electric grid. then a look at a recent survey on american's view on aging. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioned by the national captioning institute -www.ncicap.org--] ♪ host: one of the more news headlines this friday morning said the u.s. is treading lightly as the prices deepens in egypt. this has nearly 600 people have been killed amid what are being described as ferocious clashes between protestors and security forces. and another headline says egyptians are bracing for more bloodshed today. to the question that's out there. should the u.s. cut off foreign aid to egypt. a lot of folks are saying that but so far, it hasn't happened.

what do you think? call numbers on your screen. or you can put your voice on the program via twitter, facebook and send us an maul -- -- e-mail theere is the front page of "wall street journal" today. the lead headlines says egyptians are bracing for more bloodshed. there is a photo of egyptian soldiers guarding an area around a mosque in cairo where security crackdown left hundreds dead on the previous day. that number is close to 600 now with fights more expected. at the beginning of this piece goes this way. the deadly fight in egypt's

treets -- host: josh rogan is here with us. guest: good morning. host: so tell us about this question. what is your sense of the aid issue at this point and roll into your answer. how much aid are we talking about? what does it mean to the country of i didn't want and what --

egypt and what kind of leverage does it have to the u.s.? >> sure. the u.s. is committed to giving $1.3 million to the military aid and other support for the civilian government. the military aid has been going on for years. it's a result of the peace deal that president carter struck israel on the -- between and egypt and it has become a political football in this debate over how much should we pressure the egyptian government to abide by things like respect for human right, rule of law, refraining violence and civilians and all these other things now seem so persistent given the violence this week. there's a lot of pressure for congress on the congress. and there's a few important things we should note here.

the military aid for 2013 has already been given the military largely. there's not a decision until about april of 2014. both countries have pledged over $13 million. we're talking about saudi arabia and kuwait for the 10 times the u.s. annual aid. so it's unclear that a polling to the aid would have such a dramatic effect on the egyptian military. and third is the obama administration has been very clear that they are not interested in using the aid as political leverage and this issue has come up several times since the 2011 revolution. the position hasn't changed. we shouldn't expect that they're going to change their mind and suspend the aid any time soon.

host: describe the pressure in congress that you mentioned. how deep is it? how severe or heavy is that pressure and who is it coming from? guest: sure. the pressure for conditions on aid came from the morsi government was elected and congress passed into law several restrictions on the aid that would have required the obama administration to cut off the aid if the morsi government vnt having done several different things in the area of political and economic liberalization. the morsi government didn't do any of those things. e obama waived those restrictions and nullifying congressional attendance and gave egypt the aid anyway. then what happened was there were several people in congress, the chairman of the state and foreign appropriations committee of the senate, but also marco

rubioo, john mccain and others came up with ideas of increasing restrictions of the aid. so there's always a limit to what congress can force the administration to do here. and in the end, if the administration really wants to give the egyptian military aid, they'll find a way to do it. host: i want to read you one quote out of the "wall street journal" this morning and get you to elaborate if you can. there is a real possibility of civil war. this from one senior u.s. official briefed on the intelligence. there is a dangerous possibility egypt goes away of syria. your thoughts? guest: well, there are some sill sim layer theys and some -- sim

layer theys and some areas that this is not syria. we've seen a division. one-on-one side, you have saudi arabia and kuwait lining up with the military and the interim government sandft on the other side, you have turkey and qatar lining one the muslim brotherhood. you know, right now, i wasn't say that it -- wouldn't say it has reached the point of the civil war. host: what will you be looking for in the next couple of hours or days both here and in egypt? >> guest: we're looking for signs that the military is going to violence andr much

persian that it has -- persian cougs has conducted and allowed or some space. hoping both sides will move into some sort of discussion that might lead to negotiation. in the end, there's very little that washington or any other foreign country can do to force the interim government to stop it, sort of campaign of violence against civilians. but, you know, the egyptian government at some point will decide that they've done their job that they've cleared the streets and it's time to return to militants, calm and move onto the next stage, which is some sort of political process that may lead to some sort of reconciliation. host: josh rogin, thanks a lot

for your time and your insight this morning. of course. host: whether the u.s. could cult off foreign aid to egypt, call the numbers on your screen pictures telling much of the story for today. here are a couple of temperature in the "new york times." men are carrying the body out of a relative out of a mosque in cairo to the right of that photo. the "washington times." the egyptians mourning over the bodies of relatives in cairo on thursday as egypt face a new phase of uncertainty, they write. we have about two and a half minutes of tape from president obama yesterday on martha's vineyard on all of this and then we'll go to your calls. >> we appreciate the complexity of the situation.

while muhammad morsi was elected president in a democratic election, his government was not inclusive. and did not respect the views of all egyptians. we know that many egyptians, millions of egyptians, perhaps even a majority of egyptians were calling for a change in course and while we do not believe that force is the way to resolve political differences, after the military's intervention several weeks ago, there remained a chance for reconciliation and an opportunity to pursue a democratic path. instead, we've seen a more dangerous path through arrests, abroad crackdown on mr. morsi's associations and supporters and now, tragically, the violence has taken the lives of hundreds of people and wounded thousands more. the united states strongly condemns the steps that have been taken by egypt's interim

government and security forces. we deplore violence against civilians. we support the universal rights essential to human dignity, including the right to peaceful protest. we oppose the pursuit of martial law, which denies those rights to citizens under the principal that security trumps individual freedom or that might makes right. and today, the united states extends its condolences to the families of those who were killed and those who were wounded. given the depths of our partnership with egypt, our national security interest in this pivotal part of the world and our belief that engagement can support a transition back to a democratically elected civilian government, we sustained our commitment to egypt and its people. but while we want to sustain our relationship with people, our

cooperation cannot usual as -- continue as usual when civilians are being called on the streets. we notified the egyptian government that we are canceling our joint military exercise and was canceled for next month. i've asked my team to assess the implications of the actions taken by the government and further steps that we may take as necessary with respect to the u.s.-egyptian relationship. let me say it to the egyptian people deserve better than what we've seen over the last several days. host: and first up this morning, bret from clairemore, oklahoma, independent caller. should u.s. cut off aid to egypt in hi, bret. caller: hi. thank you for c-span. thank you for taking my call. yes. whether or not the -- all that chaos that's going on in egypt,

i think they're going to have a hard time finding anybody that favors foreign aid period. that's just my opinion. their need to cut off all foreign aid. host: to facebook, linda writes they're trying to maintain a little leverage on the military regarding the action they take now. she writes we need to have thoughtful not to have knee jerk action. in the meantime, melissa writes yes, it is time for america to stop the funding of terrorism. and at twitter this morning, tyler writes that i think obama should consider it, but if we do cut aid, egypt's security would be vulnerable and extremists could take over. so differing viewpoints out there so far. and jonathan is our next call from lancaster, pennsylvania, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make the point that the entire middle east is imploding. that egypt and syria, lebanon,

it's on the news, if you watch of it.u get more they're going to totally destroy the infrastructure of all those countries. the level of violence has reached a crescendo. they're going to destroy the grids and the sewage and there's going to be deaths and disease. my point is there's nothing we can do about it. host: what does all of this mean to this country then, baseed on what you're saying? caller: there's not going to be anything coming out of the middle east. it's going to be reduced to medieval level of existence. host: thanks, john. victoria on the line from florida. republican as well. good morning. caller: good morning to you too, and good morning to all americans. i would just say that our democracy is something very unique and we have our problems

as well, just in our democracy. i mean, look at our senators and congressmen and how they're dealing with people. i mean, our people, we, the people, want things done in our congress and in our senate and they're not listening to us and then we are trying to tell other nations to obey by our democracy . i think they're trying to build democracy based on their situation and beliefs and our forefathers had a very unique way of putting a constitution together for we, the people. and i hope and pray that it will be that way for other nations, too. but i don't think that we need to be messing around threatening them by cutting them off from

aid. host: thanks for calling, victoria. i want to get some other voices in here. from twitter, let's not only cut off current aid. let's ask for a refund on past aid and use it for u.s. infrastructure. back to the numbers regarding u.s. aid to egypt. in 2012, $1.5 billion went to egypt and $2.7 million went to the economy. so that was 2012. 2013, $1.3 billion, and $1.7 million on the economy. and here's the request for this coming fiscal year moving forward. $1.3 billion for military aid for egypt and $1.3 million for economic aid so we're asking you whether the u.s. should cut off foreign aid to egypt. getting differing opinions here. there is somewhat of a push in congress for this. but does josh rogen, our

reporter guest says it's not likely to happen. we have parkville, maryland, on the line, nate a democrat. caller: ok, terrific. i'm just wondering aid can't be as josh roe begin cut off until 2014 but maybe we should have more creative solutions. host: "u.s.a. today" has this poll out. it's in today's edition and it's on the new section, of course, page 7a. they talked to people or at least pew talked to people saying egyptian seems less important to u.s. interest. they compared 2011, february, 2011, with the present day. how important is egypt? very important a couple of years

ago. much less important now, 36%, according to the pew poll. somewhat important. it was 38% a couple of years ago. and 47% today. not at all very important, 14% today, or july 2013. and how much u.s. influence can there be in the same poll? so when they talk to folks recently, 23% said a lot of influence. 48% said some. and 23% said not much or none. we have a call from the united arab emirates this morning. it's judah. go ahead, please. caller: good morning, sir. host: good morning. caller: i have to tell you as -- i've been watching the coverage -- nadia g --

ignorance seems to be the code of the day. i'm over here and the tape that you guys have on the show for the majority of callers and the majority of your guests is totally off base. for the most part, everyone over here feels that the people that are causing anarchy on the street, the images are very peaceful country. the muslim brotherhood has cause thrs problem and let it be known several weeks ago when morsi was taken out of office. they stated they would do this. yet somehow, you the media and others are considered them "protestors." well, they're protestors with ak-47's. they're protestors with molotov

cocktail. what is the military there to do? host: let me jump in and get you to the aid question. what should the u.s. do at this point? >> continue it. caller: the fact that you have congress asking that question, it's lunacy. we're giving them $1.56 billion? well, saudi arabia, just gave them $13 million. host: what are you doing in the u.a.e.? caller: i'm teaching over here. 've got to tell you. this is not the same children -- that wanted rights and mtv and a job. this is not what's going on there. there's cyanide, al qaeda -- all these people are trying to overthrow this government. and c-span -- let me finish

this. just give me 30 seconds. i understand that you're there to provide a forum. but hell, man. you get the most ignorant bizarre off base nonsense. you cannot just let that go unchallenged. you're better than that and you have a broader responsibility. host: all right, judah, thank you for your points this friday morning. and to one of his earlier points, we're funded by the cable industry, c-span is. back to the papers. more from the "wall street journal" piece this morning. the conventional wisdom, they write here, shared by both the u.s. and its allies in israel. egypt has been a cohesive society, free of the stark sec taper division that have fueled so much unrest in countries like syria, lebanon and iraq. they go onto write that while the u.s. intelligence community saw trouble brewing in egypt for months, analysts are

contemplating the unthinkable prospect of a long-term period of violence between sec scomplar islamic group. there's a real responsibility of civil wars. there is a dangerous possibility egypt goes the way of syria. james is calling from miami now. independent line. what do you think about the aid question? should the u.s. be cutting it off? james, are you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead, sir. theer: well, my question is u.s. should be cutting off ilitary aid immediately. the military has too much power.

they should cut off all aid to the middle east immediately. the military in egypt has too much, too much power. host: thanks for calling, james, as we continue to tap into the al jazeera coverage of the story in egypt. and here is a tweet this morning. what does it matter what americans think about egypt aid? congress will do as they wish. and back to facebook. darryl writes frankly all foreign said should be -- aid should be suspended as the u.s. is currently borrowing money

from china. the notion that the money should be turned around and sent to other country is absurd. the cold war is over and you can't buy friends and you can't bribe your enemies. in other news, we'll go back to egypt in a moment but i want to show you this banner headline in the "washington journal" this morning. an audit said that the n.s.a. repeatedly broke privacy rules who has been on this story for quite some time. writes this morning that the n.s.a. overstep its legal authorities thousands of times this year --

host: back to the egypt question about aid. bob is hanging on in manassas, virginia, democrat. thank you for waiting, bob. caller: yeah, we should not pull the funding. if we do, we will support the radicals. the only stabilizing force in egypt is the military. they're western professional folks. they do not -- they're not like a third world country like the folks in south america. these guys are trying to stabilize the situation. they responded because the

brotherhood was taunting them. they did overrespond, but the brotherhood after they got the -- that's going on, they went and destroyed 50 churches and christian organizations in egypt has retaliation. they're hiding in the buildings. judah is exactly correct. there should not be allowed to be empowered to the same type of folks who were in iran when they did their revolution. so as the guys are a bunch of radicals. we should not support them. we should support the military in egypt. host: ok. joseph writes via twitter. the egyptian army supports democracy at the point of a gun? he asks. scott from cincinnati. hi, scott. caller: hello. i really had a question that would be able to answer the idea of whether we should continue the aid or not.

it really is we had a direct declaration of inns and then that it stated why we thought king george was a tyrant and we listed all the different reasons we believe he was a tyrant. is there anything that somebody in egypt is doing or some group in egypt is putting together a list because of x, y, and z. i'm not aware of anything like that and that would probably help me understand this better if he was a tyrant, it wasn't really a democracy at that point or it wasn't really a legitimate government and it seemed there was really no process to remove him from office other than having the military take him, remove him from the position. so in a way, you're like it seems to me as if that was the only process to be able -- there was no way to impeach him. so that was kind of a legitimate way, but what i'd like to see is

some sort of list of what grievances the people had and how they could classify morsi as a tyrant. is anyone aware of a list like that that's been put out by any organization? host: all right. hat was scott from cincinnati. host: there's a headline on the "new york times" -- it's an embarrassment to egypt's general. it lays bare both the obama administration's limited options to curb the military's campaign against islamists in egypt and the united states' role as an increasingly frustrating bystafford. -- bystander.

companion story on the front page of the "times" talks about a tense cairo and islamist looking for their next move. the beginning of it goes this way. gathering thursday morning around a mosque used as a morgue for hundreds killed the day before. many islamists waiting for a search of sympathetic support from the broader public but it failed to materialize. with their leaders jailed, --

we'll try to keep you up to date on the death toll there. it's varied numbers depending on where you read. a lot of headlines suggests it's going up. vernon from texas. independent caller. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on the aid. e shouldn't be focusing on stopping aid to the military of egypt, but rather, seizing this moment to declare moratorium on all aid, all foreign aid, excuse me, and secondly, the situation the islamic rsus

religion. -- needs to be cleared up. our leadership seems to think that things can be resolved politically. when indeed, what we're experiencing is not political ctivities in the mideast but slamic enforcing their version change the world to an islamic rule throughout as opposed to how religion, organized religion of the jewish and the christian faith believe the world to be all christian. host: vernon, let me jump -- caller: the difference is the methodology that's beginning on from islamic side. host: how come?

caller: well, because we need the economy in our country to be resolved, to be worked on. and i seymour stormy because i think we need to -- i say moratorium because we need to keep open to the thought of foreign aid. but we need to take care of our own doorstep and that's the bottom line. host: all right, vernon, thank you for weighing in. we started the program talking about a death toll that was around 600. the a.p.'s latest death toll is 638. cnn is attributing the egyptian health ministry that saying more than 4,000 people have been injured so far. so we have some ed stories to tell you about -- editorials to tell you about. president obama has had little or no influence on these events on thursday, he canceled his

ilitary exercises. -- massachusetts now. donald is on the democratic line. go ahead, sir. caller: i'm just calling. i think we should keep the aid. i think the amount of money is small in comparison to what the other countries are given. and two, i think people are confused that the aid has a lot to do with -- our financial problem at home. i think those are separate issues. i think our problem at home can be resolved if people would just

work together. -- epublicans need to cut because it doesn't only affect what happens in america. it happens around the world. they have no idea the power that the united states could have. if we just showed a little more common decency to each other, stop treating the president like he's got three heads, he's probably the best thing that's happened to america because he's the face of the world right now. two thirds of the world of people of color. if you give him a chance to lead by not beating him up every day and let him do what he can do, he's very intelligent man. that's why he takes his time. is uld give anybody who progress into all these problems in the world the chance to do it

because he doesn't make quick decisions. you notice. he takes his time before he makes a comment about anything. that shows me a person who thinks it out instead of a knee jerk action. host: that was donald in massachusetts. more about u.s. aid to egypt by the numbers here. this is current aid, $1.3 billion goes to this country for what's being called peace and ecurity. -- host: isabelle coleman writes in the "u.s.a. today." the writer is the director to the council forum relation civil society writes writes that egypt is a poor country facing bankruptcy. since the coo, the golf chic has

stepped in over $12 billion in sheep loans. they're undoubtedly encouraging the hard line -- host: robert from trenton,

missouri. independent. hey, robert. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about the aid question? caller: well, i don't believe in this foreign aid. myself, i think it's foreign corruption because everyone gets electriced over there. -- elected over i see no advantage. we get no return out of it whatsoever. and every time we give them billons of dollars, someone will come in and try to overthrow the government or whatever. so they get control of these billons of dollars. i don't understand why the american taxpayers has to have the burden of the whole world on their shoulders. we need that money over here. and we once again could become a lending nation, not a borrowing or debtor nation. stop all this foreign aid. if they get a good government in, if they need some money, we could loan it to them.

not give it to them. host: thank you. baton rouge on the line now. zay from the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say that we definitely need to stop financing debts. because if our intention is to have peaceful relations in a peaceful world, we can't finance tools of death. now, we sent the money, they've used the money. they have the money. we need to cut off the money until they use it for the purpose that we intended it for. it makes no sense to keep throwing money and the killing of people. it's not right. host: in some more news, non-egypt news this morning, there were new rules on sexual assault cases in the military. the pentagon announced new measures to crack down on sexual assault ahead of legislation that can alter how the military deals with misconduct.

-- sexual conduct. they will pride legal representations for victims allowing them to provide input during the sentencing phase of court-martial -- some say it's not far enough. the pentagon must change its culture. hackers assault media sites. middle eastern hackers infiltrated a delivery service giving them possible stees some of the largest news sites on thursday. an online group call the syrian electronic army representing supporters hacked the internet service --

back to egypt. gary, greenville, mississippi, republican. good morning. gary, are you there? caller: i am. host: go ahead, sir. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i don't understand how some report the current administration in egypt because they were elected by the people. and we the american people, we supported their election. i mean, even john mccain who's a celebrated veteran said that this is a coo there. so i'm not so much for or against anything, but i think when americans call your show that we should understand that

we supported this democratic effort that took place in egypt. and we should consider those things before we get on here talking negatively or positively about the subject. but i just don't understand how e're so kind of shallow in our support for the previous administration in egypt because again, they were duly elected by the people and then secondly as i mentioned before, one of the most celebrated veterans in this nation, senator mccain went there. he visited, so on and so forth, and he said that the -- that it was a coo. so that's just my thoughts. host: thanks, gary. back to the u.s. aid setup. the current setup, 2013. there is money available to that country and the federal reserve

bank of new york. and this is according to "the washington post." there's a cash flow for the financing of military equipment and egypt is the fourth largest recipient of u.s. foreign aid. we have darlington, pennsylvania, on the line now. independent. go ahead. caller: yeah, i don't agree with it either because i think it's just another we feel program just like 50 million people in this country. they expect it every year. they don't make no attempt to get it on their own. i can see it once in a while but not every year. host: that was mike from pennsylvania. back to twitter. victor writes the same demanding -- the same people demanding an end to the military aid to egypt are the same who will blame the president if it results in ending the relationship. in the "new york times" this morning is an op-ed piece by a member of the executive board of the freedom and justice party in egypt which affiliated with the

muslim brother heed. this writer was egypt's minister of planning under president morsi. and the write-up goes in part like this. there is only one way forward in egypt today. the legitimate government must be restored. only then can we hold talks for a national reconciliation with every option on the table. the recent statement of mr. morsi is not about idea ji or ego -- that's in the "new york times" today. muhammad is calling from minnesota. welcome to the program. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. my comment here is the money that has been given to egypt should be diverted to the depth

that we owe china. d i think president obama -- [unintelligible] he went to egypt one time and talked about democracy and he's not saying nothing. only the state department is making comment. i'm really disappointed. i think we should be thinking about the lives that have been lost in egypt and chirp are being killed -- children are being killed. women are being killed. nothing has been done. this is not good for the image of the united states of america. host: thanks for calling. bill calling from baton rouge, louisiana, now, republican. hello there. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. how are you? caller: fine. well, you know, i don't hear anybody saying anything about the iran spring anymore. - iran -- arab spring anymore.

they knew what morsi was and obama was supportive of him. and they found out that they made a mistake when they got him oted in. the people in egypt didn't vote it, it was just the brotherhood. and he was a terrorist -- the brotherhood is a terrorist organization and he came over here. the first terrorist, i imagine, that ever came to the white .ouse it's just -- this money part, it's just another illusion to get it off of morsi and obama. because they were good friends. wears aou notice, obama

ring on his left finger, his marriage finger, that is you have to be an arab to read it. now, what kind of stuff is this? host: i'm going to let you go, bill. bring in some other news here while we set up for our next segment. the "wall street journal" in the marketplace section. this headline says "retailers are feeling left behind." spending on cars and homes thrive but many cars warn of a weaker sale to the pages of the "washington times" this morning. inches write right to work. it says the right to work law applies to 35,000 state employees. the appeals court ruled on thursday in a first major legal on a measure --

that's be the "washington times." and burt lance has died. the "new york times" story talks about the former adviser to jimmy carter, the president. he died at 82. accusations cut short his washington stay reads the obit. a small town georgia banker who became the confidant to jimmy carter but was forced to resign because of accusations that he personally traded on his ties with the president has died. his de was confirmed recalled hum one of the most competent and dedicated public servants i

have ever known. -- and that's in the "new york times" obit this morning. we've been asking you whether the u.s. should cut off aid, foreign aid to egypt. via twitter. jean writes we should send our foreign dollar to detroit. that's the opinion there. in "the washington post" today, islamist issues a call to alms to further goal. a little bit more about the future here. they are moving to capitalize on this political crisis in egypt. argue taggert the crackdown in the muslim brotherhood vindicates their view that democracy is a dangerous

proposition. -- we are going to take a short break here and move off of egypt onto a different topic. it's about states around the country who are putting efforts to nullify efforts to stop some of the top issues. nullify federal laws that relate o health care and gun control. we'll be right back in a few minutes. ♪

>> we were right in my view to fully fund the military in 9/11. we deprived the u.s. department of funds. and there is as a result, an enormous gap between the power of the pentagon and the power of the state department. i'll illustrate it with two little examples from bob gate who is was an outstanding secretary of defense for president push and president obama. he gave a brilliant speech a couple of years ago and here are the nuggets. secretary gates. we have more military personnel in one carrier battle group. the united states navy. than we have american diplomats all over the world.

here's another, if that doesn't convince you. we have more members of the armed forces marching bands of the navy air force army, marines, true fact, than american diplomats. >> this weekend on c-span, nicholas burns on the history of u.s. diplomat in the middle east. on c-span2's book tv, how would you define the american dream? lawrence samuel traces the dream the great depression through the 21st century. on c-span3 is american history tv. why change the story when the truth is more exciting? "true tales of the founding fathers." sunday on noon eastern. >> what's interesting about washington in this age is that once you have that title, even if it's a very, very short title, even if you've been voted out after one term, you can stay in washington and be a former

chief of staff, a former congressman, a former chief of staff to congressman x or y. and that itself is marketable. you are in the club. and that's a striking departure from the days in which people would come to washington to serve, serve a little bit and then go book the farm, which is as i guess, how the founders have intended it. there's a new dynamic and a lot of it starts with the money and the resources available for people to do very well well here. >> an insider's look at business of politics and media in washington. at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> c-span. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private

industry where c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. and now, you can watch us in h.d. >> washington wash continues. -- "washington journal" continues. >> we are going to talk about an interesting issue that's developing around the country as it relates to state sovereigntry. these are the reactions by states to federal law and what the states are trying to do about it in some cases. the word nullifications is out there. our guests this morning at the table are llya shapiro of the cueto institute. he is a senior fellow for constitutional studies. good morning. we're also joined by ian millhiser who is a analyst at the center for american progress. appreciate your time as well. let in the try to set this up by reading the beginning part of a political piece that was published recently. states seek to nullify obama efforts is what the headline

says. and the piece says they are infuriated by the long arm of washington reaching into their business. states are telling the feds keep out. bills that when negate a variety of federal laws have popped up with the amount of anti-federal legislation sharply on the rise during the obama administration. this is according to experts. what kind of laws are we talking about here if guest: you have to go back to the early history of the united states to understand what we're talking about. so, once upon a time, we were 13 colonies and when we won the revolutionary war, these were really 13 different countries. and when they were 13 different countries, they could enact whatever laws they wanted and then they decided to come together in a union. and the price of that union was that the states agree there were certain parts to their sovereigntry and that meant that the federal government got to decide in those areas what the whole nation's policy would be. now, you're seeing some states

who are basically saying they want to go back on that deal that they made when we became a union. i would say that the state should be allowed to overrule valid federal laws that they don't like. and that's a serious problem. james madison at one point warned if we allowed this, it could bring an end to the union because if federal law isn't supreme and the constitution says it is the supreme law of the land, we aren't a union. host: what laws are we talking about? guest: across a whole host of policy areas, whether it be health care and resistance to obama care, whether it be to immigration and not wanting to enforce federal law, either being more strict or less strict. marijuana medical marijuana, other things are different policies that states have that differ from the federal policy. gun control. they don't want federal agents trying to enforce federal laws but we have to separate out what issues are in play here because states do not have to enforce

federal law. the federal government cannot force them to do so. the supreme court has been clear on that. what states cannot do is stop federal officers from enforcing federal laws and states can't pass a law that nullifies federal law. the question is whether a given area is a proper subject of legislation or authority by the federal or the state government and that's when you have state court battles like we saw with obama care that just concluded last year. host: you mentioned several issues. who's putting this forth? is is coming from the left? from the right? from somewhere else? guest: it tends to happen from both sides depends on who's in power in washington because the obama administration has been in power for five years and this generally conservative republican lawmakers around the state that want to resist federal incursion on their sovereignty. but we also heard news that in new orleans, the authorities there, the local authority, not the state authorities in louisiana, are not going to cooperate with the federal

government on immigration detentions. there is leeway as i said in all of these areas. they don't have to cooperate. they don't have to enforce. but they do have to law the government to do its job. host: how does this push back work? what is the process within a state for nullifying federal law? guest: it's important to draw a clear line between two concepts that you just raised. so nullification is when a state tries to tell the federal government it's not allowed to enforce its own law. like the f.b.i. tries to come in and enforce the law. the state will try to arrest the f.b.i. that's not allowed. what is allowed and -- is if a state just says it's not going to contribute to something and so if a state decides that it doesn't want to help enforce federal immigration law, that it doesn't want to prosecute marijuana and just leave that to the federal government, that's fine. they just have to pass a state law saying that's what they want to do. if they want to nullify, i mean,

you have some state legislatures that are trying to pass nullification laws but those laws are void. they're unconstitutional. they conflict with the provision of the constitution that says that federal law is the supreme law of the land. and so, in both cases, it's normally design to the legislative process. only one of those two things that i just described is actually allowed under our constitution. host: let me put the phone numbers on the screen and read them for folks who are listening to their sets. here are the numbers. 285-3881 -- 202- we're talking about the idea nullification. it's a larger discussion here about state sovereigntry versus federal law and our guests are ian millhiser who is senior constitutional policy analyst for the center for american

progress and llya shapiro, who is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the cueto institute. so, a broader question before we get to calls, starting with you, mr. shape roe. -- shapiro. how big is this effort and how much bigger is it going to get? >> well, in the last couple of decades, really, i mean, this isn't just a republican or democrat thing, the federal government has grown so much in so many dif areas. whether you're talking about the obama or the bush administration or before that a lot of states are chafing in various ways, whether it be the enforcement of chris pauls or overfederalization of the law, certain things should be left to state prosecutors or with health care or with immigration. it is pretty widespread and lawmakers are trying to have innovative solutions to how they can reassert state sovereigntry which was on the down swing for many years.

state agreements with other states up to and including forcing -- there's an organization that i'm advising called the compact for america, trying to get a balanced budget amendment. it's a nifty idea to control a runway convention. so there are policy and innovations that states are trying to put together across a they are trying to reassert the original dynamic. just to rebalance the power in the country. host: can you speak to the federal effort? what can the federal government do? about an we talk actual nullification law, those laws are avoid almost automatically. what would happen is that

the federal official would try to enforce the law. the state would presumably try to stop them. it would be easy to get a court order. when you talk about whether or not a state is going to participate in enforcing marijuana laws, that is a matter of moral persuasion. i do not think we are seeing a rollback in the states because of harder philosophies about how big or how small our government should be. the forces that want us to liberalize the marijuana laws are winning the debate. some of the states are doing it first. they are the first in line and the government is going to move in that direction. that is where the american

people are. host: we have two constitutional specialists here. apply the 10th amendment. it is very short. we will put it on the screen. well, that is a kind of redundancyspenders built into the constitution. the founders were concerned that it would disparage other rights that were retained by the people. thomas jefferson said we do not give the government any powers to infringe those rights. these rights that we list is not the whole list. on the power side, what we do list is it.

you do not get anymore. the 10th amendment underlines that if you cannot find that power in the text of article one for congress, then it is not there. guest: i would agree with virtually all that ilya said. there is a list of powers and those powers are expensive but not infinite. the 10th amendment reminds what lawmakers that if you cannot find what you want to do on that then the government cannot do it. host: kathleen from pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. do the states have a way to work together to stop defense doing something that we think is unconstitutional? religiouss to fine

hospitals for treating uninsured people. but that would be against our religious views. guest: states can get together and compact or to sue the government as 26 did in the obamacare legislation that the supreme court decided last year. there is lots of weights that states can combine. they get together and manage ports all the time. in this case, there is another option. individuals can sue the government. there is different relationships between the federal and state governments. thereital or individual, can be a class action and file

suit against the federal government for violating their individual constitutional rights. guest: i agree with most of that. the lawsuit is the primary mechanism that we ensure that the constitutionally is enforced. the court makes its call, we are stuck with it. nullification is about states that do not like what the courts have been saying. trying to find some other person to have some other word. that is very damaging to the rule of law. there needs to be someone who is the final arbiter. elaine, thank you for checking in. caller: ok. on you from the think tank for

the right-wing? sense.i am, in a we were not funded for a long time. wase was a lawsuit that settled last year. i think they do a lot of good work promoting free markets and other liberties. but it is not the coke foundation. we have many owners. guest: we do not think that they do great work and do not take money. a righti think this is wing think tank and they are both right wingers. job aboutdo a better explaining what we do at the center. on the could you comment

voter nullification in north carolina? guest: nullification is a state law passed to try to void or cap direct federal law and that is not proper. what is going on is there have been lawsuits filed that will be ultimately decided in the courts. the states have power to regulate their interactions. there are is some contention that changing the early voting is arequirements that that violation and these are claims based on individual voting rights and will be resolved by the courts. from we have a tweet american hero.

but thehat is true, question is who has the power to make that call? we decided very early that it is the judiciary and the supreme court that has the final say on it. if you give the states the last word on what is unconstitutional, then any state can declare anything unconstitutional. then we cease to be a union. then any law becomes optional. host: you took us back to the founding of this country. what about the history of nullification efforts? what has happened if anything? guest: it is something that people who feel they are on the losing end of the process have

brought up a few times. the most famous example was john calhoun who led an effort in south carolina to try to nullify a tariff that was viewed as good in the north and that's a good for farmers in the south. that almost sparked a civil war before south carolina back down. there were notification efforts were states tried to prevent the government from enforcing civil rights or enforcing supreme court decisions that insisted upon equal treatment of the races. this is something that comes up every now and then. normally it is led by politically loses. most of the time your recourse is to try to be a political winner.

if you do not like what the government is doing, your recourse is to vote for someone who will do something else. guest: that is in the short- term. the constitutional balance has gone unbalanced. that is why you see court challenges including in this area in the 1980's and the 1990's, the case that established that the government cannot force state officials to do their bidding to enforce their regulations. process.ong-term constitutional rebalance in the long-term. the catoa shapiro at institute educated at princeton

and the london school of economics and chicago law school. he is a special assistant advisor to the multi national force on iraq. ian millhiser is a senior policy analyst at the center for american progress anti-clerk for a judge at the sixth circuit. gary from brick, new jersey. caller: good morning. congress has no jurisdiction outside of d.c. that is my statement. good morning. guest: i am not familiar with that act. there are a number of areas that the government does have jurisdiction over the entire nation.

this really goes to what the of constitutional law is about. the supreme court was very aggressive about 100 years ago. there was a question of whether some things like social security would be constitutional. the court decided that we wanted most questions to be resolved by elected officials and not why unelected judges. regional people could read it different ways. i think that is the correct decision. aboutr you are talking judicial supremacy where judges are coming in or whether you are talking about having one part of the country being able to

override what has been done by our nations democracy. both of those are bad ideas. we make sure that our elections matter. if i do not like the way my country is being run, i should be able to go to the ballot box, and that includes people who do not like what president obama is doing. with meo you disagree about gay marriage. that we should look to the text of the constitution. nore you have language like person shall be denied the equal protection of the law, i think it is clear that gay people are people. whether manufacturing houses commerce and whether that means we can have a child labor law,

that is a question that should be left to elected officials and not to people who serve lifetime appointments. guest: the definition of commerce is much clearer on the subject historically than other things. i am playing a little bit of devil's advocate. one person's deference is another person's oppression of individual rights, regardless if you are coming from the left or the right. what the coherence of your theory of interpretation is. host: educated at kenyon college and the law degree from duke. our next call from kansas city, missouri. caller: i know both your guests

have studied the subject pretty much at depth. we are the united states of america and not the disunited states of america. to circumventted civil rights laws, we sent in the national guard to enforce those rights. i think that states rights are a farce. where youe only thing can say that states have a leg to stand on. mostly residency is related to taxation. missouri,n't live in i need to move here before i pay taxes. guest: the example of troops being sent in to enforce civil

rights laws. that demonstrates the danger that nullification presents. when you don't have a final meansr, ultimately that you have to resolve it through force. either we accept the lawful process and that the supreme court said our schools need to have agregated, or you conflict between arkansas and the united states that have to be resolved through the united states'superior force. i think that is a bad way to run the country. i wanted to get your reaction from a tweet from matt smith. yes.:

we are supposed to have apart s. just last year the supreme court said the government cannot force you to buy something. they can transform it into a tax. they cannot regulate things that are purely local. the gun free school zones act. congress legislated you cannot bring a gun to a school. women.ence against a local matter that the government should not be criminalizing. there are tests. the substantial effects test. this is what the current law is. economic activity affecting

interstate commerce nationally. that is pretty expensive but there are limits. article one section eight enumerates the 17 things that congress can do -- coin money, raise troops, and the other things proper to carry out those laws, but there are limits. states do have a plenary power. the federal government does not. guest: it is important to understand the development of america's economic history. there was a lot of commerce that did go on in one state when the country was founded. i take my crops to the marketplace and i sell them to consumers. it all went on in my country --

my one state. there were banks that only banked with people in that state. now our economy is very national. .ven the businesses are competees will still with those businesses that are multi-state. the words that the constitution uses has come to mean a lot more. maybe the framers did not anticipate the modern economy. we are not bound by what their perception might have been 200 years later. host: here is ruby from virginia beach. caller: the gentleman with the dark hair -- you have a fairly

balanced group this morning. right. from cato is more by georgeis funded soros. host: both of them have dark hair. 76-year-old a grandmother. i have lived a long time. i started out as a democrat. i voted in every election. during the civil rights, they read a part of the constitution. that was just for 13 states. there was just as much stuff going on in the northern states as in the southern states. they say the south except you as an individual but not as a whole. the north except you as a whole

but not an individual. that is ready much true. we have elected a president who that ournoticeably bill of rights is a document of negative rights because he does not give enough rights to the government. this constitution was written in 2700 and it is taken 17,000 plus to enforce it. you do not control people like that. we are supposed to be a representative republic and not a democracy. i was taught that communism was the -- a democracy was the worst part of a representative republic. guest: sure. i think i disagree with the

caller's vision of how we resolve disputes in this country. there is a lot of people who are not fans of the affordable care act. the way we resolve that is we elected a president who campaigned on health reform. the law was passed. we then had another election where mitt romney was very aggressive in saying he would repeal the law if he got the chance. the american people had a full opportunity to choose between them. the guy who signed the affordable care act won. that strikes me as the best way to resolve these disputes. we are going to disagree on important decisions. we should resolve them by having .n election

we need to make sure we abide by the decision that the american people made in those elections. guest: i think democracy is the worst way of governing our resolving disputes except for all others. the affordable care act has been unpopular from its inception. the way elections are run, mitt romney was a bad candidate for so many different reasons and the people did not see fit to throw out barack obama. a national referendum on the health-care law would have lost tremendously. he as a candidate won. to tease out something that ian said, i do not think how we resolve that is primarily

through elections. we have a sea of liberty. we can do lots of things. resolve disputes in various ways. we have lost track of the idea that it liberty is the norm and regulation is an imposition on that that we agreed to when we form the united states. of the government not giving us enough of our rights. there is a constitutional imbalance and there should be room for more constitutional lawsuits by individuals. guest: i want to push back against this idea of liberty. i have crohn's disease.

i cannot quit my job. if i quit my job, i would be unable to obtain health insurance. so i have less liberty for that reason. what obama. does is insurers if i choose to quit my job, i will be able to get the care despite my pre- existing condition as with millions of other people. obamacare is a liberty-expanding bill. togiving people the ability do things they would otherwise not be able to do. i am not going to go into the people who will live because of this law. guest: i am not a health-care scholar. raising their premiums and that

is not the point. we would have a competitive marketplace in an ideal system and you would be free to leave your job and do something more productive nba talking head like me. we should be reducing and so forth -- producing and so forth. your health care would not be tied to your employer. that is a relic. i do not think it is an argument for more government. host: let's get another call. joseph, an independent. caller: good morning. i would like your guess to comment about the constitutionality of the income tax. it. four states ratified

there are youtube videos of harry reid and the irs director among others staring directly into the camera and saying that the income tax is a voluntary tax. you do not have to pay. why are people prosecuted if they do not pay, if it is a voluntary tax? guest: i am not familiar with that video. if he said it, he is wrong. the government does have the power to enact an income tax. there was an income tax during the civil war. the supreme court upheld it. 1890's, the supreme court struck down an income tax. most people thought the decision

was wrong. the 16th amendment was ratified to fix the error. the belief was at the beginning the congress have the power to enact the income tax. guest: the 16th amendment is right here. congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. but against the income tax it is part of the constitution. it was only a couple of percent on the very rich. what it shouldy be. it is part of the constitution. harry reid said a lot of crazy things over the years. if he said that, he is wrong. if you are watching, please do pay your taxes.

you should not nullify the income tax. host: back to twitter. guest: sure. standing means you cannot challenge a law just because you feel like you do not like the law. sue me.ch ilya, he can you can not because i have not done anything to you. so this comes up in a federal contacts, you have to be able to say i'm going to be less wealthy than i would have been because of this law. the degree of the injury does not have to be very great. it could cost you a single penny.

you have to show that you have been injured by it. host: we have a broad question here on twitter. ph.d. is written on that topic. government is exceeding its balance in lots of ways. interstatending of commerce is different than ian's. a lot of the cabinet agencies i think our unconstitutional. state governments as well. wasoriginal constitution with respect to the powers of the government and the rights of the individuals against the government. people werevil war,

allowed to push back on state violations of individual lights -- rights. people can sue for violations of their new digital rights federal and state. more of that should be done. a lot more challenges by state have happened. health care should be organized over the long term to pare back its power and restore a constitutional balance. federal and state governments comply with the constitution most of the time. someday i hope we have the supreme court that will realize they are unconstitutional. a previous caller brought up the law in north carolina that makes it much harder to vote.

there is evidence that law is targeting some voters because voters of certain races are likely to vote in certain ways and this makes it harder for them. it engages in viewpoint discrimination. it makes it harder for democrats to vote. that are plenty of things the court should strike down as unconstitutional. most of the time our disputes are resolved through elections. most things the government want to do will. guest: ray from illinois. caller: i would like to comment that the government is a corporation. notcentral government does act upon the individual

citizens. i would like to know how certain laws affect us, like the 16th amendment does not act upon the individual but upon income. host: what do you make of that? guest: i do not know what definition of corporation the caller is using. it is usually some kind of entity. structure that we have to allow people to do things collectively that they whether aividually, business to make a profit. is an incorporation of a certain way. the government is not a nexus of contracts. what lawyers call public law as

opposed to private law. the government does act against us, if you want to put it that way. they legislate in certain ways to control the rules of the game and will alter the constitution to protect our liberties and rights. i think what is in the constitution is properly the law. the debate is over what the government is doing to comport with that law. host: we moved on to clarence. caller: i have a question. i am a city employee. the city of detroit is under an emergency manager. right now the emergency manager is in federal court to file a bankruptcy for detroit. what he wants to do is to stop

paying into our pension system. protectedn system is by the michigan constitution. what do you see happening to our federalif the bankruptcy allows them to stop paying into our pension? guest: that is a difficult legal question. there are a lot of people who have worked their entire lives believing their pension would be there for them. is issue is that federal law supreme to state law. if federal law is properly invoked, then the michigan constitution does not have anything to say about it.

detroitt clear whether properly file that petition. ae michigan constitution says municipality cannot do anything that would diminish the tensions of the employees. canng a bankruptcy petition be interpreted as something that would diminish their pensions. thehe argument is that petition itself is no good. the federal law was never populate invoked. predictionto make a as to how this is going to come down. it is a very difficult question. my heart goes out to the pension eers. host: we talked about things

like gun control and the health- care law. has the issue of drone surveillance, but all in your reading? city: i have heard about councils passing resolutions dronesthey do not like and they prefer the government does not do them. guest: kind of like saying there are nuclear-free zones. this is an issue that is increasingly talked about. i stand with rand paul. i am not sure how much it is a notification issue. whether a state or swat team will deploy their drones or there'll be a star wars. i think it is more of a individual liberty issue. controlling from the executives

-- the military. california.rom good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling in regards to the citizens united ruling. i feel the game is rigged from the beginning for the rich and powerful. i do not believe corporations are people or money is speech. i think that what needs to come out of our constitution. apparently since that is the way they rule. guest: corporations are not people in the sense they are not human beings. they are legal persons when they

are composed of individuals and they do not lose their rights. if people did lose their rights when they got together collectively, you could have the holy storming my employer to take out lots of files or computers because we could not invoke our fourth amendment protection. or mayor bloomberg wants to relocate the mayor's office in new york to rockefeller center and he condemns rockefeller center and takes it by eminent domain. people get together and do have rights. what does that mean in the first amendment context? citizens united has gotten overblown. l their moneyo

and put up billboards and make commercials and it should be less controversial than it is. protecting lyrical speech is the core of the first amendment. guest: i do nothing the problem is whether corporations are considered people. a completely rewrites our law of corruption. what the supreme court said is that we can have campaign finance laws to prevent core option or the appearance of corruption in our elections. there was a poll where the question was do you feel corporations should be able to give unlimited sums of money and 17%y 70% agreed that -- agreed that no corruption

would come. ofre is the appearance corruption created by massive sums of money, whether it comes from corporate donors or individual donors. we needed the ability to rein in corruption. the supreme court said we don't have that power and i think that is frightening. twitter -- via guest: there has to be some secret see to government. we cannot let everyone know the location of troops. that is at the far end. government has erred in being too secret. what kind of checks do you put

in? --there isurt supposed be an independent check. th is an article two court wi fisa. does not somebody on the other side saying this is not an appropriate use of your function or what have you. of a big the midst discussion of how to check the national security process and privacy and things like that. i am sure we will see some kind of fisa and other reforms in this area. guest: that needs to be some process.dverseriral normally it is developed in the criminal context.

eventually someone is arrested and they get a lawyer. their lawyer can present that argument to the judge. there could be a consequence if the judge agrees with them. potentially their criminal charges can be thrown out. case that there is an adversarial process were both sides are heard. the president talked about creating some kind of adversarial- side. ifen there is a consequence the court finds there has been some kind of violation. if the government goes off and gathers information and decides they want to order an air raid, goes off and bomb someone, is not like the dead person can

me, i want you to unklill judge. host: robert from missouri. caller: hi. f want to ask mr. shapiro -- i the composition of the supreme tort changes and it goes on a liberal court and the case of citizens united comes up again, will he be agreeing with the andt if they overturn that no longer stipulated that corporations are people? would that be the law of the land or would you prefer that a change? guest: i agree with the ruling as it now stands.

-- if one appointees is replaced by a democratic employee, i think that would be the wrong decision. it is not about corporations being people. they have rights because they are a collection of human beings. guest: i disagree with citizens united. decision.-4 there are several other positive things that can happen if the court flips. of voter see a lot suppression laws in places like north carolina declared unconstitutional. you could see the voting rights act reinstated. a provision that prevented things like the law that was

just enacted. been voting has disproportionally done by african-americans. section five made it illegal for north carolina to enact the law that disproportionately targeted african-americans. there was no law that was going to affect -- if it wasn't for the 5-4 decision. guest: there is no law that it targets african-americans. guest: the voting rights act -- you do not need a smoking gun. all you need is what lawyers call a disparate impact. you need to show that black voters or hispanic voters are more impacted than white triggers. host: we are out of time. we say thanks to our guests.

ilya shapiro from the cato institute. and thanks to ian millhiser, an analyst at the center for american progress. we appreciate your time. we will take a short timeout and turn to a different topic. the energy grid in the united states. any report that links climate change to vulnerability of the energy grid. our guest will be coral davenport to tell us about that. then we continued with a look at a new report about living up to the age of 120 in this country. we will be right back.

>> if we turn away from the needs of others, we align ourselves with those forces which are bringing about the suffering. >> the white house is a bully pulpit and you should take advantage of it. >> i think i have little antennas that point up when somebody has their own agenda. >> there is so much influence in that office. >> i think they serve as a window on the past to what was going on with american women. >> the only one that he can trust. writers.omen werew

>> they are in many cases more interesting than their husbands, if only because they are not first and foremost define and limited by lyrical ambition. >> she is one of the unsung heroines. it islly if roosevelt' -- really youth roosevelt -- edith roosevelt's white house. ma'am.es, >> i think in every case the first lady has done whatever fit her personality and her interests. saide later wrote that she i never made any decision. ireland decided what was important and when to present it to my husband.

you stop and think about how much power that is. it is a lot of power. >> part of the battle is to fight the fear that accompanies the disease. >> she transform the way we look at these bugaboos and made it possible for countless people to survive and to flourish as a result. i do not know how many presidents have that kind of impact on the way we live our lives. >> just walking around the white house grounds i am constantly reminded about all of the people that lived there before and all of the women. ladies, a c-span original series produced in cooperation with the white house historical association. premieres september 9

. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest now is coral davenport. good morning. there is a new report by the link house that begins to climate change with problems in the nation's in that your grade. nations electric gri d. guest: it has been 10 years since that huge blackout in new york city. severe weather is the leading cause of power outages right down to the electric grid and that is increasing due to climate change. here is a real way that climate

change is causing economic problems in the u.s. power outages are linked with loss of productivity. 58% of power outages are linked -- or caused by extreme weather and cost the economy $18 billion to $30 billion a year. host: are those results considered surprising? guest: not really. i do not think so. there is not a lot of new news in this report. stacking a pile linking whether to quantifiable economic costs. host: you can see some of the our screen.

2012.s from 2003 to we want to put the phone numbers on the screen for our guest, coral davenport, as we look at this report. we have separate lines for democrats and republicans. we look forward to your questions and comments. let's take a step back. what exactly is the electrical grid. guest: in some ways it is kind of a misnomer. is a system of wires and transmission lines and stationsty-generating are on the country that move our electricity around. it is pretty old. some as old as 100 years. most lines are 25 years old. most electric generators are

over 30 years old. is a big patch together set of infrastructures that is essential for running the economy. it is how are it gets generated and how the lights are on and how people are watching tv today. picture all those wires and that is the grid. host: what is being done to shore up the grid? guest: not a lot. there had been alarms about the vulnerability about the electric grid for a number of years. this white house report calls for new investment to strengthen the grid and to put new transmission lines. right now with all of the measures, the government is not going to have any more money to spend on strengthening the grid.

it probably needs an investment of about $20 billion a year to upgrade and strengthen the grid. right now that is not happening. host: first call for our guests, good morning. caller: good morning. of fuel cellre technology that is presently in front of the largest units in walmart fedex, ebay, that are being fueled by natural gas? guest: i didn't know they were natural fuel cells and fedex has been a leader in fuel cell technology. host: why do you bring it up? caller: i think we can eliminate the grid and to place a $3500 or

less fuel cell on a home and eliminate the grid and each person has the natural gas power in their own home. is a logical thing with the abundance of natural gas. then no one can destroy our infrastructure. guest: natural gas already provides about 40% of the nation's electricity right now by major generators. they bring the electricity to home through the grid. this is the kind of thing that would be a change in infrastructure and a major investment. there are a lot of ideas out there. where does the money come from to do it? the money is unfortunately not

forthcoming. host: what has been the most recent effort in congress to update the grid? was $4.5 billion in to help stimulus grid implement the so-called smart grid. it adds computer technology to the grid. utilitiestric automatically up the electricity when there is higher demand. that was in 2009. and was $4.5 billion. compare that to the need for updating the grid. the investment would be about $20 billion a year for 20 years. host: so plugging money back in.

joe from west virginia, good morning. caller: i am a retired coal miner. coal, because we are a coal state. a decision was made 12 years ago clear the right of ways of the utility lines. that money was diverted into extra pay of executives. they diverted the money to a bigger dividend to their stockholders. massive powered outages because of the storms that have occurred over the last years. they will be forced to have a maintenance plan to maintain

these right of ways. and tood common sense avoid crazy businesses like this could have saved west virginia hundreds of thousands and literally millions of dollars. the rate payers have to pay for this on the increase. they received a most 45% increase in the last three years. our rates are one of the highest in the nation. now they are trying to stick us with all coal. becausere looks bleak of some of these deals. i am a retired coal miner. nonstop remover has destroyed a beautiful part of the state of west virginia and contaminated the water. guest: it is interesting the

situation the caller is describing. howproblem with the grid is it is overseen and how it is regulated. it is overseen by a real patchwork. patchwork over who oversees what. mismanagement. these are observed outages from 1992 to 2012 over the 20 years. there are two lines here. one is red, one indicating non- weather related. then this darker line talks about whether related and you

can see a significant spike in 2008 period and beyond ver. west: in the last two years, have seen record damages, more than $10 billion in street -- and extreme weather events the white house is correlating the extreme weather, the power outages with scientific studies showing that climate change is one of the direct drivers of this extreme weather. more hurricanes, more flooding, more storms. in some cases, drought, extreme drought can be linked. host: when did this report come out? guest: this week. host: any reaction for congress? guest: congress is out.

the report doesn't call for concrete action from congress. calls for increased spending through the grid. i know the white house knows it's not going to get that from congress. theng the public linking idea of climate change, extreme weather, and economic impact that this can sort of feel here and now. i think that was really the idea the report and they wanted to tee it up to the anniversary of the blackout. in some ways, this is taking a lot of information they already have in using it to do some pr. host: we know that some folks still debate climate change itself. but with weather-related spikes, is there any dispute over that piece of it? the weather itself has caused these problems? guest: that part is not in dispute. research shows that extreme weather is the leading cause of power outages.

i think the report said that 58% of power outages are caused by or linked to extreme weather. the increased in extreme weather and dollars are connected. welcome to the c-span network. what the reiterate gentleman from west virginia said ver. we got hit with a "extreme thunderstorm." it came down to the last tree cutting around the right of ways of the transmission lines. if we take a look at each one of the utilities out how they are deferred -- how the deferred maintenance can be a cause of some of this. guest: i think the caller raises the point about a question about oversight, regulation and management of the grid as well.

between the regulators, the electric utilities, local governments, this is an issue where there is a patchwork and in the caller pause community -- the caller's community, there is an issue over who is really managing the grid and are they doing a good job? and what is the relationship between the government, the states and the companies themselves? is complicated. it looks like complete spaghetti. it is different in different regions. there's one for the northeast. different states have different laws. it is really difficult to wrap your head around this. people said that this is maybe be one area where we need to see reform. host: one viewer on twitter wants to know --

the in governmental panel convened by the human has put out a series of reports as have the national academies of science, similar scientific bodies all around the world concluding that global average temperatures are increasing over time and that this is linked to carbon emissions, to burning fossil fuels, the cost of, change and increasing temperature. those are pretty clearly established. host: and here's a treat -- we have oakland, maryland on the line. caller: how are you doing this morning? i am old enough that i can remember back when i was in college.

we had local cooling and we had global freezing. then we have global warming. and then there was climate change. what i have seen happen in the last 30 years is just like the scientists who got a hold of their e-mails and found out that they were fudging the reports because they already knew what they wanted to find out. i'm not send that there isn't some kind of climate change, but people can't lose. if it's too hot, it's climate change. if it's too cold, it's climate change. now the stars. and the state of -- now the storms. in the state of west virginia, some of his comrades are looking at losing their jobs because a big out of the state has lost that income due to the pa and the fact that you -- the epa and the fact that you have the governor searching for coal. is one of the most hypocritical things i have seen. as far as i am concerned, this administration we have in

washington is bound and determined to put the coal industry out of business. thank you. guest: to the caller's initial point about the science of crime and change and the terminology of climate change and global warming, i think scientists and people talk about energy and climate policy and are comfortable and are changing the two terms, climate change and global warming. there really isn't a reason to use one or the other. they basically mean the same thing. and they referred to the data that consistently show increase global temperatures directly linked to increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere. this is what is known as the greenhouse effect. scientists have been studying a net -- studying it and it has been established. 97% of scientists agree with the assessment that increasing carbon pollution does increase

the global temperature in the atmosphere. so the science is fairly well- established. to the caller's last point, about the coal industry, the: history -- the coal industry, which provides 40% of our electricity, it also provides most of the carbon pollution in the u.s. the caller is absolutely right that the coal industry is policies aimed at cutting carbon emissions. president obama is rolling out environmental protection agency regulations aimed at cutting down carbon emissions. it probably will hurt the coal industry. it will change our electric mix. and coal is no small part of it. that is a real economic part of that. the colors right about that. host: this was in "the washington post was quote today. todaye washington post"

or in the white house installing solar panels this week. guest: i believe those are the solar panels that jimmy carter originally put them up in the 70s. and then to much fanfare, ronald reagan took them down. and for a while, president obama said that he would ring them back. i would've met -- would bring them back. i would imagine that solar technology has evolved so much since then that they would probably get a lot more efficiency with modern panels. but certainly the president is try to make his policy point here as well. host: this story also points out that the president has set out a goal. they are saying that includes the army, navy and air force. bob was calling from miami, democratic. caller: i just wanted to mention use reservoir

hydroelectric type of man-made dams to make quite a bit of free power. ,he city of hamburg in germany 20% of their electricity comes from free solar panels. when i was watching reports in china, i noticed that all of their electric power poles and the light poles have solar panels atop them to create solar power. just think of the thousands of jobs that could be created by installing power plants from solar. i noticed another report in france where they are trying to build the world's first fusion reactor which they have been tried to do since the 1950s and can't do. i wish you scientists would know that there's a free fusion reactor up in in the sky. it is called the son. and it doesn't cost anything.

and it will be burning for excuse 90 billion years me, and of the 3 billion years. and they should build more power plants. also, they're built from sand. -- ann electronics and electronics engineer. the silicon is built from sand. guest: the color sounds like the resident on the campaign trail calling for more solar energy and the jobs it might create. solar, wind and other renewables the make up about 5% of energy mix. the president has worked very hard to grow and expand that and we may see some policies in the coming years that can push that. his epa climate regulations will probably give incentive for more wind and solar and renewable power. the problem is a bit takes a really long time to make that transition, to go from less than

5% solar electricity to a really significant share. we will probably need to see big changes in the markets and that will also require big changes in the grid as well. one of the problems with renewable energy is that it is read -- it is generated out in sockts or winsock -- wind planes. certainly, the white house is interested in on the kind of things that the caller was talking about. will we see policies that will implement them? will we see federal spending on it? host: this is worth ringing up again -- grid public lyons today? -- publicly owned today? some of it is owned by public utilities. some of it is owned by private utilities. there are public co-ops.

they are all part of the patchwork makes. this story atread nationaljournal.com. stewart and charles, illinois, independent. caller: this is as an interesting topic to i have dozens of questions. first of all, there have been no increase in the temperature of the earth over the last 10-15 years. the people that report never say that. the international models are not holding true. international climate change committee is a political but scientific group. you should've showed a graph of 100 years showing storms, not 15 years. the current administration, i don't even know how to [indiscernible]

they are hardly to be listened to or believed. germany, they are paying over four times electricity than people in illinois. it is different for every state, of course, but i am talking about illinois where i live and those are some of the points in the conversation that would be much more intelligent if all of these different points were brought up. obviously, there is some change in the climate. are has always been change in the climate. i have never heard one of these reporters say to me -- in greenland, thousand years ago, the temperature was warmer than now. host: anything you want to react to their? guest: sure. i think his words were that climate hasn't warmed significantly last 10-15 years. i think he is pointing to recent studies that climate scientists have found that the rate of

warmth in the atmosphere has slowed over the last 10-in years. when the last decade, we have seen the hottest years on record. scientists have been stumped as to why the atmosphere temperatures haven't gone up as much as they have anticipated. however, within that same time, we have seen the hottest years on record and scientists also point out one of the real signals we see for the climate change is the rapid change in the temperature of the ocean, which is linked to the melting of the globalize caps and the rising sea levels. so the scientific evidence linking the increasing carbon emissions to the increase in both atmospheric and ocean temperatures is strong. it's consistent. the caller talked about the intergovernmental panel on climate change. that panel is composed of scientists, about 2000 scientists from around the

world. it is an independent scientific body and its findings correlate with other scientific findings as well. again, the proceedings of the national academies of science have done over 50 cities in the last decade correlating -- 50 studies in the last decade correlating climate change. the studies on climate change, there is some sort of kick up in questions along the way, but scientists will tell you that the basic story is well- established. last caller mentioning germany remind me to ask about other countries and their electric grids. what can you tells about the way other countries do this? guest: europe struggles with some of the same issues that the united states does. across the eu, a patchwork of grids that a lot of them are are managed of them by manage different regulatory systems. but i think this is -- i'm not sure how it's run in china.

asian -- ofe of aging vulnerable grids is something that big governments around the world will be dealing with. host: minnesota, republican. caller: good morning. i agree with the gentleman who -- called in. and this is all about smart meters. it is about control. it is about controlling our homes and heat. it is kind of an advertisement. there is no scientific studies that prove that the earth is warming up. we all know god is in control. she talked about smart meters, an interesting point. in the political debate about , one of the lines thergument has been that

science of climate change, which is well-established, has been concocted in order to create a reason for government control. and it is certainly true that these regulations tolerably will involve more government control, more government regulation of what kind of energy is used. she talked about the smart meter . that is part of the smart grid that was funded in the stimulus, an energy-efficient mechanism that allows utilities to monitor when you are using electricity and at what time of day. there is concern that this means electric utilities can have more information about what you're doing and when when. this does mean that the government -- these regulations do mean that the government will control where your energy mix toes from and probably lead certain closures of power plants in certain industries. so this is part of the broader debate of fear or concern about control, government control, until by corporations.

but it doesn't negate the established science of increasing carbon emissions contributing to climate change. int: one last call from ron pennsylvania, independent color. caller: i just want to know if they take the radiant heat into consideration, all the buildings, parking lots. when you look at one of these thermometers outside of banks on the street, it is always three or four or five or eight degrees higher than it would've a -- then it would be out of town. do they take that into consideration? ,ack when i was driving trucks they said fuel was causing pollution and ruining our engines. with [indiscernible]

they use gas mileage -- less gas mileage and the ethanol in your car, if you don't use it too often, it runs the carburetor. you have to spend twice as much for gas now because you get less mileage. it ruins your car. what is going on with that? the caller brings up an interesting point about measuring temperatures in cities. there have been studies done to ensure that the extra radiant heat generated i pavement, by buildings is accounted for in these broader studies of atmospheric climate -- atmospheric coverture. these -- atmospheric aperture. these studies have been going on for decades. it is not just for a few years or one decade, but for many, many years where the correlation

is firmly linked. the other point that he talked about his ethanol and sulfur regulation. issue, a separate energy but one we will probably see a andof, fighting about congress and the next year i think because there are concerns about ethanol regulation forcing too much ethanol into the gasoline blend, potentially hurting cars. there is a lot right now mandating a certain amount of ethanol in gasoline blends and i think this'll will be a bigger issue going forward. is that law may be a mistake? does any to be repealed? the color should stay tuned. host: this is the energy it correspondent for "the national journal."

inhave about 35 minutes left this edition of "the washington journal." when we come back, we will have another installment about the numbers series. today, we're looking at living to to 120 years older beyond. we will look at american views on aging, healthcare and elsewhere. we will be right back. on "first ladies." >> she supported all of his decisions. but she was a very private person. it was fine for her husband to be in politics and go to washington and be in senate and be in congress.

she didn't want to be a part of it. yet she constantly supported his decision to do it all of the time and she was very and support of the impeachment. i know there were the things attributed to her that she wished that she could be back home and things of that nature. but she honestly believed that her husband would be acquitted and was very proud of it when he was. she kept saying she knew that would happen. >> the encore presentation of our original series "first ladies" continues tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. we bring public affairs of is from washington directly to you, when you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider here and and now you can watch us on hd.

>> "washington journal" continues here in -- continues. host: america by the numbers come and provocative question to begin with. like to live 120 years old or older? there are some signs out there that says it is possible and it means a whole lot of things. our guest is a senior researcher at the pew research center. 120 years old, why did you put this 30 together and what did you find -- why did you put this study together and what did you find? guest: for the first time in history, there is the possibility, not necessarily even the likelihood, but the possibility that science and medicine will produce treatments that will allow human beings to live a lot longer. the p research center -- the pew research center spends a lot of time and resources tracking public opinion and other ways of

measuring social trends on issues that are important right now. that we also look at things that might be important in the coming decades. this is something that caught our attention because, again, when we talk to scientists and people in the religious community, what we found was that people are really beginning to think about this as a possibility. so that was really what drove our interest. host: here is the front page of the report. i guess the first question is what do people think about that number, 120? do they want it? guest: it turns out that most people don't. most people do want to live longer than the average lifespan, which right now is just shy of 70 in this country. and what we found is that most age thathe median

people want to live to is 90. people or a lot of people are not really comfortable with the idea of living dramatically past that. only eight or nine percent of the folks we surveyed said the he wanted to live past 100, for example. a majority of people said that they didn't want to avail themselves of radicalized extension treatments if such suchment sees -- if treatments eventually become available. they also felt that it would be good for society if the stream is became available durin. they also thought that other people would want them. in other words, i won't want them for myself, but i'm pretty sure that other people will. so we see a lot of interesting contrasts in the public opinion survey that we did. host: the phone numbers are on the screen. we will divide the numbers a little differently for this segment.

if you are under 30 years old, call this number. we look forward to your calls. just to add a little bit of background about the current , it hasage for folks been on the rise for many decades now. but some of the numbers from the cdc go way back to 1900. the average life expectancy for men is 46.3. women, 48.3. and you can see a growing from the 50s and a cousin to the 60s and then 70s for women. continues0s, rising

to the present day of 76.2 for men and 81.0 for women. it is a long way to 120 from there. if there aren't any dramatic breakthroughs in medicine and science that will extend life, let's assume that none of the stuff that we're talking about comes to pass anytime soon, life expectancy is continuing to increase. our society is continuing to get older, to get greater. -- to get greyer. in 2050, the number will be one in five and right now, there are just over 100,000 people who are 100 years old or older. in 2050, that number is supposed to be over 400,000. so we are getting older whether the things we are talking about come to pass or not good host: one other statistic from the census bureau

about age. you can see the graph. one line is darker and one line is actually read. you speak to people under 18 and people 625 or older. the census bureau says that the 60ulation -- and people years or older. what does that mean for the country? guest: it means that we will have to -- there has been a kind of slow motion series of changes that are already in place because our societies getting older -- our society is getting older. obviously, this has huge applications for things like pensions and healthcare, given the fact that -- i'm not saying anything that most people have went -- evan but about -- but people entering the workforce is relyingand the people on social security and medicare

and things like that is growing. this is something that public policy makers are grappling with and have been grappling with for some time. one of the interesting questions is what will happen to people -- what would happen if, for example, people started to live to 120, 130, 150? what would that not just due to things like pensions and healthcare, what would it do to our sense of work? would people be working a lot longer? it seems like they might have to. also, what would it do to our society. changedd marriage be if, all of a sudden, lifespans doubled? would people stop thinking of marriage as a lifetime commitment? would they begin to think of marriage as a multi-decade commitment, but not necessarily for life. .hat could mean 120 years

what would it do to intergenerational relationships? great-grandparents or great- great-grandparents are young and vigorous because they are receiving medical treatments that were not available or have not been available up to this point? what does that mean in terms of their relationships with their children, great-grandchildren question mark how does that change our society and some of the things we have taken for granted from the beginning of human civilization. -- with their children, great- grandchildren? how does that change our society and some of the things we have taken for granted from the beginning of human civilization? host: what is radical life extension? guest: it is the use of science and medical technology to extend human life asked what we think of as our -- past what we think of as our natural limits. we know human beings today cannot live past about 120.

that seems to be the limit. very few people make it that far . most people don't make it to 95 or 100. life extension essentially means pushing those limits using science and technology and medicine out past what our natural limits are right now. when we talked earlier about life expectancy and how likely -- how life expectancy has grown , we should also be mindful to know that there have always been old people. we know that in ancient times, there were people living into their 90's. we have record of that. we know that the founding theirs lived way into 80's. john adams lived to be 90 years old. the difference really was that a lot of people died when they were very young. a lot of people died in their 40's and 50's of diseases that are completely treatable now. that has not changed.

there have always been long- lived people. would take that and push it further out than anything we have on record in terms of longevity. host: jim is on the line first. caller: good morning. i have a question. if it came down to money, as it always does, is there any choice , as far as funding research for geriatrics and that he's -- , to supportudies those who get to 100, 120? reallyi'm not sure i have an answer to that question. i could try to approach it a little differently. there is a real concern among a lot of people who have been thinking about this about social inequality, and would this dramatically accelerate social

inequality? because only the very wealthy would be able to afford it. this is something we ask people in our poll. a solid majority of americans say that if there were life extension, if there were some sort of new treatment that could extend human life, it would be something that would end up accelerating social inequality. it would make our society less equal. this is a real concern. as far as funding, it is not something that i really looked at or could address. from -- howl hear do you pronounce that? got it right. from indiana. in that 50 to 64 bracket. thatr: i just want to say i'm going to be 62 in another couple weeks and i have a 97- year-old mom living with us for

the last eight years. she is awesome. could makee that i it that far if not farther. i think it all depends on your support system, your family. if left alone, nope, i don't think i would want to be there. usmy mom's case, living with and having my children and grandchildren see her get her knowledge, it is amazing. you have history there. you get to hear the politics of way back when, as well as compare now. , to watch any kind of political news, debate, anything. she is just spot on. she has trouble hearing, but we have found ways to counter that. she is an amazing person. i would not trade these years for anything with her. host: thanks for calling. guest: when we asked people if

they wanted to live longer, if they would avail themselves of life extension treatment -- i mentioned that a majority of people would say no. they would not take advantage of life extending treatments. we asked it in a simple and direct way. in part because we don't really know what the future holds. aboutou talk to people this issue, two things really come up that i think concern people for themselves, personally. one is, if i did live a lot longer, would iranian healthy? most -- would i ram ain't healthy? most people would not want to live longer than -- if i did live longer, would i remain healthy? most people would not want to live longer if they were in firm . most people don't want -- if they were infirm. most people don't want their loved ones pass away and have only their life extended. these are issues that people have been thinking about.

as i said, we did not ask particularly about that. but it is a concern that i think a lot of people have when they try to think about living a lot longer. host: there is one viewer hurting, "this would put a on the social security, medicare programs." -- whenhen we thought we asked people whether they thought this would be good for the economy, most said no. that ifd have to think people were living a lot longer and a lot longer in a healthy is -- and those are two big -- two big ifs -- a lot of people who -- would end up working longer. we talk now about raising the retirement age come a something a lot of people in washington spend a lot of time thinking raising the retirement

age, something a lot of people in washington spend a lot of time thinking about. extension -- the the percentage of people that say would be a good thing or a bad thing. most people feel it would be bad, 51%. 41% say good. why bad? is there anything we have not talked about the people are thinking about in terms of why this would be bad? just am a we tried to dig a little deeper -- guest: we tried to dig a little deeper and ask about possible problems. we asked if life extension would strain our resources, our planetary resources. 2/3 of americans said yes, they thought it would. , as ied them if it would said, promote social in the -- social inequality,

for lack of a better way to put it here at a majority said yes -- better way to put it. a majority said yes. about givingcerns out the treatments before the impact of them is clear. again, people said, that was likely. to ask drilled down people about specific fears they might have, large numbers of people say i have environmental fears, social, societal fears, fears about the medical community and what it would do with these treatments. 30 to 49.his, caller: i want to say that i do ethical research and medical practices that might help extend the lives of other people, but i personally would not want to milk -- to live

another hundred years if i could not count on having -- if i had less of my mental capacity, if i had chronic pain, or if i were isolated from a loved ones and , people whoeers know what i know in the same context i know it. i think that is a kind of loneliness i just would not want to painfully experience. i'm also a little mistrustful of how our culture values others in society. i think maybe there are some other cultures that maybe have a more holistic approach to aging and incorporating the intergenerational range that i don't see a great deal of in america. if we were going to do that more so, then i would be all for it. even if it were going to be an egalitarian approach. but otherwise, personally, i would not want to do it. i have lived a nice, full life. if others wanted to and we could support the messe nation and welcome people into having meaning in their lives at that

, still being able to contribute in positive, creative ways in society -- i think that would be wonderful. masci.avid thet: let me bring up question of meaning. in addition to the poll that we did, we also did a sort of very unscientific survey of religious leaders, thinkers, ethicists, and ask them about a bunch of different -- asked them about a bunch of this rent -- bunch of different aspects of this issue in the context of their religious tradition. i believe we talked to people from 21 different churches and religious groups. , certainly,me that we found in many of the folks that were expressed by many of the folks that we spoke to in isse religious groups, what -- what about meaning?

a lot of them said i think to be very good for extended life, but it would only really be good if people did something meaningful with this extra time. of course, for people who are religious, a lot of that might mean something like working on behalf of the poor or working to build god's kingdom here on earth. things like that. the czars of -- these are the sentiments they express. a lot of people think it is good, but only if we are going to use this extra time that science and medicine gives us in what they would think of as a very positive way. chart, viewss the about medical treatments and radical life extension by religious groups. does this refer to what you just talked about? guest: yes. there is a separate report that goes along with this poll that does not reflect this report. what we -- we literally go denomination by denomination and talk about what each denomination -- how each

religious denomination in america might approach this. a good example would be the roman catholics. and nobody, by the way, has actually come out with a sort of outlet teaching or doctrine about life extension -- a sort of public teaching or doctrine about life extension. there are people talking about it. one of them is the former pope, benedict xvi. i want point, he talked about his concerns about this, that it afterlife --eking seeking after life our primary goal. we would take our focus off of god and we would instead worship a false idol, which would be longer life. and that it would detrimentally affect our outlook. it would detrimentally affect society.

said, would be very old and it would no longer want to innovate here people would not want to have children as they hedge against mortality. we spoke to thinkers from all kinds of religious group's. some of them did see it as a very positive thing. host: one viewer writes, "what about the overpopulation factor? unfortunately, we need people to die off to make room for others." guest: that is certainly one view. some people point out there would probably be fewer children. we just don't have any idea what would happen. it could be that i'm a if people deathd dying, the rate of in the world and in this country slows dramatically. we could have many more people living on this planet. host: 65 plus. hi, nelson.

caller: good morning. i just like to say that i think people would change their attitudes if they knew people like i know. i have two golfing buddies, one is 93 and one is 95, they play three times a week. the 95-year-old lost his wife a couple of years ago and he has a girlfriend now. i know what you're thinking, but it's wrong. his girlfriend is 101. she lives in the same community. she plays tennis. and my friend who is 95, who is now dating this lady who is 101, they go all room dancing once a week. she sings in a chorus. he sings with a barbershop chorus. i think if people knew people like that, they might change their opinion. i think most people probably know people that are in nursing homes, slumped over in wheelchairs him and they say i don't -- in wheelchairs, and they say i don't ever want to be

that way. but i think you are only as old as you think you are. guest: i appreciate that call. let me just reiterate that we did not ask specifically about living longer and at the same time being vigorous and healthy. had we done that, we might have gotten a different result. more people might have said yes, i would take advantage of it. we did ask people about their attitudes towards a growing aging population, something we talked about at the very beginning of our discussion. when americans were asked whether having a growing elderly population is a good thing, bad thing, or a wash, neither good them saidout half of it was a good thing war is a good thing. the other half roughly, said it is a wash. it is not good or bad. a very small minority said that it was a bad thing. most people do not view the

graying of america, of our society as necessarily a tragedy or something that is socially detrimental. let's hear from dave as we look at the chart reflective of what our guest just said. dave is from massachusetts. caller: hi, how are you today? guest: doing fine. caller: it seems more and more likely that age extension will be more of a possibility. postulated that our ages would extend even further. i am concerned about the monetary aspects. we will certainly need to implement certain new policies, even just as things are now, where the population is and weed to get older need to find ways to fund the

pensions and social security. it occurs to me that our society we -- we could probably, if found in the gala terry and way, -- found an egalitarian way, maybe more respect and reverence, maybe we would -- ways of funding research and a better quality of life for people who are younger, too. it is a fascinating prospect that has so many different facets. with the religious thing you are talking about, talking about the morals of living that long -- everyone talking about, what about the morals when you are younger? host: thanks for calling. david masci? raisesi think the caller a lot of very interesting

questions. i really cannot beat to the money issues. what i can say is that we should not assume that if people are going to live a lot longer, they are not going to be it. we just don't know. it is possible if people are living a lot longer and as vigorous, energetic adults, they might have three or four different careers during the course of their lifetime. already, americans are switching careers more frequently than our forbearers did it, in part because we are living longer and have more time. that trend might accelerate if life extension became a reality. host: our guest is currently a senior researcher at pew research center public -- religious and public life project here it is an in-house position. you specialize in church and state issues, so-called culture war issues, and religion and science. you are

washington university here in the d.c. area. senior researcher now at pew. you are in the 50 to 64 group. hi. morning.ood i found your discussion quite interesting. opt to most people would choose a longer life if it was a healthier life. currentlyst americans -- many of them, anyway -- can get to about 85 before they start encountering the major effects of aging. but from 85 on, there is usually a deterioration in their health condition. they can live longer. my own father lived to 93. i was his primary caregiver. i think there is a lack of respect overall throughout society for the elderly, especially once they hit the 85- elderly sortgile

of category. unless they can improve their health conditions, i don't think most people can carry on in their jobs if it is physical. a lot of the lawyers in congress who basically sit at desks and are not doing laborious labor during their work career, they are quick to say that we should already raise the retirement age for folks because we are living longer. but living longer does not also mean that you are able to do the profession that you were conducting all your life. in my father's case, he was a union plumber. he could not be handling and logging and talking pipe into tugging -- lugging and pipe into his 80's. host: david masci?

guest: it's hard to speak about that particular issue simply because we don't know exactly will happen. whether they will be in any physical condition to do this sort of hard labor you are talking about. what i can say is that, while there are still tens of millions of people doing physical labor, our society has become much less attached to that over the course of the last hundred years, obviously with the shift from rural work to industrial work to knowledge work over the course of the last 100 years. we have a lot more people sitting behind desks, like me, and a lot fewer people in factories and farms. obviously, it will be -- it is hard to know whether someone who is a hundred after receiving some sort of medical treatment that extends their life and makes them healthier -- will they be able to go back into a factory or to continue to do the

physically demanding job they were doing prior to reaching old age. host: you touched on this a little bit earlier. here is a tweet. -- who are older won't have anyone to help them in their old age. look at china." -- "people with fewer children won't have anyone to help them in their old age. look at china." last pope referred to that in a homily he gave on holy saturday, the saturday before easter, 2010, when he was still the pontiff. he definitely feared that -- for him, it was a fear, not a reassuring thing -- that people would have fewer children and that they would do so for philosophical reasons. maybe they would need them. even if they live longer, maybe they would still have a period where they would be infirm at

the end of their lives. host: caller from ohio. caller: good morning. channels.ee c-span i am a 71-year-old agnostic. i love science, political and biological. i have been aiming for 100 or 12 0 at least for years. people have been smirking, but i'm pretty salty. i was a medicaid caseworker for 26 years. that was my ivy league education , as far as genetic predisposition and personal and things accidents that affect people's longevity and quality of life. and i'm a citizen of the world. and i want to contribute economically and politically to lift everybody's boat.

i am responsible for my choices to ensure the quality of my physical and mental health. i have four kids, 10 grandkids, and five great grandkids. and i don't want to be a burden to anyone. i won't be a burden to anyone. and i just love life. i want to share as much as i can. thanks for your time. i wish everybody the best. host: let me follow up on a point that she made about contributing to the economy. back to the chart we showed earlier that you touched on, the percentage of adults who agree or disagree with the statement, the economy would be more productive if people lived to be 120. 53% disagree. 44% agree. want to take us deeper into that? guest: i think part of the reason some people might disagree is they wonder whether the people who are living longer would be capable of working or

whether they would just be a lot -- they would just live a lot longer in the sort of last stages of their life. as one of the earlier callers pointed out, sometimes that can mean great periods of activity and great productiveness. the caller was talking about his friend who is dating a 101-year- old woman. a lot of times, that does not mean -- most people at that age don't work. some ofht be driving the concern about economic productivity and life extension is this idea that these older people, these much older people won't be able to make a contribution in the economic sense. they may make other contributions, obviously. the: a caller from her most beach, hermosa

california. caller: good morning. i am 45. i just wanted to say, thank you, obviously, for c-span. it is great. -- it mighttle bit sound on the conspiratorial side. i'm a little worried as to the pharmaceuticals' vested interest in people living that long. it could be huge amounts of money they are going to spend on medicine. lived torandmother who 96. her last five years, she lost her sight and her quality of life was still good because she had a family who cared about her and people around her and everything. i'mto live to 120, that -- taking it all the way out to its

longest thing. the pharmaceutical industry would make so much money in those years, and they are ready do, don't they -- and they already do, don't they? the amount of money they make on somebody like me, with arthritis -- every month, they make a lot of money off me. and i don't see myself living past 70. at the most. host: let's hear from our guest. guest: there are a couple of things the caller raises. there are concerns among those we pulled about whether the need -- the medical community will release some of these treatments before they fully understand what they might do. there is clearly some concern about that. again, among the american people. the other thing i want to mention is -- to reiterate a

point i made earlier, when people were asked how much longer they wanted to live, most of them did not say they wanted to live forever or two 120. most of them said, well, i would like to live somewhere between 80 and 100. again, the average that we got was about 90. most americans are not saying right now, yeah, sign me up. they are much more cautious about this. much more ambivalent about it than we -- then one might expect. host: one last call. from ohio, 65 plus. good morning. caller: hello. where did you say i was from? host: are you from ohio? yes.r: i will be 86 next month. think of both plus and minus

about living to be older. i look at the young people in my family and i think, these are wonderful people. i would like to see how they end up because they are so intelligent, they are so moral. they are wonderful people. on the other hand, i look at my country and think i don't want to live to see the end of this country. also, i know two women who are over 100 that i play cards with. they don't know each other, it is two different card clubs. they are wonderful. host: final thought from our guest on this. guest: i think the caller reflects the ambivalence of the people we polled feel. while they said they did not want to avail themselves of life extension treatments, and while a majority said they thought life extension would not necessarily be a good thing for society, and majority also said that they supported meca