have a couple of folks who have been talking to us on facebook. the speaker's announcement saying that republicans are doing more with less --

we are going to get more calls and in just a second. we're going to show you some more tweets the coming in on our twitter address. daniel writes - - we have another one from ron.

you can participate on social media, you can send them to @cspanwj or facebook.com, where the conversation is always going on. we've got more information about hearings that are coming up this week on capitol hill. teh first one comes to us from --shington times,"

that the phones. lawrence from davenport, you are on "washington journal." caller: this is a joke. are the reason we are where we are now. the economic downturn is so high. they took over the house in 2010 and has been nothing but a disaster. this country has gone down. the only thing they can do is blame the president. they voted on nothing. they are trying to turn this country around. andthey can do is complain blame the president. nothing productive has come out

of the house since they took over in 2010. allen on our line for republicans. your thoughts on what the speaker had to say about doing more with less? caller: i think he has the right idea. as i have said previously when talking with one of your people hase senator tom colbert in put out "back in black," and he listed areas that were a duplication and areas that could easily be put aside and could bring down $9 trillion. i do not see anything been acted on by the senate or the house. i see most people standing on either side of the aisle asking with the appointed.

the blueprint has been put out there for them. nothing has happened. the benghazing strike --

they also write that this week's hearing is expected to focus on claism in a committee report --at state departments , you aren new jorsey on "washington journal." your thoughts about what the speaker had to say. caller: both parties are a

joke. i am reading in the papers that the cia is throwing bags of money to cars i in -- to karzai in afghanistan. span's takested in c- rebels were the ones who used the sarin gas. host: that is marlene in new jersey. next up is re in arizona. -- is ray in arizona. caller: i believe they are doing more harm with less effort. i believe the heart of the issues have to do with all of these trade agreement. .e play high tariffs

-- we pay high tariffs. we give the job over to mexico. after aer lost his job 35 years at his company that went to mexico. now want to legalize all of the illegals in this country. it is all corporate run. corporate gives money to the senators, corporate gives money to the media. you do not get the truth and that is what i truly believe. host: we have more from the papers this morning this is in "the wall street journal" -- the

robert is calling from fort lauderdale, florida on our line for republicans. you are on "washington journal." i want to speak to the

cause that the republicans are doing more with less. when the democrats took over the house when bush was in in 2006 they canceled all drilling all over the world for the united states. they stopped off shore, stops in alaska. all they talk about is what they are doing for the elderly. a lot of people are trying to make this do but they've got. $1.10.ce of gasoline was the price had been knocked down from $150 per barrel to $35 when bush was in. they took over, they stopped

drilling, then they cut this guy elected president. he stopped drilling. it is ridiculous. host: robert in fort lauderdale florida. this is more from the susan davis article in usa today. "complaints have fallen on a deaf ear in the speaker's office. it is only right we do the same in the house," john boehner told

"usa today." the article goes on to say the committee, which has been based on size and merit, has been trimmed. -- this year'st budget is $6.8 million, a 42% cut. the democratic-controlled chamber has not self-inflicted comparative operational cuts. back to the phones, kevin in boston, massachusetts on our line for democrats. you are on "washington journal." how're you doing? host: i'm fine, what you think about speaker boehner saying republicans are doing more with less? caller: they ought to do more. it seems like they are corrupted. they are trying to bring us into another war. it seems like they drag us off problems and wars

overseas. israel is no help. they don't know what's going on in that country over there. our keep chastising president. they never had his back. they do not care. republicans cannot give a dam about us. host: jamie in manassas, virginia on our line for republicans. our last caller says republicans do not care. caller: it is amazing some of the views i hear from democrats. with as bad mindset as it has gotten with our democratic control senate -- do withng has to finances. i understand president is trying to pull back into the right

thing. the bottom line is we need to have a new energy policy and get our minds straight as far as spending. effect ofg to have an generations to come because democrats continue to think they can spend more and borrow. host: two different views regarding spending in this morning's "usa today," --

on the other side of the page they have the opposing view that has been written by rep keith ellison. he writes -- you can find both of those fears in this morning's "usa today." body is calling from texas -- bonnie is calling from texas. trying to say -to

officials and people in the united states that we aren't in a war, we are in a dispute. we are using the poor to get killed because we want things in ntries that don'th belong to us. for 16e been in this war i years. cticallyback to pra stealing oil from iran. while those people did not enumeration, they still aren't.

host: in this morning's --olumbus dispatch,"

you can read more about that in this morning pause "columbus dispatch." we have a coall from sawyer. caller: i like the way the speaker is talking about the house cutting costs. from what i have been seeing most firefighters are volunteers paid by the local county or state. teachers are paid for by the state but their budget is not federal funding. host: that is sawyer in manassas, virginia. two more items from facebook --

jennifer is calling us from minnesota on our line for independents. if you are on "washington journal." go ahead. read,: the one you just not the last one but the one before that, i definitely agree with that. i am listening to the people calling in on the democratic side and they really do not have a clue about what is going on in our country. for one thing, the republicans

that are in charge of the house, they are passing a bill after bill. they send it to the senate where it dies under the democratic rule of harry ried. it is funny how they say republicans are obstructionists? what about the democrats trying to bring down the debt -- what the democrats are trying to do to bring down the debt? they started going crazy with trying to pass every program they could, including two wars. wall street journal" is reporting about the south korean president coming to visit

the united states -- steve in florida is our next caller on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: thank you. i applaud speaker boehner's effort to save us some money. although i think it is more political than anything. i think congress is interested in preserving the liberty of our country and doing what is right.

we go in to a national sales tax where we get rid of the income tax and fees irs, that is a way we preserve our liberty -- rather than us working hard and the government gets the first cut. it is a form of slavery, really. justt fee lif peol -- i feel if people want to check it out, we need more support. we need to have the money in hand for people and let them become miffed. on ouroving on to dave line for democrats.

we are talking about what the speaker had saved with republicans doing more with less. caller: eisenhower was the last true republican president. they talk about a tyrannical government taking their guns off of them. next thing you know they give the fed one trillion dollars to spend. they are afraid of the government, why are they giving them more money? assad has a big military. he is in trying for years to take guns off his people. you cannot do that. just called in saying republicans are called -- saying the government is spending more money, you just read a report saying the deficit is going down. host: we have a tweet from stella --

what do you think about that? caller: that is dream land. we have the biggest economy in the world. they are just holding us back. there is 30 two trillion dollars sitting down there in the cayman trillion sitting there in the cayman islands. i am sitting here in this natruaural gas shell. pumping stations and exported to china. host: coming up on this edition of "washington journal," a look at the potential field for 2016 presidential race with reid wilson. later on our periodic series on

the health care law continues with a look at the impact of the affordable care act on businesses. us,.h kliff will join today is monday and we will be right back. alsos. grant was interesting. they had this extraordinary roller coaster existence. their lives he was considered an abject failure. in almost no time at all suddenly he was the most popular man in the country, the man who saved the union on the battlefield and then president of the united states. >> julia loved her time in the

white house. she said in her memoirs it was like a bright, beautiful dream. she felt her husband had finally achieved the recognition he >> deserved greater than be part of our conversation on juliet -- the recognition he deserved. conversation our on chilean grant. tonight it 9:00 eastern on c- span, c-span radio, and c- span.org. the openve internet order but you also have the death of the social contract. both of those were fundamentally built on the premise that we give you a monopoly, you served everybody, we have universal service and other requirements. as we move to an all-data worlxc d the foundations of those economic contracts are

crumbling. >> we assume it is probably one term, whether it is a success or failure it will probably be notrmined wby whether or those options are successful or failure. there are a lot of different land mines and issues to figure out. tom clearly has the skills to get that done. >> the issue is likely to face tom wheeler, president's choice as head of fcc, tonight on "the communicators. >> "washington journal" continues. >host: reid wilson joins us from about thene" to talk road to 2016. welcome to "washington journal." from "theheadline

washington post," emblematic of other headlines -- is this unusually early or is this the new normal? guest: i think it is a combination of both. it is certainly earlier than we have seen other white house faces get started. howard deane, announced he was going to run in the summer of 2002, even before the midterms. we all thought that was hugely early. none of us and knew at the time who ended up becoming one of the democratic front-runners. we already have a couple of

candidates not only going to south carolina but rand paul heading to new hampshire. this thing is getting started really early. let us contrast this to 2012 when mitt romney and a number of the other republican candidates waited until midway through the year of the election to make their candidacy official. we had a really early start in 2004, at an earlier start in 2008. remember that clinton-obama caught into their race earlier that year. we are starting over with a super-early beginning. host: we have an article that came out a couple of days ago and has a picture of senator ted

cruz and vice president joe biden. 2016 whitesumed house hopefuls are keynote speakers at tehe annual dinner in columbia. would it be safe to say that senator cruz and vice president biden are the guys to beat? guest: i would not go that far. i think we are early enough to say there is nobody to beat yet. a secondoing to be open white house race in a row in which both republicans and democratic nominees are up for grabs.

willhappened in 2008, it happen in 2016. this is going to be a free-for- all. you have deep benches on both sides. the one group of people that is happiest about that is groups like the south carolina democratic and republican parties. they are going to be able to bring in these top main speakers, get off their supporters to various events, and pay that $100 for the rubber chicken dinner that is going to make the money. lucrativevery process. look for the iowa democrats veryepublicans to be two well-financed parties. everybody will be going to the rubber chicken dinners and this is what we call "the shadow primary." host: we are talking about the

road to the white house 2016. touch with to get in us, the numbers -- reid wilson, you were talking about senator mccain earlier. you wrote -- talk to was about the

abolition of the republican party. will this be a disadvantage? guest: it is a distinct disadvantage for republicans and it was a distinct advantage for president obama over the last two presidential cycles. in every of election, the share of the electorate might up by white voters has gone down by two-four points every four-year cycle. the republicans assumed bacchants 2012 -- assumed back in 2012 was republicans assumed the electorate in 2012 was not going to look like to the dozen 8. they thought it would look like an amalgamation between 2008 and 2010, a good year from republicans. it turns out that 2012 looked even more democratic than 20 --

2008. the republicans gave the obama campaign from 2008 to much credit in how many minority voters and first-time voters and younger voters they were able to turn out. nobody thought the percentage of youth voters would go up from 2008-2012 and did it did. the percentage of voters between the ages of 18-29 rose from 18% of the vote to 19% the vote. that was minor but that is better than falling. republicans have to figure out a way to build a coalition of the future, to build these pieces of the pie. i point is clear that the voters aren't known they rely most, the older, white voters are simply not making up the mouth of the electorate to form a winning coalition. what we will see the next couple of years when randcruz goes to iowa and

paul goes around, how will they reach out to voters who currently are either sitting at home are voting for democratic candidates? this is not to say that democrats will win every presidential election in the future. 2008-2012, the obama coalition is steady. how the transfer that coalition to the democratic party as a whole? the evidence from 2010 when republicans swept and won control of the house the evidence shows the democrats have not figured out how to transfer -- translate that love for obama to the love for the party. that will bear -- that will be their biggest challenge over the emily's listhost: eml

is pushing for hillary clinton to run. >> these are the clintons. they will leave their doors open until the last possible second. she did decide to run on filing a day in iowa. she can compete all over the country so we don't have to be worried about whether she will run at the moment. the people have to be worried about whether or not she will run is everybody else in the democratic field. martin o'malley is on the cover of the governors' monthly and he is getting a presidential star treatment and andrew cuomo has two advisers that he will not run of hillary clinton runs. martin o'malley is probably in the same camp. i would even look at brian schweitzer, the former governor of montana who gave a speech of the democratic convention in 2012 and he is thinking of running for u.s. senate in 2014.

i think he is doing that because that keeps him in the conversation for 2020-2024. effectively, he will not run against the clinton machine. many people believe she is simply too popular and too powerful at the moment to be beaten in the democratic primary. is whataution that that we saw in 2008. until this guy from hell and i happened to come along. -- until this guy from indiana happens to come along. host: thanks for waiting, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. it is early on the presidential race but if the republicans want to take over the the democrats, they have to make promises they can't keep like no lobbyists,

special interest, corporate money in the administration. i don't know how they can make promises and not keep them and get away with it. byt: unfulfilled promises the obama administration, will they heard the next democratic agenda? guest: unfulfilled promises are what presidential campaigns are all about. this is way early. this is more of fallen speculation and making it less than any serious policy points. one thing that struck me about the 2008 campaign as compared with 2012 is that in 2008, john mccain and senator obama, a hillary clinton and most of the folks and republican side came out with these really big detailed policy plans. we're talking about immigration and budget and fiscal conservatism.

in 2012, we really did did not see that much of it. president obama did not lay out a really big policy agenda until the convention in charlotte in 2012. a 59 pointy had economic plan and can now with that early in the race but we did not hear him talk about immigration or these other issues that will face the next president of the united states. we did not hear about entitlement form. detail is missing in 2012. it was a broad field of candidates ranging from hillary clinton and martin o'malley and andrew cuomo to said crews and rand paul and mark rubio and whoever else. the way they differentiate themselves is for the policy proposals. we need to look forward to a much more in-depth discussion of actual policy and what they

would do in a step-by-step guide. host: road to the white house whitereid wilson. next is airline for republicans. caller: i am a first-time caller and i appreciate you taking my call. i would like to say that president obama has a few months to get anything done the republicans retain the house in 2014 which i think that well. he will be a lame-duck president. this gentleman said the older white borders comprised of the republican party. when you have young people like versesz, paul ryan tec, hillary clinton who will be almost 70 by the time her turn takes place, why are the young people graduating toward the young people? they are still stuck in last

year's news with someone like hillary clinton. . guest: there is a generational shift the republicans are undergoing i think that as an under-covered story. there is a new wave of republicans in 2010 that made the average age of the house republican significantly younger than the average age of the house democrats. evolving andof the changing face of the party. who islook at ted cruz 40 and marco rubio is not much older and the governor of louisiana, bobby jindal, who is in his '40's. across the board, republicans have a good, young bench. how do they build on that foundation and deliver a message that attracts younger voters? i think you're seeing a little bit of that in republican

stepping dramatically away from opposition to same-sex unions. the go to capitol hill now has a reporter and asked the republican leadership what they think about same-sex marriage, you will not hear anything. they will run away. 10 years ago, it was the opposite. when john kerry was the presidential, did not say anything about same-sex marriage because a was a bad issue for democrats and there is a general sea change of an issue. we have probably seen a generational sea change on other issues like immigration. at the end of the day, republicans have not developed a message that appeals to younger voters and those particular issues. it will be interesting to see how someone like rand paul whose philosophy is more libertarian than traditional conservative will do among the younger voters. it was those libertarian folks

who made his father, ron paul, a phenom in the last campaigns. ga., onxt is buford, airline for independents. caller: thanks for taking my call. i don't see any difference between republicans and democrats. to bearties seem fulfilling a socialist role. democrats stand for everything socialistic almost bordering on communism and republicans are right behind them. we've got to change the way this country is going or it will all be lost. anti-christian things printed in the paper and on tv -- this is a christian country. we were formed by a bunch of christians and this country is the last chance for this world, thank you. i have rarely heard the

republicans say that the republican party is right behind democrats on socialism and communism. betweenthe division republicans all over the country. i called the theory of relative establishments. you about post of republicanism in different parts of a country like inside the beltway largely defined by the strategists and pollsters, the people who want to elect somebody with an r after their name and you have the money folks who write the big checks to the republican national committee and the support of super pacs who exist in the corridor between new york and d.c. they are more fiscally conservative but they don't care about the social issues and then you have the activist class, the people who knock on doors and make phone calls and turn out and vote which is the most important part of politics in places like georgia.

and i know and south carolina. carolina.a and south that is something they will have to deal with. it will be fascinating to see how these presidential candidates interact with the activist class outside washington. it is interesting to see that the top three people who get the most buzz on the republican side are all inside the beltway -- rand paul, marco rubio, ted cruz are all senators. usually the path to the white house went through the states. even going back to richard nixon. it will be interesting how the current crop of republican governors plays into the larger national field. i mentioned bobby jindal and i would like to mention brian

sandoval, the governor of montana and the governor of new mexico. neither of them have gotten in the national fight over union reform or election reform that governor scott walker or tom corbett in pennsylvania or john kasich and ohio. notinez and sandoval have had so much attention but they have dealt with deeper deficits and had done some things that work with the state legislature, the democratic-controlled chambers. i would keep an eye on them. i wrote a hot line spotlight which is a memo to d.c. insiders a couple of days ago. i would not be surprised if you saw martinez and sandoval getting a little bit of buzz and they will be on somebody's vice- presidential short list . host: we've got a republican at the dinner friday in south

carolina, ted cruz said change happens quickly. more of what he had to say. [video clip] change happens quickly. republicans are demoralized about november, 2012. i want to remind you of 2005. in 2005, george w. bush had just been reelected president. republicans had control of both the house and senate and a large majority of the governorships. democrats were going on television publicly talking about a "permanent republican majority pierre, that was 2005. 2006, we lost congress, 2008, obama got elected, 2009, obama

care passes and here we are today. things can change quickly. because of the legacy of jim demint the leaders of the house and senate who are fighting, i believe will to come quickly and in particular, i am convinced with your help that we will take back the u.s. senate in 2014. do you see ailson, change coming quickly for the republicans with regard to the senate and will that change had an effect on the presidential election in 2016? guest: it is strange for ted cruz to say with your help when he is talking to a south carolina audience. south carolina's two republican senators and lindsey graham is up for linney -- re-election. fter he said that, ted cruz

past everybody to text a certain word to a certain code. the allows them to capture cell phone numbers of everybody in the room so that he can then build a list and can then start developing the foundations of what will eventually become a presidential campaign in an early state like iowa, new hampshire or south carolina which has always been used to critical to republicans running for the nomination. only one time as a republican beenidential nominee beaten. this is the third cycle and a row where democrats are playing serious defense and republicans have an opportunity to pick up some seats. there are six open democratic seats.

these are in places democrats had trouble winning in recent that, states like montana mitt romney won back in 2012. senator max baucus is retiring. in iowa, senator tom harkin is calling it quits. michigan is tough for republicans but senator carl levin is retiring. we've got country, these opportunities for republicans. the democrats can contest with the democratic challenger. the mitch mcconnell seat in kentucky, he will face a tough race either way but he is a front runner and in georgia, the open seat left by sax the chambliss which could be interesting if the republican primary gets ugly. we have three members of congress running against each other which is rare for that many members to be running in one open seat race. you might get a fourth although i don't think that will happen.

three republicans running against each other and they will try to outflank each other and run for to the right. we will see of georgia is still the ruby red republican state. in 2008 andmpaign 2012 both considered starting to run advertising in georgia. it is one of the more republican states in the union but the demographics of the state are changing so rapidly. georgia is a state that could be in play at the presidential level in probably eight years rather than four. the senate field is wide open. somebody like ted cruz at the head of the republican party would have a lot to say about that especially in 2016. host: we've got a tweet -

guest: that's an interesting concept. it is argument is that he was born in canada but to an american mother. that makes a naturalized citizen. this is the same argument that george rmoney was planning to make. when he ran in 1968, he was born in mexico. how can somebody born in mexico run for president of the united states? his argument was that both of my americans -- both my parents were american citizens. this puts the tests to those who would fall into the birther camp. dozen one rule apply to the other? it will be interesting and i think you'll see some heads exploding over this one. host: back to the phones and our road to the white house in 2016 with reid wilson. next call is from greensburg,

pa.. caller: 90 for taking my call. woman win the is indency before the era place. the president cannot work for 75 dollar.nts on the how could she asked the rest of women in america to do that? guest: i'm pretty sure that hillary clinton or any other women running, they will still get the $400,000 that president obama gets paid no less the raise the salary. given the amount of money hillary clinton is charging for speeches these days, i'm sure she does not need the money clinton is not the only person we can put in this category of women who might run for the presidency. there are already noises in places like minnesota or senator

is not denying running for the presidency. she was asked whether she would run a few weeks ago. senator creston gillibrand took over for hillary clinton looks in the mirror and sees a present looking back at her sometimes. i would not be surprised if you look at elizabeth warren, the new senator from massachusetts, a darling of the left. i feel like she is what barack obama was in 2004. all the liberals were upset that obama was not liberal enough, when the going to elizabeth warren and donating to her. she might think about running for the oval office. there are republican candidates. michelle bachmann won the iowa straw poll last time around. there are candidates all over the place.

the 2008 election -- the 2004 election was probably the last one we will see for a while without a woman playing a major role in denominations of not actually winning. host: vice president joe biden was joking at the dinner on about in south carolina valuing the middle-class. that theentions democrats passed the same ryan budget for several years despite the election results. [video clip] a sudden, since the last election, our republican friends are talking about how much they value the middle- class. you hear now. it is all over that silver elephant thing. they're talking about the middle-class -- anyway, i don't want to make any

news tonight. [laughter] z would walk on the floor and ask what i would going -- what i will do today? i will be good tonight. fritz knew my dad who had a picture that i now have of my dad and mom when fritz came up to campaign for may. it hangs in my library. my dad was a gentle, good man. " dad had an expression -- tell me what you value. show me your budget and i will tell you what you value." [applause] don't tell me how you care about the elderly. don't tell me -- show me your budget.

let's take a look at the other team's budget. we will find out what they value. passedl tell you they the budget again in the house of representatives. it is the republican, ryan budget is the budget the past which is absolutely no difference than the one they passed last year that we debated in the elections, the one day past the year before and the year before that. you have to give them credit for consistency. how close is this to a campaign speech by the vice- president? guest: it sure sounds like one and one thing joe biden is so good that and we should not discount him as a serious contender -- you heard him thetion fritz hollings, godfather of south carolina democrats and the reference to jim cliburn.

joe biden has been in washington for so long. i think we are at 40 years now. he was first elected to the senate in 1972 and barack obama was 11 years old then. deep and guy with long-lasting ties to every major democratic officeholder in every major state and has probably done a fund-raiser for all of them. they know his name and he knows there's and he will let you know that he knows the mall personally. it joe biden decides to run, he will be able to draw on a very large network of a lot of politicians and -- in a lot of key states that zero him favors. -- owe him favors. if the rounds again in 2016, he will have had some kind of infrastructure on which to build on. you don't discount him as a candidate. he is not the front runner and will not be until a couple of

months before one of the caucuses if he ever is. he should not be totally discounted and he is also the vice president which is a pretty good platform from which to run for president. host: you passed and we delivered a story from a publication called "outside the beltway" - you wanted to know how long before the election. we go for the election. guest: 1286 days to go, what took you guys so long? host: it is almost like we're pushing this thing. next up is stephen in columbia, maryland, on our democrats line. caller: i have a quick question concerning minority candidates and the democratic side. if you look at all list of

names you mentioned on the you see a lote -- of young minority candidates. who'd you see on the democratic side that might fit that bill? guest: that is a serious problem for democrats. this is the party that elected the first african-american president of united states and look at their national office holders. they really don't have that many minority candidates on the bench and waiting. they have governor deval patrick of massachusetts and don't discount him. he could go to iowa and new hampshire and feel around. is that the former campaign team of president obama. has the former campaign team of president obama. aside from that, there are no democratic statewide officeholders who can be

seriously included in the white house 2016 buzz. you can talk about bachmann than bob menendez but he will not run for president. booker could be a national conversation as well as deval patrick but republicans have a lot more national contenders who are minorities than the democrats. host: last week, you wrote an article with the headline "how the colorado and -- election law incentivizes the gop." we have been talking about personalities.

talk to us about this process and how it may incentivize the republicans. guest: this is one of my favorite things to talk about. it is hugely important to the way politics are played. every time a new majority takes over a state legislature like republican sweep to power in 2010 and democrats win back power in some states and to 2012 wheney have a checklist they get to office. they find the light switches and the second thing they do is find a ruston's and the third thing they do is select leadership in is beijing'sing the election rules to make sure their majority will stay in place. after 2010 when republicans won so many districts, more than 700 state legislative seats across the country, but started on this is beijing's thecampaign to tinker with a vog rules. democrats have been liberalizing absentee ballot laws and making it easier to

get an absentee ballot. you don't need an excuse in most states. republicans went the other way m contract early voting hours and strengthened restrictions on why you would need an excuse to get an absentee ballot. they passed voter identification laws which require you to show an idea when you show up to the polls. all those rules benefit the republican party. say what you will about election fraud which is virtually nonexistent which will get me in trouble but those rules help to the republican party. in colorado, democrats have gone to an ale -- an all male in the election system where everybody was registered to vote gets their ballot the mail, no more polling places, county clerks in colorado say that will save them money. they won't have to buy new voting machines. the get their ballots in the mail and that means a higher turnout which benefits the democratic party.

simple political math, one thing benefice the republicans and one thing benefits they democrats. at the same time colorado is going to that system, we have a new voter i.d. in arkansas which has in overwhelmingly republican legislature which overrode a veto by the democratic governor. n.c., they have a republican governor to go with their republican legislature. they passed a voter i.d. legislation. we'll see both those states adding to the republican column. in colorado, it is squarely in the middle of the republican pat 70 electoral votes. if it is in play in 2016, republicans have to find somewhere else to get those electoral votes. we have seen this in red states and we have seen it in very blue states. now we got a purple state where

the election rules are changing. north carolina was competitive and 2008 and 2012 but not critical to the next pass. as their voting rolls favors democrats, that can tip a state from very purple to slightly below. i looked into the academic research on this and there is no exact correlation between higher voting and better for democrats. there's a correlation between higher participation rates and a benefit for the party that is better organized. over the last more than two decades, democrats have been better organized and getting out the absentee votes starting in oregon in 1996 and a revolutionary way to track absentee ballots. if republicans are going to catch up, they have to build a much better absentee voter

program. host: here is another tweet - guest: in britain, i think the election campaign is a six-week sprint. we can all get tired of it but it is fun to talk about especially when joe biden and ted cruz make headlines on a friday night. wilson's can read reid material and he is on twister. thank you for being on "the washington journal"this morning. coming up next, the washington post sarah clift join us for our series on health care law. we will talk about its effect on

businesses and later in the program, our weekly your money series continues with workplace safety with jim morris for the center for public integrity. first, this update from cspan radio. >> this week, a senate committee considers immigration reform legislation. that bill released last month by republicans and democrats calls for boosting border security and offering eventual citizenship to some 11 million people currently living illegally in the u.s.. republicans in congress are pushing legislation to get private sector employees the of -- option of paid time off instead of overtime play beyond 40 hours per week. republicans say it is an attempt to appeal to working families worker advocacy groups, labor unions, and others say it is a backdoor way for businesses to skimp on overtime pay. the senate is expected to pass that bill today that would let

states collect sales taxes for internet purchases in some instances some house republicans say it is a tax increase and they will not approve it in the house. the senate is live on c-span 2 television as well as cspan radio. grant was also interesting. they had an extraordinary role the cursor existence. he wast of their lives, regarded as an abject failure, unable to provide for his family and an almost no time at all, suddenly, he was the most popular man in the country, the man who saved the union on the battlefield and then president of the united states. hoshe loved her time in the

white house. >> she said it was like -- she said it was like a bright and beautiful dream, the most wonderful time of my life. i think that gives you some idea of how much she enjoyed being first lady and how she felt her husband had finally achieved the recognition he deserved. >> the part of our conversation on julia grant with your questions and comments live tonight on first ladies at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 3 and cspan radio and c-span.org. >> [video clip] "washington journal"continue host: we continue our periodical look, looking at the federal health-care law. onay we focus on its impact businesses. here to help explain some of that is sarah kli offf the washington post. let's start with an item you

wrote last month in april with the headline -- "2% of americans on sure if obama care is still law." that thise not sure piece of legislation is still law, how will it be administered by the people who need to administer it? guest: the health care law has been through multiple repeals in the house and there was a supreme court decision about a year ago and that keeps americans confused with all law exists anymore. it will be a big task for the obama administration to stand this up. they have until october to get the word out. they have said they don't want to do too much out reached before the new benefits are rolling out. you can expect to see this summer and fall. regarding what americans are not sure of, talk to us

about what businesses are not sure of. guest: businesses are not sure of a few things. one is how much health insurance will cost under the new law. the health care law requires insurance companies to cover a specific set of benefits which may seem more robust. that will be one concern. employers are not sure if they will offer health insurance. there is a requirement they do so and a penalty for not offering health care benefits of companies for more than 50 workers. that penalty tends to be smaller than the cost of health insurance. there is uncertainty about whether employers will decide to keep purchasing health insurance or send their workers to the new public exchanges and pay a fine that costs less than health insurance. host: according to information we got from "the washington post,"talk about the employer mandate --

if businesses do not offer, there's a $2,000 fine per employe he. if the employee declines, there is no penalty for the businesses. guest: right. host: within this framework, what seems to be bothering the businesses, the ones you have reported on -- what seems to bother them the most? guest: they are having the hardest time -- hardest time predicting what the landscape look-alike under the health care law. if their competitors decide not to offer health insurance, they don't want to be the ones that have this item on their budget when their competitors say they will send people to the public

exchange. the biggest concern is not necessarily about the biggest businesses. that the smaller companies might be dropping insurance. in large companies, there's an expectation that one of the benefits they will receive as a worker is insurance coverage we don't see that quite changing yet but what we are watching are a lot of the smaller businesses and what they will be doing host: we're talking about health care law. we are updating our discussion and today, we are focusing on the impact it will have on businesses. if you want to get involved, the numbers are on your screen.

we have a special line for business owners -- sarah kliff, talk to us about these public exchanges and how that works and what do the business owners need to be aware of? guest: on october 1 of this year, there will be exchanges open for enrollment. these are online marketplaces for purchasing health insurance. you can't think of it as an expedia for health insurance and there is basic information about you and your family and you can compare all these different insurance options. hopefully, you can purchase an insurance plan in a way that is easier than exists right now. all americans who earn less than 400% of the party line which is $45,000 will be

eligible for tax credits they can use to make health insurance more affordable. business owners might be thinking if their employees are better off getting help insurance from their employer or would they get a better deal buying insurance on the health insurance exchange. host: our first call is richard in brazil, indiana, on airline for republicans. in the local newspaper saturday, the fate talked-about all the non-certified employees. that was a recommendation they cut back all the non- certified employees to part time, less than 29 hours per week because if they don't and i have to provide insurance, and they didn't, it would cause them $1.2 million in penalties.

myrick taught music my daughter teaches at a school -- my daughter teaches at a school nearby and they will be cutting back to part-time. how is the health care law going to help them? my daughter teaches third grade. issue you see an coming up across the country. it is not specific to indiana but businesses and governments across the country are looking at whether to keep workers full- time or if they move them to fewer than 30 hours per week, there are no longer subject to the mandate to purchase health insurance. for the people not reserving health insurance through their employer -- if they are earning

less than the 400% of the poverty threshold, there's a decent chance they can go for tax subsidies on the health insurance exchange. this is one change we are seeing across the country. it is whether businesses are moving workers to this part time situation. host: next is dave in lincoln, nebraska. caller: can you hear me? sorry. i'm an lincoln, nebraska and our government wants to opt out of it. i have a friend that does not make enough money but she works but she needs a hernia operation. her insurance will be $1,000 per month. wilder bill go down?

guest: it is hard to speak to specific situations. for large and lawyers like a school district are large company, the health care law is not having a huge impact on premiums. it requires health plans to cover a specific set of benefits. that might add about 1-5% in costs to health insurance premiums for large companies but in general, what is driving premiums is the growth of medical costs and not the health-care laws. we are not seeing huge changes in the large group market for large school districts or large companies would purchase health insurance. for someone not in short, it is difficult to speak to specifics. we're going to see a big expansion in medicate in many states. nebraska is not one of the state's wilkes -- that will expand medicaid so it varies state by state. for those just above the poverty

line, there will be access to these tax credits i mentioned earlier that can be used to buy health insurance. without the medicaid expansion, there will be an area below the poverty line where people will not have access to assistance and health care law. is a healthkliff care reporter for "the washington post." here is a tweet - is he on the right track or does this exchange cover all 50 states? guest: he raises a good point -- there are many states that decided they don't want to set up a health insurance exchange. some of this is due to politics and opposition of health care law and some of it was due to the logistics.

they did not feel they could get it done in time. in all those states where the state government is not setting up a health insurance exchange, the federal government has promised to come in and build something that looks the same. the obama administration has promised again and again that all 50 states on october 1 will have a health insurance exchange where citizens can buy health insurance coverage. the expectation is that in virginia and texas and all other states, there will be health insurance exchanges in six months. host: in addition to regular lines for democrats, republicans, and independents, we have a special line for business owners. ff is calling us from plymouth, indiana. caller: thank you. what about business owners that have veterans that are involved in a veteran health program?

they go to va clinics and hospitals but not involved with the civilian, private health care business. guest: i don't know a tio aboutn @ subject but my understanding is that those working with the veterans administration will be able to continue to provide the benefits they have in the past and bass -- and those will remain untouched. betty inl move onto albany, louisiana, on our line for republicans. caller: good morning, everybody is talking about how they are setting up the exchange is and how you can get insurance. no one is talking about the fact -- i happen to be on medicare. program, what will happen eventually, is that you will not be able to see the doctors.

what good does it do you to have all this insurance and have availability to health care when you can actually get health care when you are sick? it does not make sense. that's what it is coming to. more and more doctors are refusing to take medicare patients. that is because the way they figure they will make this work is they will have to stop paying the doctors or give them 50 cents on the dollar. doctors will not take you then. guest: this is the concern that comes up about the affordable care act. one of the ways the federal government is paying for this insurance expansion is by reducing the rates it pays to medicare doctors. these are $760 billion in medicare cuts.

seniorre not cuts from benefits. they reduce how much the doctors get paid. it's a slower growth. reportsnot heard many of seniors not having access for care because of those changes it is a concern that republicans have raised. -- is alot of good logical concern of doctors working with the program. we have a doctor shortage right now in the country where medical schools have looked at numbers and said we don't have enough doctors to cover all the patients that will be coming into the insurance system next year. aat is a concern and there is push to trained nurses -- physician's assistants and nurses who will provide much of the basic health care. you'll probably see more nurses in -- and physician assistants.

they will fill the gaps between the doctors we have now. host: here is a tweet- medicare pays for those checkups. talkance companies will about this. if a benefit is for the consumers, that does not mean the doctors are providing get at no charge. it means that medicare is paying the entire bill instead of having a patient pays some kind of copayment. it is real -- is really medicare paying those bills. host: here is another tweet - explant the single payer system is. >> guest: the idea is that we

would eliminate the insurance companies and we would get our health insurance through the government which is similar to canada. if you were to have all americans with federally administered health insurance benefits, it would make a much simpler and more streamlined system. there are definitely a group of legislators that would have liked to seek a single payer system. by a very long stretch, there is not enough to move such a reform forward. what we have now is a bit of a compromise between those who would like to see in a single payer system, one run by the federal government, and legislators would like to see something with more private insurance competition. host: we're talking with sarah kliff of "the washington post." our cspan series on the implementation of the

affordable care act. our next court -- call is from donald from independence, missouri, on our independent line. to the what happens expensive -- expenses businesses have now that cover their employees insurance or shares in the expense. to the employee but if that company decides to no longer offer that, will they be required to increase wages to that person? thee will the money go that more co. mill lauber spends on insurance? guest: there is no requirement to give those benefits as wages if the employer decides not to offer benefits. we do see that extra benefit does come back to the employee as wages. that's what tends to happen in

the market but there is nothing in the affordable care act that makes it mandatory. next up is peggy in asheville, n.c., on our line for business owners. what kind of business do you have and how many employees do you have? small business owner with five employees. we do and international business. we have a large impact the reason i am calling is because i would like people to ask where all this money is coming from. about credits so where's that coming from? that is coming from the taxpayer. the other situation i want to address is, i am a small- business owner and i was going to be given a deduction if my

employees were paid a little amount of money. all of our money added to gather to under $50,000 per person -- we want to reward our employees but the federal government is not even helping us because we pay our employees to much. people talk about single payer, when you talk about little countries like canada and little countries like england and we talked to those people when we are out on a trip, they all have secondary insurance if they want good care. thank you. host: before you go, you say you have five employees? caller: yes. host: who pays for their insurance? paying allare that now but i don't see how we can do that in the future. host: what are you telling your employees and about what they will do when you are no longer

able to pay their insurance premiums? caller: i hope we will be able to continue to pay their insurance. is ave told them that it questionable situation. there are so many questions out there about what we will get, what you have to have. i believe in preventive care. preventive care is one thing that is totally raising the cost of the obama health care plan. it is not free. they say it is free but it is not. there is a lot going on there. there are questions from business owners across the country about the health insurance costs arising. are they going to be able to provide this benefit? we have seen a

slight drop in companies like peggy's that are between 3-9 workers. they have seen a decrease in the amount that provide health insurance to their employees. -- it is definitely an issue that people are grappling with. a small business of that size will not be required to provide health insurance under the affordable care act. there's a recognition in law that it is harder for the small businesses to bargain for really good insurance premiums and affordable premiums. any company with fewer than 50 workers will be exempt from this mandate to offer insurance there's a possibility of people work for these companies will be able to go to these health insurance exchanges and use some of the tax subsidies. this is an interesting set of business is to watch to see if they can continue to provide benefits or will they make the business decision that it is more affordable to have folks go

to the exchange. kliff has been with post"since 2012. she has been a staff writer at "news weakeek." emily on our line for independences. caller: 5 have been following , many companies and not laying off but cutting down their hours. what concerns me most and nobody has discussed this is your going to cut these people's pay. how are they going to be able to pay for the health insurance much less take care of themselves? who is going to pay the taxes when all of these people will be working 29 hours per week or last? i don't know how long it will be

before the entire system will go bankrupt? can you address that issue, please? guest: that is definitely an issue we are hearing about. the expectation is that some of these people will get these tax subsidies that will make health insurance a less-expensive. those tax subsidies are on a sliding scale were the lowest income americans are only expected to put 2% of their income towards their health insurance bill with the federal government picking up the rest no matter what the actual premium is. that number will go up as a move to the higher end of the income scale with the expectation that higher earning americans will be putting more of their salary toward their health insurance. you raised an interesting point about what happens when we reduce hours which means less tax revenue for the federal government. i have not seen the switch to

part-time be pervasive enough that that is an issue. could come up if we see a sea change in a employers providing health insurance host: are their penalties for small-business is that they find that they cut back and hours to avoid subsidizing employee health care?

>> cheryl is our next caller from jacksonville, illinois on our line for democrats, cheryl, you're on the "washington journal". caller: yes. my opinion is everybody is calling in, and you know, but a lot of them don't like the care act, but if it's good enough for the people in massachusetts, it ought to be good for everybody else. thank you. host: thank you cheryl. sarah kliff, you wrote an article back in april, affordable care act application just got a whole lot simpler, the application got the most attention for being 21 pages long. it was clunky, for example, applicants had to provide the social security number twice on the same page, the

intimidating stack of paper was quickly pitched on tuesday. the health and human services department rolled out the final version of the basic application, which has been cut to five pages. and we'll show one of those pages right there, while you explain to us how did they go, how did health and human services go from 21 pages to five pages? >> guest: what they did, they essentially made an application for one person. the initial application was for a family of six. so even as -- i myself was just buying insurance, i would get the big application, this 21-page application, a space to fill in six people. so a lot of the streamlining wasn't necessarily changing what was on the form, but recognizing that it's going to scare off a lot of single individuals from applying for insurance if they get this very big application, that even though they don't have to fill out a lot of it. so is lot of it was creating an application for an individual and separate,

longer application if you're applying for your entire family. host: back to the phones, frank, albany, new york on the line for independents, good morning. caller: good morning. one of the things that baffled me about the health care to be, why didn't the private sector get behind bin laden and promote -- so they could focus on making money, and go through the -- let the people get their insurance as exchanges or through the government? so that the private sector relieves that big burden? because the a -- it's a lot of money involved. host: sarah kliff, "the washington post". guest: that's what we got about a single pay or system, move to health care benefits, and health care providers are relieved of that responsibility. it is a more expensive buy

for employers, year after year, they find they are spending more and more on health insurance benefits. one of the reasons they continue to provide health insurance intense right now they can be paid with pre-tax dollars, which is a huge benefit to employers, and it's a less expensive way to provide compensation to their employees. so that's one of the things that employers really like about providing benefits, is it's a way to provide compensation to employers, tax-free, and that's one of the reasons i would say that they like to continue providing benefits, and you know, it's not -- one of the things that might stop us from moving to a single payor system any time soon. host: explain to us if you will what the small business health options program, or shop, is. guest: this is a part of the health insurance exchanges, the marketplaces that are supposed to look like expedia, that will be for small business owners. the idea is a small business owner could go on to the exchange, give their

employees each a set amount to purchase health benefits, then employee a could choose aetna, b, blue cross, c, humana, essentially giving small business owners a way to allow their employees to both get a contribution and choose which health insurance plan they want. some of that had been delayed by the federal government, which we can talk a little more about, but in the law, that's how it was envisioned, a way for small businesses to let their employees choose which insurance option they wanted. host: want to let our viewers know a little more about some of the options in the shop program. small businesses, for small business exchange, or marketplace, businesses are up to 100 employees, employees can shop for the insurance, and then we've got three sets of dates here and i'd like for you to explain them if you can, april, 2013, the plan choice was delayed. which you just alluded to. 2014, most employees will have only one plan option.

and 2015, employees can choose plans. guest: right. so like i said, this is how it was initially envisioned, that employees of small businesses would be able to shop for different options. the federal government announced last month that it didn't have the bandwidth now to launch that option and instead, on the exchanges that the federal government runs, which is about half the states, that employers will only be able to choose one option and all employees will enroll in that same option. so if the employer chooses aetna, everyone is in that plan versus some choosing blue cross or some choosing humana, and one thing i would add, that is only true for the federal exchange, for the states that are not setting up their own exchanges. for the states that are running their own marketplaces, they still do have the option to move forward with the shop exchange and i've talked to a number who do plan to launch shop exchange as the law envisioned in 2014, so a lot

of the options are going to depend on where someone lives and whether their state is running a health exchange or not. host: you need more information about what's going on with employer-mandated health care options, sarah kliff wrote an article april 15th and the headline you ask, we answer, here's how omabacare's mandate works. find that online and hopefully that will answer some of the questions that may not get answered in this informative 45 minute segment. we're going to talk about bonnie in washington, d.c., a business other than. what kind of business do you have, how many employees do you take care of? caller: i have a business that has two parts. one part is a developing business, on capitol hill, nine in place, six of which are full-time, but the second part of the business is i produce training videos, and so my business is actually an llc in maryland, and i operate as a foreign corporation in d.c.

so that's part of my question i understood that the exchanges were also there for employers, if they wanted to provide insurance, to shop for insurance for small businesses that couldn't afford to provide insurance, and my question is do i have a choice of doing that in d.c., or in maryland as far as the exchange is concerned? because i'm a maryland llc, but all my employees physically work at a location in d.c. that's one of three questions. guest: -- >> host: hold on a second, bonnie. let's get sarah kliff to answer the first question and then we'll get your other two. guest: that's a good question, and something that will come up in the d.c. area, with you folks commuting between virginia and washington and maryland, kind of each state running its own exchange, who ends up where, and actually, i'm not quite sure how this will work. my understanding is that all

of it has to do with residency and where you live so residents of washington, d.c. will be buying on the washington, d.c. exchange, residents of maryland will purchase on the maryland exchange, and you know, this is a question i haven't actually thought about before, how do you contribute to the two different exchanges. i'm not completely sure about how that will work. but there are a lot of folks working on both the maryland and d.c. exchange that might be worth reaching out to to understand what your options look like. host: what's your next question bonnie? >> caller: i guess that's back to really my first question, the exchange, as i am understanding you explain it, it's all about the individual, buying the insurance. and i thought the exchange was also like a marketplace for a business to buy insurance. guest: it is actually. right. i should have been more clear about that, that you as a small business owner, with fewer than 100 employees, can give each of your employees a set amount to buy insurance on the health exchange, instead of having to

negotiate your own contract with aetna or any other health insurance plan, that you can give a set amount to the exchange and your employers -- or employees, excuse me, will use that to purchase health insurance coverage. so there is an element for small businesses, and especially in a state like maryland that's running its own health exchange, they should be doing the small business exchange as well, where you will be able to give your employees a set amount and let them choose which health insurance plan they want. host: next caller comes from mary, fort lauderdale, florida, a republican. mary, are you also a business owner? caller: i just sold my business and had to rely on going in a hospital recently. i'm in my 80s, and i had to rely on the medicare insurance. i do have a supplement. but i just wanted to make a comment. i searched in fort

lauderdale, because i recently moved to fort lauderdale, for a good position, they are now no longer available. they will not take medicare. i had to join a vip group. now, my fee was very small, compared to friends of mine, $1500 a year, per year, to join the vip. this has already started. this started about two years ago. i have been privy, i guess, to this, because i had to go in the hospital, first time in many years. this is the problem. and your nurses, practitioners, will not provide the quality of care, so you know, the spin sounds good to those people who aren't quite up to date on what is going on in the world, the segment, the 40, 50 percent of the people, they are not well-educated. i'm not really saying that maybe they didn't have the advantages to go to college

at the time, but they can be swayed. host: mary -- >> caller: i'm just making this comment. i'm concerned about the country and i'm concerned about the people, and under omabacare, they will not get the quality care. i'm sure of that. host: mary, before i let you go, you said that you recently sold your business. did the selling of your business have anything to do with providing health care insurance for your employees? >> caller: yes it did. i just -- i sold my business because i didn't want to deal with it. host: mary in fort lauderdale. guest: i think this brings up some of the issues that an earlier caller did about doctor shortage and do we have enough doctors in the country to see all our patients, and this has been an issue that the country has dealt with prior to the health care law and after it of making sure there are enough folks in offices who do have open employment and who are able to see patients, millions of medicare patients

who are relying on that benefit, and i know she brought up the idea of nurse practitioners and whether they will provide the same quality as doctors do. there are nurse practitioner groups that argue on basic services like doing strep throat or preventative care, that the academic research does show they provide equally good care. that doesn't go as far as surgery or anesthesiology. that would be a different area. but this is something that you will hear a lot, from physician assistants and practitioners, that before a lot of the basic health care in this country, they have research to show the outcomes are just as good as primary care providers. host: we've got a graph from kaiser, the kaiser foundation, talking about the percentage of all firms offering health benefits from 1999-2012, and it shows regarding all firms,

66 percent of them, in 1999, offered health benefits, and you see how it travels up and down to 61 percent in 2012, and then the lighter blue line shows firms with 3-9 workers, 55 percent in 1999, provided health benefits to their employees, and it travels in almost a parallel line, spiking at 59 percent in 2010, and then back down to 50 percent in 2012. wanda in hayward, california on the line for democrats, you're on the "washington journal". go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make two comments, and possibly a question. my first comment is that, you know, we were going to vote on whether or not the ryan budget was something that the american people wanted in terms of giving a voucher to

our seniors for medicare and to allow them to go into the exchanges and shop for insurance as well. that's my first question. when the republicans said that we weren't educated enough, and didn't know what was happening. i want seniors to mull over that for a little while in terms of your medicare, what you have now, versus republicans telling you to go to an exchange, and everybody calling in and saying how difficult, and what is this exchange, and what is that one. think about a senior who has been on medicare for years and is now forced off of medicare to get a voucher, or only $6000, to go for medical. now, my next question -- >> host: wanda, we're going to leave it there with that first question because i've about run out of time with

sarah kliff of the "washington post". talk about seniors and getting into the exchanges, how does it affect, if at all, their medicare situation? guest: right now it doesn't. what wanda brought up was the idea of the ryan budget that would, much like the affordable care act does, have senior go on an exchange and use a set amount of money to purchase health benefits, and the concern she raised was ones that a lot of democrats raised over debate over that budget, that seniors have much more challenging health care needs and are going to see bigger challenges shopping for health insurance than someone who is younger, who likely is a lot healthier, so there was a lot of concern about, one, whether the set amount of money would go far enough to cover seniors' benefits, and then two, if, given that the seniors tebd to have -- tend to have more medical conditions, if that was a good idea to have them shopping for benefits on these health exchanges. host: our guest has been sarah kliff of the

"washington post", a health care reporter. you can find her articles at "washington post".com and if you want, you can follow her on twitter at sarah kliff, thank you for being on the program. guest: thank you. host: coming up on this edition of the "washington journal", our weekly your money series continues with a look at workplace safety with jim morris of the center for public integrity. but first, another update from c-span radio: >> the six educators who were killed in the elementary school shootings in newtown, connecticut will be awarded the congressional medal of honor today. the congressional medal of honor society says those six women exem plified courage, sacrifice, and selflessness, in trying to protect the students from the gunman at sandy hook elementary school in december. twenty students were killed. the joint committee on taxation today is expected to release a report, giving an overview of possible changes to the tax code. that's based on the work of

11 bipartisan working groups who have been studying the tax system. and finally, a pair of president obama's second term cabinet nominees could move closer to conformation this week, the senate health, education and labor and pensions committee is expected to approve the nomination of thomas perez for labor s-bgtd, however the outlook is less certain in the senate environment and public works committee which is scheduled to vote thursday on the nomination of gina mccarthy to be in the environmental protection agency. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> the agency will face an existential dilemma, you have the open internet order but you also have the death of the social contract that built the telephone industry and the cable industry. that is to say, both of those were fundamentally built on the premise, we give you a monopoly, you serve everybody, we have universal service, we we have other requirements. as we move to an all-data

world, the economic foundations of those contracts are crumbling. >> i think when we get into 2017 and look back on tom's tenure, assuming it's probably one term of the presidency, i think whether it's judged a success or failure will probably be determined by whether or not those auctions are a success or failure. they are very complicated. they are going to be very complicated. there's a lot of land mines, there are a lot of different foreign issues to figure out, and tom's clearly got the skills and the relationships and know-how to get that done. >> the issues like throw face tom wheeler, the president's choice to head the fcc, tonight on the communicators, at 8:00 eastern on c-span ii. >> "washington journal" continues. >> host: on mondays at this time we look at your money, how federal dollars are spent, and the purpose of the programs they fund. today, we're going to be looking at workplace safety and osha, the occupational safety and health

administration, and to help us look at that is jim morris, a senior reporter with the center for public integrity, welcome to the program. guest: thank you very much. host: first, tell us, what is the purpose of the occupational, safety and health administration? guest: osha is a 42-year-old agency. it was created to enforce workplace health and safety standards. so it was an outgrowth of, at the time, you know, in the early '70s, 14,000 american workers a year were dying on the job so, it was believed that some sort of regulatory agency was needed to crack down on health and safety violations. host: but we've got an article here from bloomberg, texas explosion seen as a sign of weak u.s. oversight, the industrial fire in west, texas w what it says about federal workplace and oversight, apparently, the last osha inspection at this site was back in 1985.

guest: that, sadly, is not unusual. osha has, counting state plans, only about 2200 inspectors to cover the entire country. that's about one inspector for every 58,000 american workers. so it really isn't surprising that they hadn't been to this place in 28 years. host: what types of industries are regulated by osha, and are they mainly industrial, or do some other types of companies get involved? guest: osha regulated a -- regulates a wide range of industries, with the exception of some public sector employees. and again, there are about half the states have their own state osha plans, california, for example, is one, the other half are covered by federal osha. but lately, especially in the last couple of years, osha has been focusing primarily on high hazard industries, oil refineries, chemical plants, and the like. host: we're talking with jim

morris of the center for public integrity, a senior reporter there, and he is here for our your money segment this monday. today we're talking about workplace safety in particular, the operations of the occupational safety and health administration. if you'd like to get involved in the conversation, please, give us a call, the numbers: host: before we get further into the conversation, we want to take a look at osha by the numbers. in 2014, their budget request was for $570 million. they currently have 2200 federal and state inspectors, as our guest, mr. morris, just said. we also have 41,000 inspections conducted in 2011, and they are responsible for 130 million workers at 8 million work sites nationwide.

that just seems to be a lot of stuff for them to cover, with such a small task force. why hasn't there been a growth in the numbers of inspectors at osha? guest: well, there's been a lot of pushback. osha has become, for lack of a better term, sort of a whipping boy for people who are against regulation. maybe not perhaps as much as the epa is, but from the beginning, which was 40 plus years ago, osha has been a target of people who say, you know, let's get the government off our backs, and you know, there's too much regulation as it is. host: where does osha get its authority from? guest: the occupational safety and health act of 19 # zero. host: okay. guest: which is a notoriously weak act, which is another discussion in itself. host: let's go with that, why do you say it's a notoriously weak act? guest: i think the best example is its criminal provisions are exceptionally weak compared to environmental laws or

security laws. in this country, if an employer commits a flagrant violation that results in the death of a worker, that is at most a misdemeanor with six months in jail, and you contrast that with environmental crimes that can send people to prison for years, and that have felony provisions attached to them. so democrats in congress, again, this year, as they have in previous years, have introduced legislation to try to strengthen the osha act, but i don't think anyone thinks it's going to go anywhere. host: first caller for jim morris comes from david in north carolina, on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning david. caller: yes, sir. i'm from north carolina, which we know is a right to work state, and i'm now out of the industry, but in my history with osha, you know, i worked for large major farm suitical companies and

biotech, they always knew when you guys were coming in, everything was us did up, vacuumed up, painted up and made to look new for the brief period that you guys were there, then when you guys were gone, it was back to business as usual, which i think everybody knew was not entirely up to par with on or about kwrarbgs and that's why we did what we did to, you know, disburse the heavy lifting and hide the things we did and now i'm a cancer patient, i'm in recovery, and i think about the phenols and things that were in the disfinish tech -- disinfectant that is we used all the them and phenols were declared hazardous years ago but calgon and different facilities would reformulate and rename the cleaners and be able to keep those phenols in. and i just wonder, it seems like we lost most of what our wealth was with the houses and savings, through collusion with government, and now it looks like the

only thing they have left is regulation, that they're going to go after regulation, and they're going to finish extorting us that way. host: jim morris. guest: well, again, it's -- there have been many attempts over the years to strengthen osha, to strengthen the act under which it operates, and those attempts have failed. so i think that sort of speaks for itself. host: it was the caller's contention that his employers knew when osha was coming. is this an agreement that osha has to let the employers know when they're coming, or are they supposed to be having these surprise inspections to see what's going on? guest: some inspections are planned and some are complaint-driven inspections, but i certainly hear what the gentleman said, i've heard that a number of times, we knew osha was coming, cleaned the place up and after they left it went back to business as usual. host: our next call, john in

jackson, mississippi, on the line for republicans, go ahead, john. caller: good morning. i've spent 40 years in the aviation business, both in the military, air force, and then flying as a commercial pilot, and that is a very, very closely monitored and safety-conscious organization , business. when i was in the air force, the air force had a -- they called it afosh, and i guess each military branch has their own osha, which is patterned after the osha law and the osha performance, and i never will forget, and this kind of is a microcosm, but it points to the whole thing of detailed regulations. we built a new building, and i remember the inspection, the fire extinguishers have to be at a certain height, which i understand. that makes sense. you have to have height so you can get them to different

sized people, but these things were like an eighth of an inch off, several hundred of them, all those had to be removed and moved up 1/8 of an inch, and i think the skepticism of the federal organizations and federal regulatory organizations comes from it's almost like there's a lack of common sense where someone could say oh look, there's an 1/8 of an inch off, but there was no tolerance, and i think that leads to the skepticism and the people say oh god, another regulatory agency. and then my last point would be the gentleman there made the comment about the explosion, the tragic explosion in texas, the chemical plant, and the fact that it had not been inspected since 1985, but i would challenge you, you can -- can you categorically say that that explosion was caused specifically by something that had osha inspected it at a later time

it would have prevented it? in other words, cause and effect. the fact that osha was not there since '85 was a fact but did that cause the explosion? because i haven't read anything that talked about that. and i'll hang up here and listen to your response off line, and i certainly enjoy c-span. host: john from jackson, mississippi, thank you for your call. jim morris, go ahead. guest: certainly we don't know the precise cause of the fertilizer plant explosion in texas. i guess i would make a couple of points. first of all, again, at many workplaces around this country, there really is no fear of enforcement, no fear of osha. i mentioned the weakness of the statute and how the criminal penalties are so lenient. you know, the average penalty after negotiating, after negotiation for a fatality in this country is about $7900. that may be a lot of money for a small business, but that's not a lot of money for a medium or large business.

also, i would note that exceedingly small things can add up to big things. we did a lot of work a couple of years ago on oil refineries, which are aging, full of toxic chemicals, explosive chemicals and so forth, and time and again, after there was a catastrophe, when investigators went back and looked, they found that there had an series of near misses or seemingly small things that led to a much bigger event. host: jim in belleville, michigan is on our line for democrats. jim, you're on the "washington journal". caller: good morning. good morning, jim. yeah, i worked in a construction industry here in michigan for about 30 years, and i watched osha get gutted here in my state by the republicans, and they replaced it with a system where the insurance companies are running the safety programs. each company has like a safety director on the job, and my experience was that they didn't really care if you lived or died or got

injured. all they cared about is you couldn't sue them. and they made things so difficult on the job sites, you that you know, for instance, i was working in monroe, at the power plant, and i had safety glasses on, but they didn't have side shields on them, so they made me put a pair of plastic safety shields, glasses, over the top of my other glasses, which created a fog in between, so when you were up about six high on a scaffolding, you know, that is their idea of safety. host: that's jim in michigan. jim morris in washington, d.c. guest: well, i just think that's another argument for more aggressive workplace enforcement. michigan is what's called a state plan osha state, and i'm not intimately familiar with it, but certainly some of the state plan states, and i'm thinking of nevada, have had serious problems with

enforcement. host: we're talking about jim morris of the center for public integrity, regarding the occupational safety and health administration, as part of our your money series and today we're talking about workplace safety and osha. although we don't have a special line for employees of osha, if there's anybody out there that works for osha and wants to get involved in the conversation, by all means, give us a call. alex in flint, michigan on our line for indents -- independents, you're on the "washington journal", go ahead. caller: well, i was injured on an accident quite some time ago. osha came in, made recommendations about safety, and i was wondering, is there any way for me to get that information and how do i go about that and how long do they keep the information? thank you. guest: well, if osha issues citations, that's public information, and you should

be able to find that on the osha website. i don't have the precise address. so if a company was actually cited by osha for violations, all that is public information. host: next up is alex in flint, michigan. caller: how long do they keep it, jim? >> guest: i'm not sure about that. host: let's move to tom on the line for republicans. caller: the only experience i've had, i'm a farmer in midwest illinois, and this afternoon, i've got to go out, work the cattle, which is, you know -- you don't have a lot of control because you've got animal that is you're trying to press into a small confinement. i'm also on the county board of the county, and we have county employees, we have this osha compliance all the time, all the stuff that we have to do, because county employees are scrutinize

dollars a lot. and you know, it just -- to me, just looking in at it, because i haven't had a lot to do with it on the county board, this osha thing, it's just one of these regulations that end up costing us money, because we're always having to take care of employees. i mean, i believe our employees are smart, and that they are able to take care of themselves. and if a person doesn't like what they're doing, you know, because i could go and -- of course, i'm an operator-owner -- i could -- someone has got to go in and work these cattle today, and i've got to be careful, and i have to use my wits about me, and i don't need anybody to take care of me, and i'm -- >> most -- host: before we get a chance from jim, a couple of questions. when you say a cattle operation, are these like roaming the range, or is this the dairy kind of operation? what are we talking about?

caller: it's cattle calf in open pasture. they're not real wild but they're kind of wild. they want to kick you and they want to mow you down and tromp you into the crap, and they want to protect their calves. host: sure. caller: you've got to vaccinate them and worm them, and i have the best chutes, but for years, we did it without any equipment because we couldn't afford it. host: how many cattle are you working with, tom? caller: 140 old cows and 135calves. host: how many employees do you have? col my daughter and my and the vet will come over, and my wife will help and we'll do these things. host: okay. when was the last time osha came in for an inspection of your operation? caller: not ever. guest: not ever? >> caller: i take care of myself. i'm 60 years old. and i handle -- i have green

beans, too, i take care of herbicides, chemicals, fertilizers, all kinds of things, and aknowna, they keep passing down you got to wear goggles and all this stuff and i wear it sometimes, you know, but there are certain things that you just know, and i -- you know, i have to go and get my pesticide permit and when i get this thing every three years, i just laugh at the questions. host: tom, we're going to leave it there. giving us a lot to work with. jim morris, center for public integrity. guest: well, i would say, clearly, tom, you know what you are doing, and that's fine. i have no doubt that you do. but there are a lot of people in this country who aren't properly trained. i did a story recently on a temporary worker of whom there are about 2.5 million in this country, who was very badly burned, at a factory near chicago, and his employer refused to call 911,

and the man died three weeks later. and osha has since announced it's going to put new safeguards in place for temporary workers. my point being there are a lot of people out there who may not know what they are doing, and that's why i think osha is there. host: you wrote an article entitled in u.s. steel town, fatal gas explosion goes unpunished by osha, talking about the death of a nick rivetta, did not make national lines, no hearings were held into the accident that killed him and no one was fired or sent to jail. and among the 4500 killed on the job in america, and the total number of u.s. fatalities in the nine-year war in iraq. combine the victims of traumatic injuries with the estimated 50,000 people who die annually of work-related diseases, and it's as if a fully loaded boeing 737-700 model crashes every day. yet the typical fine for the

worker death is about $7900. tell us a little more about nick rivetta and this accident that happened in pennsylvania. guest: nick pivetta was a contract laborer at a u.s. steel plant near pittsburgh, young man with a family, a couple of kids, and he was sent in to do some work that was of questionable safety, to put it mildly, died in an explosion in september 2009, osha went in, a particular osha inspector, mike lof lin, did his best to find the cause of the explosion, but was pulled back, essentially, restrained from finishing the investigation because of what some call a quota system. osha calls it inspection goals. that year, it may have been around 41,000. i don't recall. so they had these targets, these goals that they try to

hit every year. the problem with that is sometimes, when you've got a complex investigation, like the rivetta case, where you can't just walk in and say okay, that's the cause, here's the citation, it bumps up against the pressure to meet those inspection goals, or what the inspectors themselves call quotas. so this was sort of a case study on how inspection goals or quotas can hamper complex investigations. host: we're talking about your money today, workplace safety is our focus, and we're looking at the occupational safety and health administration, also known as osha. you want to find out more about osha, go to the website, osha.gov, and while we're showing you their website, we will take this call from john in mccolm, illinois on our line for democrats. john, you're on the "washington journal", with jim morris of the center for public integrity. go ahead. caller: yeah, this was more of a comment. back in the mid '80s, when i was in my early 20s, i worked

for a company down in missouri, and we had some safety issues that nobody was taking care of, so i had called on my own, osha, and evidently -- at a later point, somebody who had been there for years had turned me in to the company to let them know that i was the one that had called osha. so between the company and the company's lawyer, they had went through my application and found something that they could use against me, and i was let go. so today, i would do that again, because i just -- i feel that safety is a very big issue, especially when you're working with outside equipment, then working in ditches and stuff, so i would definitely do that again, and on and i'm proud to say that i turned them in, at that early age, because when

you're in your early 20s, sometimes you don't think about that stuff. so that's all i just wanted to say. thank you. host: john in mccolm, illinois. host: jim morris, how much investigation does osha do, based on these kind of -- i guess you would call them whistle blowing episodes like the one we just heard about? guest: that's been a problem over the years, and there's always that conflict, because like the gentleman just said, there's a conflict between wanting to do the right thing, wanting to report a safety violation or potential safety violation, yet not losing your job. so that's one of the things that osha has been working on in recent years is bolstering its witness protection program. host: gene in ohio writes osha, republicans de fund them, so money for inspectors equals protecting big businesses, corporate greed kills more americans than terrorists today, and also this one, from florida,

gordon, who writes many in congress hate the idea of safety in the workplace. is that an accurate description, that many in congress hate the idea of safety in the workplace and therefore, don't give osha the kind of enforcement backup that they need? guest: i don't know that many in congress hate the idea of safety. i think there are some who hate the idea of regulation. those are sort of two different things. host: back to the phones. derek in saint paul, minnesota on our line for independents, derek, you are on the "washington journal". go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: so i have two comments. one is -- or one question, one comment. one is about the budget. i'm looking at osha at a glance, it says they are requesting $570 million, 22 federal and state inspectors, you divide that out, it's 260,000 per inspector, if you go by just strictly the 2200. obviously, there are administration costs, et

cetera. you can probably double that and still, you know, be more effective at, you know -- cut it in half. and you know, 4400 inspectors, and then if you go to the 41,000 inspections conducted in 2011, that's like 18.6%, per inspector: i think they can do a little bit better. what a muni job. i'd like to have that job. my other comment is osha kind of a scam when it comes down to they're bullies when it comes to they can't really -- i mean, don't they prioritize, you know, like the texas plant? it's fertilizer. you would think that's kind of on the top scale. you know, natural gas companies. things, you know -- you know, i'll independent so i have no ideology behind this, but you would think that safety would be, you know -- how i see it as a small business other than and know small businesses who are in

manufacturing, if you're about 10 million, 5 million or less in revenue, they will really -- they will get on your case about different things, but if you have lobbyists, if you are a bigger corporation, it's like they're afraid. so really, they try to bully the least -- they kind of go against the lesser powers of industry, and thus, they become bullies, and like i said, 18 inspections per year, per inspector? that's just ridiculous. whoever is running osha should be fired. host: derek, before we get a response from jim morris at the center for public integrity, tell us, you said you are a small businessman. caller: i am a small businessman. host: what kind of business do you have? caller: i'm in the i., it re cruiting business, but i have friends with small manufacturing companies and they tell me all the time, they get letters, they are basically, you know, they are

basically harassed about the smallest, littlest things you could ever imagine. host: and what kind of level of regulation do you have to deal with in the i.t. business, and have you ever had any run-ins with your company and osha? caller: no, never. i've never had it because i'm in the professional services world, but the people that have manufacturing companies, it seems like, you know, they kind of bully the smaller people because then they get at least some results for their activity, when really, a lot of the bigger companies are not having the kind of harassment that osha actually ends up doing. it's like they have a quota on how many inspections they have, but really, they probably have a quota on how much money they can bring in. i'd like to know in the budget, how much money in fines osha gets every year. host: derek from saint paul, minnesota. jim morris, go ahead. guest: well there's a lot to comment on. first of all, i think osha realizes that sometimes it

should better target its inspections and in fact, it just announced very recently that for the next fiscal year, for 2014, it's going to do fewer inspections. it's going to do about 39,000, and it's going to focus on high hazard industries like oil refining or chemical plants, the sorts of big employers that the gentleman was talking about. so you know, no one is saying they're perfect, no one is saying osha doesn't occasionally cite small businesses for violations that maybe aren't as serious, and that they should spend more time in the high what's hard places -- high hazard places, but they are trying to deal with this sort of quota issue i mentioned earlier by sort of redirecting some of their resources in the coming year. host: next up is carl in baton rouge, louisiana on our line for republicans. carl, you're on the "washington journal". go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call, and thank you

mr. morris for your work. there was a comment earlier about congress not liking safety, and i think it has more to do with congress liking production and how the numbers affect our economy, and so when safety stands in the way of that, the production comes first, and those working in hazardous areas are less considered i was working in the baton rouge area, out on the mississippi river, and on cranes, and on those ships, and i was injured and osha never n. the 12 years i worked there, would ever show up in that area. occasionally i would see the coast guard. but lives were lost, and loss

is always minimized. i'll wait for your comment on that. thank you. host: jim morris. guest: i think we've seen this a number of times. as i mentioned earlier, we did some work on oil refineries a couple of years ago, and there is a mentality, at least at some of the refineries that we've heard about, called run to failure, and what that is, you know, just run the equipment down until it absolutely doesn't work anymore. problem with that is it can lead to explosions, it can lead to fires, it can lead to chemical releases, and it is definitely a product of the desire for much higher production. host: our next call comes from john in troy, michigan, on our line for independents. go ahead, john. caller: yeah, i was wondering how many agencies actually overlap each other with safety on the jobs. there's a lot, like i used to work in transportation

agency, and the transportation industry, and we used to have to deal with dot and osha, both, and a lot of the stuff that they looked at was between them, the same thing. why can't they share that information, consolidate the operations, get rid of some people, and actually do a better job? >> and maybe save some money? host: jim morris. guest: well, i think that's a good idea. i think the fertilizer plant explosion a couple of weeks ago is a good example of overlapping authorities. you had osha's involvement, you had the epa, and then i think there's a lot of confusion about who was in charge and who should have been monitoring that facility. host: also according to this article from reuters, the department of homeland security as well. guest: correct. host: we've got a tweet from jody who says i fired a guy who insisted on keeping his finger on the trigger of a

gun, i heard he shot himself in the leg. next up, sue from nevada on the line for democrats. go ahead, sue. caller: yes, my question is regarding toxic mold, and when are there going to be some federal guidelines regarding the toxic levels that are considered to be high risk for employees to work in? host: jim morris? guest: i don't know about toxic mold specifically. i do know that osha has a bunch of health sh-pbdz that are in the pipeline, and they've been sort of stuck there for many years, so i wouldn't, you know, hold my breath on that one. host: how have those standards developed? is this something that osha does by itself, are these regulations handed down from congress or from some other agency? guest: osha works on a number of standards at any given time, but again, whether it's a health standard or safety standard, they tend to get

stuck in the pipeline because of industry challenges, you know, objections from congress, so there are a number of standards that have been developed or that are designed to protect especially workers' health that have really been stuck. host: next up is judy, rochester, new hampshire on our line for independents. judy, you're on with jim morris from the center for public integrity. go ahead. caller: hi, thank you for c-span. i have a question or i should say a comment, because i don't always feel that osha is fair with how they do a fine. years ago, back in the '80s -- excuse me. i'm kind of choking a little -- my husband almost lost his life because he was working on a road and the road caved in on him. the guys from the crane jumped n. and when he did, to save him, his -- osha was working on the side and my brother-in-law who owned the construction company at the

time, he was find $15,000 because the guy jumped off his crane, the hard hat fell off, he saved my husband's life, and i don't think that was fair. i'll take your comment off line. host: jim morris? guest: i guess i would be interested to know whether the $15,000 fine held up, because osha always has an initial penalty, let's say $15,000, $50,000, but virtually always negotiates that down. sometimes to less than half. so you know, it's unclear to me from the caller whether that was the final penalty paid or not. host: we've got a tweet along similar lines, says just can't believe how public safety is viewed as harassment. next up is alton from pride, louisiana on our line for democrats. go ahead, alton, you're on the "washington journal". caller: hello. i just wanted to say that i worked in the construction

industry for 50 years, started in the early '6 zeros, working out of plumbers local 198 of the united associations, and when i started there was no such thing as osha. basically, safety was left up to the individual. there were the companies -- you would be working 100 feet in the air on a 1-plank scaffold. thank goodness that osha came in, because it's just amazing that more people weren't killed back in those days, and if we were still working under those conditions, it would be even worse. and for the gentleman from baton rouge who worked on the docks, unloading ships, that comes under marine safety instead of osha, i believe. thank you very much. host: alton, before i let you go, regarding those safety issues, you were talking about your union, did your

union work with osha to implement a lot of these safety things or was there pushback from the union? caller: i'm sure that my international work with osha, they were trying to get safety regulations passed. as far as my local union, we worked with the local contractors. i was in the construction industry. and back in those days, it was s.o. standard oil instead of exxon and dow chemical, and we've got many, many refineries and chemical plants up and down the mississippi river. host: we'll leave too there. jim morris. guest: i think i would make a couple of points. first of all the vast majority of workers in this country are not unionized, as i think everyone knows, and i agree with the gentleman that, you know, for all its faults, without osha, there would be a lot more cornerrage on the job. as i think i mentioned

earlier, before osha came into being, about 14,000 americans were dying on the job every year, the most recent data we have, from 2011, it was about 4700. that's still a lot, that's still too many, but it's certainly an improvement over 40 years ago. host: does there seem to be a better relationship between osha and the unions than there is between osha and the corporate employers? guest: generally speaking, i would say yes, but again, with the caveat that unions are on the decline. host: true. next up is trevor, slydale, louisiana on our line for independents, trevor, you're on the "washington journal", go ahead. caller: how you doing this morning? i'd just like to say i love the "washington journal", watching it since i was a little kid. my dad always had it on and it's a really good program and i hope every american can watch it at some point. now, i'd just like to say, i worked on cranes in port allen, doing antique crane repair, and there would always -- there would never be any osha people come but

whenever they would come, you know, like the baton oupblg -- baton rouge said, they would know it, would be picked up and clean and i want to know how would they enforce the guidelines in place and what new guidelines would be -- could be in place to help workplace safety? host: mr. morris. guest: do you mean specifically cranes? caller:col no, surprise inspections and more osha guidelines on the river itself. guest: well, again, i don't know that i can answer that specifically. as i said earlier, osha is constantly tweaking its inspection program and they just -- they've got such limited resources that they try to do the best they k. they try to target, again, especially hazardous industries like oil and chemical refining. so beyond that, i'm not sure how to answer that. host: jim morris is a senior

reporter with the center for public integrity, and earlier in his career, directed a global investigation of the asbestos industry that won first place in the john b. oaks award for environmental reporting from columbia university in 2011, and the i.r.e. medal from the investigative reporters and editors. next up is dorothy in sandstone, minnesota on our line for democrats, go ahead dorothy, you're on the "washington journal". caller: hi. thank you for all you do on c-span. appreciate it. i was going to say, i worked for 22 years in hospitals, and working in safety, and inspection control, things like that, and appreciated many of the inspectors, because they approached their job as an educational opportunity, and teaching us about various things. and sometimes, it depends on the inspector how you react to certain things.

some inspectors come in as though they think that you are doing something terrible and they're going to look for that terrible thing, and other people come in and kind of bring you in and say see how this is, and so on. we only had one osha sp*bgt inspection during that period of time, and that was a very good inspector. host: -- host: jim morris. guest: i think the vast majority of osha inspectors are good people and generally want to help employers correct problems. i'm sure occasionally there will be the exception. but as i mentioned earlier, in the case of the gentleman who died at the u.s. steel plant, you had an inspector who went, you know, way beyond what you would normally expect to try to get at the root of this fatal explosion, and just wasn't able to finish the job. host: how much training do

inspectors get from osha before they go out into the field and are they required to have a certain amount of provish is he in the -- profishen is he in the area they are inspecting? guest: it would depend on the particular job. host: for example i couldn't go to work for osha and become an inspector in the cattle industry like we got from the caller, a couple of calls back? guest: no, i don't think so. there are health inspectors, people who specialize in health and safety inspectors, so they do a spinoff in those two directions. host: jim morris is a senior reporter for the center for public integrity and has been here talking to us about workplace safety as part of our ongoing series on your money. thank you very much for being on our program. guest: thank you.

work on flood protection and water supply efforts. today in the house.