countries. new york university, paul light, on federal contractors. host: good morning. wall street journal fights 30,000 people signing up for health care plan through healthcare.gov read official numbers are expected this week. secretary of state john kerry to the senate to trey -- give talks on -- a recent alum whole from september shows that 44% of havee responding say they a great deal or fair amount of trust in the mass media. before then admission by cbs news regarding

and ghazi. -- regarding and ghazi. -- regarding bengazhi. here's how you can tell us your 3880 four202-585- democrats -- we have this question posted on our facebook page. about 1000 participants giving their opinion. you can reach out to us via ,witter and send us an e-mail journal@c-span.org. the gallup poll was taken in september. media, showingws from 1999 to the present day. they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the mass media.

goings 40% in 2012 and back to solar numbers. 55% still saying they do not have very much trust in it or none at all. when it comes to news sources and their trust in the mass media. that is the cbs news story from this week. where'd you gather news from and how do you take it in and why do you trust it? us,ou want to reach out to the numbers are -- you can also follow us on facebook, posting their opinions, you can as well. i will give you a couple of snapshots of what they are saying. when it comes to sources, out jazeera, bbc,al

and public tv. you can give your sources on the phones, on facebook, or on tweet and e-mail. from new jersey, democrats line, go ahead. my favorite news sources npr. i think it is my favorite news source. they seem to lock -- to walk the line between pulling in people who are not engaged in politics and making them interested in these political issues. i don't think they fall short of that goal. that is why i really appreciate them. the even other -- they even cover other nation pause politics. -- other nation's politics.

they may have exaggerated at some point. read foreign affairs magazine. i can have oath things in buffers. i have not personally seen anything that was exaggerated. i do not know everything they are publishing. host: lorraine is up next for michigan. i watch fox news. i think they are on the air more often and tell you what's going on. host: are they the only network you watch? television, doo you watch them exclusively or do you watch others? caller: i watch others. i watch cbs news. host: we have a poll about americans trusting the mass

media. 47% saying they only show a great deal or fair amount. what do you think about that number compared to 55% saying they do not have very much trust in all? the president has a hard job, congress has a hard job. i feel sorry for them. the only thing i can just is to move the white house down. fox, they have a greater appreciation. host: jim from georgia, hello. i am so glad you had this question. i am a separatist. i read a lot of newspapers. i like the washington post. "the new york times" though i have a subscription to it. cnbc is very good. msnbc are whack jobs.

cnn and npr are pretty good. as far as trust goes, what goes into establishing trust or were you take news from? to meet someone like you. frankly i think you're doing a good job. i just want someone to give me to fax, i don't need them form a conclusion for me, and i want them to be objective. i think we are losing objective journalism. host: that was jim from georgia. you heard samplings about where you get your news from and why you trust it others have made their opinions known -- why you trusted. others have made their opinions known. you can send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. there are the numbers, there is the social media. here is "the wall street journal closed quote talking about healthcare.gov --

"the wall street journal" talking about healthcare.gov -- another story about healthcare.gov this morning, this is from "the new york times."

officialbout the top -- a story from the wall street journal, a story from the new york times. we are asking about where you go and why you trusted. lydon on the democrats line is up next. lynn on the democrats line is

up next. caller: i trust npr. i have low confidence in journalism today. there are few journalists in the united states. nations -- in think the usa, we have been corporatized. the least profitable stories are not run anymore. we don't get real news anymore. we just get news that is profitable to the corporations. "dollar-o book called cracy," which explains this. host: we often have people tell us we don't get "real news" anymore. give us an example of real news. the stories that

affect peoples's lives, not just like soldiers coming home. i appreciate the military, i was wasorted -- i support and raised by the military. i don't think the pablum we are fed of just fake patriotism is newsworthy. i think we need things that are the important stories. line.arizona, democrats caller: good morning. i like to mention a few things about the mass media and news. what it amounts to is -- i tend to go with msnbc. span.listen to c-

it seems like you give a lot of credence to republicans and some identify themselves as independent but they are usually republicans that are hiding. reason i get msnbc so much generallythere is five or six subjects per day that are being bounced off the wall. msnbc is typically one that is up as to square things what is true and what is not. they're the ones that are most , men,e and present news women, black people, other races , just a total mixture of what the world is made out of. we have to get away from this corporate structure of white men running the world.

they have done a hell of a good job for themselves. >> that is from failed, arizona. on in part by a poll taken in place by gallup. 55% saying there is not much trust at all or none at all. is a great deal or fair amount of trust. front porch was the editor-in- talk of little bit behind about what you took -- -- t what he how much trust you have in the news media and when it comes to reporting the news

accurately and fairly, that is the wording. trust.n a great deal of the lease 55% or the majority as not at all. that is not radically different from what we have seen in recent years. late yearsand in the it slipped. we had a majority in the 50% who had a fairmont of trust. that seems to have slipped. states that it stays fairly low as we talked about it since. i don't know if the poll went on to give examples of why do you or do not -- of why they do or do not. things i would offer. when you give americans choice they see the media is too liberal. liberal, 13% say they are too conservative. that has been in place for a decade. that is driven a lot by

republicans and conservatives who have those beliefs. yet democrats who say the media is about right and republicans who say it is too liberal. people on the right are more trustful -- more distrustful. minute'sonship to 60 -- to 60 minutes, there is a poll that shows that the general sense is the media is inaccurate. it is not just the liberal bias out there. utterly americans don't perceive that the media does a good job. we have the graphics that shows mass media by party. democrats weighing in compared to 37% of independents and 33% of republicans. guest: that's right.

side of theght political spectrum, the conservatives and republicans, who have animus towards the news media. that has been reinforced by the fact that we have more polarized media. the most popular ideological media comes from the right. the ratings come from people who are more likely to be washed and listened to by conservatives and that feeds the same kind of perception. partve this this trust in because republicans and conservatives are out there saying the media is too liberal. immigrants don't think the media is to conservatives, it is republicans who thinks it is too liberal. what is research say about people who get news by the internet? is a big part of

it now. we like to pay attention to the news. it was still television. they asked how they got most of their news and they listed a bunch of things. tv was still at the top. internet was ahead of newspapers and radios and other sources. that is the big change, the rise in the internet. most people say television first grade that can be c-span, local television news, still very popular. for the demographic that is younger, the internet has become the most prevalent news source. >> do you plan another pull on this type of question? i know people are comparing what happened this week to what happened on 60 minutes about president bush and the national guard. guest: we will update these trends.

one difference is perhaps this admitted air by cps does not appear to be driven as ideology -- ashat as ideologically ideologically. benghazi is a political issue. i am not sure this in and of itself will have an ideological charge to it. clearly the perception of the media is already low. if anything this might drive is even lower. chief of gallup joining us. mr. newport, thank you for your time. that -- my pleasure. host: alexander, virginia is up next. i like my news sources

is less editorialized as possible. , like to get my news from cnn pbs, and c-span. host: when you look at a new newss -- nisource -- and source, what stands out for you? caller: i just want to hear what happened, the who, what, when, where, why. do you get new sources from the internet or is television and radio your primary source? caller: my primary sources the internet. host: up next is john from fairfax, virginia. caller: i have read "the washington post" daily for many years.

currently my favorite news program is "the big picture." i think it is important that it, which is available in this area over the air. last night they talked about the oil spill in the midwest but none of the other networks mentioned it. do like msnbc and democracy now. the style section of "the washington post" takes a look behind the chore -- behind a journalist behind the benghazi story. here is the headline --

the apology for the story was on sunday. [video clip]

we and the broadcast with a correction on a story we reported about the attack on the compound in benghazi. in this story, a security officer working for the state department told us he went to the compound during the attack and detailed his role that tonight. after our report air, questions arose about whether his account incident report surfaced. it'll a different story about what he did the night of the attack. he denied having anything to do with that incident report and insisted the story he told us was not only accurate, it was the same story he told the fbi when they interviewed him. night, when we discovered the account he gave the fbi was different than what he told us, we realized we had been misled. it was a mistake to include him in our report.

for that, we are very sorry. most important thing is the truth. the truth is we made a mistake. logan.ra we will be back next week with another edition of "60 minutes." host: off of twitter this morning -- costa mesa, california -- democrats line. caller: good morning. there is a rendition of silent night and alongside of it is this news report that tells all the bad news of the world. i'm sure everyone recognizes it.

i just need a sober accounting of the news. i like bill moyers. rose.appointed in charlie , the reporters are laughing and giggling and joking around. i to stay to know the truth. watch c-span because it is sobering. when i listen to the cap the civilians hearings, i would've had her resigned -- the cap the civilians hearings i would've had her resigned. sebilius hearings i would've had her resign. our planet,lling why should we not have an accounting of all of the details of that? i would like to see a program devoted to that. host: our newspapers part of

your news consumption? be, not soy used to much anymore. i lived in new york and i moved .ut to queens i would read "the new york times " while commuting to the city. i got a lot out of that. the -- less available at less availability. john kerry set to three senators wednesday on iran negotiations, which you heard about reported in the new york times this morning. iran, -- ne says on

another story about iran and its program. this is being reported by "the wall street journal" this morning -- here is richard from louisville, kentucky on our democrats line, talking about new sources, where you get yours from and why you trusted. good morning. -- i listen to npr and they were talking about

the manufacturing jobs that have left this country. msnbc is too liberal. fox is too far right. anybody who follows politics understand that the democrats, by themselves, republicans, by themselves, not when a major presidential election. it is very difficult to try to who is not leaning so far left or right. you have to sniff around. a lot of times the courier- is a dayn louisville or two late with the news. the newspaper is nothing like it used to be. back to where this country is right now. from 1980 to 1992, -- we are talking up the out middle-class

jobs. ira member when bill clinton was elected president, people were asked about the manufacturing jobs. he looked at them and said, these jobs are gone and they are not coming back. you have millions of people in this country right now making $10 to $12 per hour, part-time, and having to raise a family on that. host: j from pennsylvania, republican line. caller: hello. i think the word that comes up "trust".ime is government does not trust us anymore. it is the nsa, the tsa, we have lost trust. that is one of the greatest casualties of diversity.

all the stuff about the loss of trust and national media, it comes from officer robert putnam, who did an in-depth study of racial diversity on posh -- on populations. one of the casualties of track -- casualties of diversity is loss of trust. there's less cooperation, lest trust. there's less volunteerism, less people just associating together. do you have news media sources you trust? i trust c-span and i want -- and i watch fox news. just to see how segregated we are, we are sorting ourselves

and segregating ourselves. we don't want diversity. we cling to the bumper sticker that we love diversity, we don't. we want to be people -- we want to be around people who think like us. there's nothing wrong with that. the thing about the media, think about when we were kids. -- can yountain imagine walter cronkhite yelling at harry reasoner? we watched the news, we were united as a homogenous people. analyses were segregated. we have spanish tv, black tv, liberal tv. in "usa today" this morning --

ar here's pat from jackson, tennessee. caller: good morning. inform you that i

get my news from msnbc, but i am likeid c-span watcher. i it when you have the specialists on, the experts on. but sometimes you have so many of the bloggers and the ones that come on the air and they are just giving their opinions. for example -- now that dan rather situation, no one ever brings out -- karl rove said they put that story out there so they could take it like a feisih and workm. -- and worm.

dan rather left, i thought that was a sad situation for them to put false information out there for somebody to grab hold of you -- grab a hold of and then you have the financial experts on their to talk about what happened with the financial breadown. freddie mac and fannie mae were the last to jump into that circle of all that financial mess that went on. folks come on repeatedly, a lot of republicans sayingferent other ones, that fannie mae and freddie mac were the main reason why this financial mess -- you know, things like that just get you upset. the thinga bout it is you have the experts on c-span talking financial all that

started, and fannie mae and freddie mac got on because they were forced to do something to get their little -- host: gotcha. we appreciate the input. if you wanted to go to our see -- videoa nd library and see what we have done with regards to fannie mae and freddie mac, type in these topics. not only will you find out what happened congressionally but you will get it best opinion we have, talking about that topic and a variety of other topics. there is our website. you can ask that. a picture first lady michelle obama this morning. about a new role she takes on today. in her new project, mrs. obama

will work with the education department -- here is karl from berkeley springs, west virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. can take to generalists looking at the same thing, the same story -- two journalists looking at the same thing, the and they can skewed either left or right. it either left or right -- they can skew it either

left or right. on msnbc, he is supposed be a middle-of-the-road criminalist. he says every time obama speaks thrill up his leg. people do have more liberals calling and setting conservatives. am concerned, that goes to the character of the caller, if he wants to pull a fraud on this program and claim a republican when he is a bleeding heart liberal. echoes of the person's character. host: that is carl from berkeley

springs, virginia. from twitter -- from e-mail -- this is larry on the phone from ohio. hello. i get to watch tv for the last eight years. events and live

listen to the comments on msnbc, and i recorded fox. i listen to both of them right afterwards. it seems like they are never correct on fox. they're always out-of-control. i hear all these polls that say "30% of the people do not believe obama was born in america." i find it hard to believe that in this day and age -- if you think about it used born prior to 1866. i am 100% positive that there is still a person was born into slavery that was still alive in my lifespan. there are pictures showing the devastation in the central

philippines because of the typhoon that kurt there. -- that occurred there. emergency aid will be heading to the philippines to help with disaster relief. here is edward from maryland on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i am a believer in god and a phd scientist. you have to be a person who believes in the facts and truth. is -- good sources on your program and then you go by they believeall in in the fax. you had somebody talk about obama and all the stuff about chris matthews. i will give you a good example,

a good example is msnbc. she does a very good job. she may be opinionated but she goes by the fax. she does a good job on the nuclear disaster in japan. ago, -- onkite, years we have to guard against this right-wing media. they are broadcasting out a lot of harmful things. older,e harming elderly, white, black. this is lou from springfield, virginia. for a greatk you program this morning.

we are great admirers of c-span. the more you watch c-span the better informed you are. i do believe we need to be more discerning in all of our evaluation of new sources, especially on the internet where websites reflect a political bias. i think that is why as a remotean we invented the -- got invented the remote so we can switch back and forth between msnbc and cnn. his radio part of your news diet? lller: i listen to wma locally. that reflects one particular viewpoint. i think it is incumbent on us to be discerning in the search for the truth.

that is an internal search. it is never definitive until the day we vote. host: a couple of e-mails -- we appreciate all the comments and calls on this topic. coming up for our program this morning, a discussion with guy to --, the washington washington times state department correspondent. later on we will be joined by , the public-service professor at the new york university as he talks about the explosion of federal contractors in u.s. government.

all that and more as "washington journal" continues. ♪ demo with the war in europe turning hot, when the blitzkrieg took place in the lower countries, the u.s. was totally marshall, food george that unprepared. george marshall came to roosevelt and said we cannot do things we have done in the past. we have to act now, we have to act decisively, and we have to do today. so roosevelt went to congress the next week and said the u.s. must told that the thousand airplanes to protect itself. all of these auto companies were given projects to build engines and airplane parts. ford motor company was given the be 24 bomber, which was it problematic bomber. it was still in the development stages. they want to mass-produce this airplane.

ford said, i will build complete airplanes. they took would have been done as individual pieces and they took the engine and designed it to hold the columns to 210 thousands of an inch and then a massive press would knock out thousands of these pieces which would then go on to the assembly line. the on skilled assembly workers could assemble these airplanes. 35% of january and june, the unit -- of the bombers were delivered. i was one of 11 factories. saving a little piece of this plant was so important. i cannot describe the feeling we all have and the big smiles once we pull this off. we did something here in detroit and that was not done anywhere else in the world.

it to literally save the world from axis powers. yankee air posse museum is currently trying to save part of the willow run plant. find out more next weekend as bookkeeping and american history tv look at the history of literary life of ann arbor, saturday at noon on c-span2 and sunday at 5 p.m. on c-span3. >> 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 am a and offering complete gavel-to- gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are 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 hd. >> this weekend, but tv looks

back at the life and death of our 35th president on the 50th anniversary of his assassination. beginning saturday at 1:30 eastern. and authors panel relives november 22, 1963. it is all part of book tv on c- span2. thoughts on our chat boo at oak tv.org -- at ktv.org/bookclub. we are joined by guy is on foreign policy for the washington times. this week you had an article in the washington times. i want to read some of it this morning. you wrote --

walk us through that. guest: the reason i wanted to get into this was the thentially ugly precedent united states has set using a remote control airplanes to fire missiles at high-value suspected terrorist targets in other countries, particularly pakistan, yemen, somalia, libya. have ad at this point to deeper national discussion about where this new 21st-century,

very futuristic warfare is going and the president washington has -- before he became director of the cia john brennan made a speech where he said it would be naive for washington and americans to assume other world powers are not going to go forward in the years ahead and use drones for cross-border strikes on what they claim to be their own high-value targets. that is somewhat unsettling if you look at the way the technology is proliferated around the world in the last five or six years, particularly with the rise of high-tech chinese manufacturing and american adversaries like iran getting a hold -- adversaries, like a rant, getting a hold of technology -- like iran, getting a hold of technology. that 87u write countries possess some type of

drum. is this turning into an arms race -- -- arms race? it is a different kind of arms race. industry insiders and tell younce sources this is more like a computerized technology. so much like a nuclear weapon type technology that is extremely difficult to develop. are remote control airplanes. we can go out to a hobby store and buy a version of a drone. the reality is to use them in the best way, it becomes desired by a powerful military in the world. you have to reach a new level of sophistication. the types of drones that the united states, israel, and -- the turks and

generallythey were unintelligent. they were designed in the post- when the military needed a way to go in and survey il patches of the world. those models, particularly the -- began toe dan dominate the global market. now trying tois develop newer models that can subvert air defenses. other nations are speeding ahead with the development of smaller and smaller drones. as that happens, dozens of countries around the world both backed by governments and private, are trying to develop smaller and smaller weapons so the smaller drones that have proliferated in 87 countries

around the world will be able to attach weapons to them. it is really where we are going in the next 10 years. trying to say was we need to wake up to this and be aware of the push of the united body into united nations to lay the groundwork for an international standard of rules for how these weapons can be used by nations. it really is a matter of time before americans wake up to news that the chinese have used a drone and a cross-border strike used a the turks have drone in a cross-border strike in iraq. we have to be prepared for how we will respond to that and what this means going forward for diplomacy and geopolitics around the world. host: we want to make sure we take your calls, the numbers --

we are talking with a guy taylor from "the washington times." you say it may not be long before we see these cross-border trikes -- cross-border strikes. how realistic is it? i did a breakdown of the analysis that was out there in the intelligence community and private sector. there are 87 countries to believe -- 87 countries believed to have a drone with their military. of those, 26 nations are believed to have either developed their own or purchased the equivalent to the predator or reaper drone. those carry hellfire anti-armor missiles that the united states has used. or 15 nations are really believed to have actually armed those drones. i don't want to create a shock with the story. i just want to generate conversation.

the clandestine nature of foreign uav programs makes it extremely difficult to get an eye on what us -- on who is doing what, when, where. the japanese government threatened to shut down -- to shoot down chinese drones over the sink cockle islands -- over the sinkhole cook islands -- islands.senkakku let's go to rick in atlanta, georgia on her democrats line. i was wondering since so many innocent people have died on the war on terror, can you explain to the future generations who are maybe a watching -- who are maybe watching, why journalists refused to dig deeper on the

freefall of 9/11 and the possibility that explosives were used. regarding the long- standing debate in 9/11, he brought up the number of people who have been killed in the war on terror. is one thing about drone technology that has been focused on by the mainstream media as well as the number of leading human rights organizations around the world. the united states has carried out their own attacks in the afghanistan, pakistan border region, where in unknown -- were an unknown number of civilians have been killed by these strikes targeting suspected terrorists. when you get to this president set by the united states, it is disconcerting.

we can sit here and say we have our targets. but if we are looking at another arld capital, say moscow does and dozensr strike if not hundreds of civilians are killed, how are we going to respond? are reaper appeared politically and mentally having done -- politically and mentally after having done that ourselves? the next calls from pennsylvania on our live for republicans. i would also like to say i am glad to hear you talk about the sovereignty issue. violatingwe are international policy all over the place. i actually wanted to call about

weaponization of these drones through the -- of these drones. we can use them for assassination. aey are literally going to be fly on the wall. i want to hear your comments. it is absolutely entertaining and disconcerting to think in these science fiction type terms that this whole type of weaponry inspires. let me respond by jumping into a couple of more numbers. , there areation 20,000 uavs in operation right now. from an experimental small one.

up to big reaper and predator type drones. , where we are0 today in 2013 is less than 400 of them are actually the big reaper predator type that can be armed with these hellfire missiles. where we are going now is this new arms race where state areany -- state companies developing smaller and smaller weapons to be attached to that proliferation. full of of a world weapon iced drones is still a little bit out over the horizon. it feels like that is where we are going. with guyare talking taylor of the washington times. for democrats, the number is --

let's take another call from our for democrats. this is kathy from new jersey. thank you so much for your help on the tv. understand why they are there. i think we are killing too many people. i don't believe one thing i have heard of 911. that's a whole mother story. i am a democrat. i love my congressman. i think he is a great guy. that is all we have to say. we have to be at war. think george bush is not the president -- host: i want to turn to a question from twitter --

your take? guest: i think that is what we are trying to grapple with right now with this discussion. the cia and others will tell you that i am behind the scenes and one of the big concerns is we will get our hands on more and more -- nonstate actors. we'll get our hands on more and more aerial vehicles. saidovernment came out and a fighter jet was shot down over israeli airspace. it was also a legitimate political operation in lebanon sorry has -- in a lebanon.

so already has below has this capability. bollah has this capability. it speaks most to this question of are we getting into an era of or doesthat is changed not fit the parameters of our imagination in the last decayed as some callers have brought up conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks -- what you have to consider out of the gate is that the nonstate actor is such a powerful mexican , they get their hands on drones, they tried to use them to ferry illegal contraband into the united states or even target one of its rivals hiding out in the united states with a cross-border.

this would make your imagination go wild. breakdown to rubber meets the road reality, you have to that a joan powerfultatesthe ia enough to fly in into the united states without getting shot out of the sky by u.s. air defenses is totally unrealistic. host: next with mark in wilmington, north carolina. caller: good morning. i have a question for you. this is going to be a little bit odd. i have seen that having drone warfare between -- we are always going to be warring between countries. if you could add some validity to this argument, that it is

better that we are arming up with drones instead of the cold the which growing up it was fear of a button push and one person changing the world. with or addghten me felicity to the argument that it could be a better way of handling armred disputes with drones instead of aircraft and traditional aircraft? guest: i think it is a great point. i credit you with thinking critically about where we are at. i am not going to take a side saying the evolution is better than the cold war era, because i do not live in the cold war era for very long. i will go back to the john

brennan speech from last year. one of the other things he did apart from making a controversial statement about presidents was he pointed out the war on terror is a very real thing and that there are nonstate actors and islamic jihadist in the world that for a much want to attack the united states. the evolution towards using drones by the u.s. military was warranted in that way. that was part of his argument. find the speech. it was last year at the woodrow wilson center in washington. byire cities liquidated nuclear weapons, yeah, it is nice to know we are not living under that fear day today at this time. withit comes to drones,

this technology comes responsibility and big concerns. we are talking about weapon eyes drones. we have not touched on the level of sophistication with surveillance. drones flying over a city can hone in on telephone calls. night vision. all kinds of things that increase the government's ability to watch their own people. we have governments around the world that are hungry to use this technology in that way. respects,in in some we are going to be losing when we go into this place where big state actors can use this new technology to spy on people in ways that violate their human rights. miriam ons talk with

our line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. we can look at terrorism in many ways. we see that all the time. i guess i'm going to do a stretch here and it is a hypothetical. we will use china, we maygroup of patriots look at as terrorists. one of you americans has a factory. it was terrible. the decided to drone owner in the united states, calling the american a terrorist. could it get to that point? how far can the drone situation

go? there is a sovereign issue, a tribal issue going on, whether it is america or another country. there is some valid issues to everybody's point of view and that is what scares me. that is my question. guest: that is a really sober question. to go on the record in saying it is very unrealistic to think any other state is going to fly a weapon eyes at -- wea weapon. some kind of small surveillance drone -- could we be going in that direction? it is possible. it is not a great concern of the

intelligence community. a more realistic concern right iraniand see the government providing drones to the embattled posture all assad government in syria and the serious military using drones to carry out a targeted strike against the leadership of say rebels inside syria that are among the opposition fighters in that civil war. the city and government could say we were using this suspected to target terrorists. what is your problem with that, washington? you have done the same thing around the world. that is more likely to unfold, something like that. ofhink that that type stickiness that

would create for the united states with the united nations and elsewhere around the world would increase as a result of the situation. host: i want to ask you about response to the drones. host: talk about the politics of this issue. guest: what the u.s. congress is doing is being driven by two motivations. one is the concern about the suspected terrorist who the

government has admitted to targeting and killing in yemen. the idea the u.s. government would go overseas and target and isl an american citizen extremely upsetting for a large constituency of people in the united states. that has motivated congress to get involved. they are getting complaints from their constituents. "is the united states willing to target americans? what happens to us additional rights?" that is one of the things. the push for more transparency in whether it is the obama administration or whoever succeeds obama in two years. what are they telling congress about what they are doing to

make sure they are not targeting americans. the second motivation has to do with this precedent around the world and the realization among sophisticated actors in congress. among the intelligence oversight committee are looking at this and saying there is a world debate happening. if we would like to have any currency in the world in telling others how we would like to see them use or not use this technology, we need to come clean with our own use of it quickly. it is a rapidly developing debate here on capitol hill. host: going to rodney in pennsylvania on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. thank you. for someaking a plea

kind of restraint, are you not? guest: absolutely. i am in the position of being in objective journalist trying to find facts that my readers do not know about. what i am pointing out is where we need to go and where we are going now hopefully with this whole discussion about the use of armed remote-controlled weaponized system. fly an airplane from a cockpit that is thousands of miles away and very specifically target somebody. there has to be a debate about the ethics and from a collateral damage standpoint. so the answer is yes. host: chuck in haymarket,

virginia. caller: yes. thank you for having me. "he who an expression, can frame the debate can control the flow of the discourse." i am skeptical of this gentleman's motives. he works right right wing newspaper and covers the state department. it sounds like what he is implying is that i am the only one you can trust with the switch. we have developed this technology and have used it and the jihadist that want to do harm to our country one could argue is because the innocent men, women, and children have been killed by u.s. drone strikes. there was a pakistani family that came to the united states. one child saw his grandmother's

head blown to bits. i think it is poetic justice in the sense that, and it reminds me of the scenario where we are saying we have our nuclear superiority but we are not going to allow you as a developing nation to secure those very same types of weapons. similar with the situation with israel. going to war with iran over there wanting to get nuclear weapons. the israelis have had nuclear weapons since the 1970's. that double standard hypocrisy at play here. guest: i respectfully challenge the viewer to comb as deeply as he would like to my own reporting and identify some politicized content.

tory very hard not politicize what i write and to adhere to the objective standards of journalism and to do so seriously. we are in this position where we are trying to claim american superiority with a war of technology that leaves people dead. the collateral damage has triggered all kinds of negativity towards the united states. pakistan has hosted the leadership of al qaeda over the last 20 years. i just thank the caller for pointing that out. the united states government carries forth as if we can continue killing people without a personal backlash towards the united states. host: looking at another article that you wrote last week.

host: explain to the viewers why that is. guest: a fairly heated debate right now in washington about the fact that if you blow somebody to bits out of the sky, you are not able to question then and get any intelligence out of them. part of what led to the capture of osama bin laden came from basically torturing suspects for information and leads. this is extremely distasteful for people who hear our government does this. if you kill these people with drones, you're not able to capture and torture them for new information. there is a deficit for real-time

information. there is an emerging threat in with al qaeda and the arabian peninsula. slowly,nistration has and we saw this with two special forces raids about a month ago. the one in somalia failed at the one in libya captured a suspected al qaeda leader. we decided to use those types of attacks, those types of raids so we could question those people. that is basically where i was going with that story. the of this debate in intelligence community has to do with the fact that the obama administration has known for some time that the cat is a little bit out of the bag on the

moral side of drone strikes. there was a push to do as many as possible before the rest of the world got the capability to do them themselves. there is some pre-conciliation going on in washington. the administration is saying why don't we tone this down because it creates a lot of ill will against the united states and sets a precedent for other nations who will use what the united states has done as an excuse for their own potentially controversial strikes. host: carlos on our line for democrats. caller: hello. i had a question as well as a concern about these drones. is there aow -- concern they could be hacked or

anything? guest: absolutely. another part of this subject is the idea that the iranian takeover of an american drone last year, the u.s. government has said nothing about this and basically denied it was an american drone. the leading theory is that tehran was able to hack the brain of this drone and bring it down for a landing inside iran without it crashing. that is definitely disconcerting. leading intelligence agencies are trying to develop that technology, to hack the brain of other drones and take control of them. private hackers could potentially do the same thing. guest: hostron on our line for

republicans. caller: hello? host: good morning. caller: hello? good morning. how are you doing this morning? you gentleman, he's like, know, i am listening to him talk. publicike saying to the like a right-winger. he doesn't give the president his perks. he is president obama. he is not obama. the drones are getting rid of most of the terrorists. the terrace that are out there -- the terrorists that are out there. i know you are going to have accidents. we use -- host: are you able to turn your

television or radio down? caller: sure. we are using the drones to not give our military men or women killed. when you hear him, you hear from the right wing side saying the stuff against the president. he got to give the man his perks. he took out one of the main terrorists that is out there and he is going to take out more. he need to him talk, go on fox news with this crap. host: thank you for your call. guest: i have the utmost respect for president obama, leader of the free world. town, arnalist in this minority will take a critical position at every turn.

i credit the and ministration with the capturing and killing of osama bin laden in pakistan. that was an incredible development. setemely difficult policy in motion by president obama's predecessor. there was great success by the obama administration in that capacity. host: we have a tweet -- guest: right. that has been a major motivation, particularly as the obama administration has seen to iraq.l qaeda out of there has been a desire to use technologies that limit the exposure of american troops, and that is a big part of it.

on our linerom glen for independents. caller: good morning. i got a couple of things to say. that last caller, he was talking about our president of the united states. we have killed american citizens. just shot them down in cold blood. about 10 months ago, we had a guy that built drones. i got on c-span and talked to him than. there was a case where a guy had kidnapped a young girl and the police use the drone to watch him and find out all they could. kids, kidsbout our in afghanistan and around the world. -- week i kids

that are -- we're going to capture them or shoot them down. there was a guy that builds drones for companies and uses them for civilians and for all these forces. he built a jet joan for the express purpose to shoot down the first drone that would fly over the united states. the technology is far out stripping our ability to keep up with that. the government is going to do what they like. it will be up to the american to not, a guy like me, put up with it. host: thank you for your call. guest: there is heated debate over the legal rights and

technical capacity for law enforcement to use small, unarmed aerial vehicles. i am sure the debate include heated discussions about whether law enforcement in this country may pursue the use of armed drones going forward. i am sure that is going to trigger backlash as our caller just exhibited. thank you. amaris in leesburg, virginia. sad that it has reached this country. from the time you leave this country as an american citizen to go overseas, there is a plot to kill our people. you have already given up your

american rights and you have none. opportunity to kill you before you kill us, so be it. i do not agree with everything the government does. i used to going up, believe our government was, did a lot of things that were unspeakable and i still believe that to this day. all of this information is coming out now and putting up in a separate place in terms of the moral stage. i think all of that, what goes around comes around. host: thank you for your call. georgia on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i am concerned about drones and the technology is so superior that it is dehumanizing in the

we areights in that inferior now and we are being controlled by higher technology and i am concerned. definitely concerned. host: let's go to john in florida on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i think what you are hearing is an extension of the concept of american imperial might throughout the world. i think you understand that fully and you are engaged with that issue. politics oftentimes makes strange bedfellows. the possibility of iran supplying the regime with drones. i am 71 years old.

then me remind you of an earlier affair,the iran-contra in which the united states government killed israelis. it may well be the case that our israeli brethren or some other western europeans are preparing to supply the assad regime with drones if the regime gets to the point where they may be relatedmed by the factions of al qaeda. where will we stand at that point these are the the saudi's saudis, ins the opposition to our major strategic viewpoint? ultimately we, to sustained the

assad regime may end up using the technology surreptitiously in getting to the regime in order to stop our apparent allies. host: thank you so much for your call. guest: i want to thank the caller for his analysis. everything he pointed out, we have to ask ourselves -- we often wonder if perception is destined to trump reality. we have to ask ourselves whether the perceptions pointed out by this caller may already be the reality. i want to thank him for the call. host: janice from atlanta, georgia. caller: good morning. drones are nothing new. they used to be called remote- controlled planes.

you could go into any hobby shop and buy a kit and put it together. each decade they become more and more divisive. you can't increase the distance, increase the ability. to roads have been around for a long time, or remote-controlled planes. the fact the government is using them, go back to desert storm. they have been using them for a long time. go back to bush with the terrorist attack. and the thing they put in place to protect us it from terrorism. use of the drones is good in a lot of ways. you need to start regulating more on the private use of drones through these hobby shops because they have a lot of devices. they can't add to those things

things.ey can add to those guest: remote-controlled airplane technology has been around for more than half a century. rather than engage in fear mongering, the thrust of my upry is that a call to wake to the fact that this basic technology over the last 10 years has advanced immensely. according to sources here to expand globally and advance globally over the coming decades. we have to be having the serious conversation and i thank the caller. host: are you able to stay to privacy versus commercial drones in the united states? guest: we are in uncharted territory.

congress is behind by about a decade with the kind of laws we have with police and law enforcement, some kind of a standard with what to do if someone is found to be spying on their neighbor. what is a likely scenario that someone is found to be spying on their neighbors with drones. maybe you have a guy and driving around the city and the sophisticated remote control airplane is being operated by a car. how does law enforcement respond to that? are there laws on the book? that is a great question. host: diane on our line for independents. caller: hello? guesthost: good morning. caller: thank you for writing a

clear and concise article about this issue. it is something we need more information on. i have been listening to the callers since i have been on hold. one thing that seems to be a repeated theme is the jones versus boots on the ground and collateral damage versus troops. it is all about people dying. the question for me is where do we go from here? poll or your neighbor or governments against governments and possibly it is downfor all of us to sit and share a meal instead of a war. think it is a good

point by the caller. that the question is if the united states is going to go in a direction where it is not pursuing cyclical or policy, the best way to get there is to have this conversation. get people talking about it. whether you are a libertarian or whether you are an elizabeth warren liberal from massachusetts, it doesn't matter where you stand, if you stand against an american war policy you have to speak up. that is probably the best response. host: herman in louisiana on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i want to say a couple of things right quick. i want to ask the gentleman a question. man, 87i am a negro

years old. i have been all over the world. i know how much america is being hated around the world. if i was an american born citizen and give up my citizenship to go to another country to join up and to do damage to this country where i was born, i think america has a bring me down. i have a trucking company. i had to lose it because i could -- there and got $500,000 from saudi arabia. i think we have our priorities

mixed up. i was 30 years around the world as a merchant seaman. i know what i'm talking about right now. guest: if i read the caller you are the second caller that has leaned towards by thethe assassination u.s. military with a drone in yemen, he is the american citizen killed, was justified. this is an argument we were hearing from some callers. there was evidence the government claims to have that he was engaged in plotting to carry out perfect terrorist attacks on the united states. i think that is what the caller was getting at.

a lot of americans feel on the left and saying that american moral superiority is acceptable and that if somebody is seen whether there was a court case or not to be plotting terrorism against the united states, it is justified they be killed by a drone. i am not taking that position. that is something i'm hearing from the caller's this morning. host: marked in ohio on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. are you a veteran? guest: i am not. a coupleaveled in iraq times but i'm not a veteran. caller: do you have any family members who are veterans? guest: yes. caller: good.

you need to ask them, how much do they want to go over there and fight and die for people who do not care about us? it is my opinion that george washington, abraham lincoln, all those presidents who served during a time of war had advanced technology to save lives. american lives are very valuable. i do not understand why we have to be the world's savior. we just are saving americans. anyone who takes up arms against the united states has no rights. i am a marine corps veteran. i am semper fi do or die. i do not appreciate american citizens talk about how bad we are when it comes to other countries.

it's like one caller said. we are solely hated throughout this world because we consider ourselves privileged. that is where i'm going to leave that at. if you have all the respect in the world for our president, and so i hope in the future i never hear you say obama without putting "president" in front of it. thank you. guest: thank you for the comments. host: thank you for your service. charles in new orleans. caller: good morning. preposterous. this system does not care about the people. they owe their allegiance to corporations. the national defense authorization act states that

american citizens are being suspected and can be suspected of terrorism. they do not say certain americans who lived in another country. is frustrating that people are calling in. it is about the truth. people need to wake up and come together. host: last word. guest: thank you to all the callers. we heard both sides, 3, 4 different sides. anytime there is a new technology, it is extremely scary. it is scary that their initial applications are wrong and her affect -- and horrific. at the same time, people want to use it.

this has been the story of technology since the beginning of time. host: thank you for joining us. next we will speak with paul light and we will talk about the size and scale of the federal contracting world. the first an update from c-span radio. >> a public service is scheduled for the transportation security officer who was killed by a gunman at loss angeles international airport. attorney general eric holder and other officials are expected to speak at the sports arena. officer toirst tsa be killed while on the job since the agency was formed after the 9/11 attacks. he has worked for tsa since 2010. an improvement in the number of late paying mortgage holders.

the percentage at least two months behind on their payments 4.09%. a five-year low, this from the white house. president obama lands to nominate a top official to run the agency that regulates the futures and options market. he will be tapped to head the trading commission. he has overseen the troubled asset relief program. if confirmed, he would succeed gary gensler, whose term ends in january. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. age, she loved to write. she would create palms as a gift to her parents. she would write a poem and illustrate it. we have two early examples.

knownntered the well- writing contest and her winning portrait.e was a self- who are three people you wish you had known? poetentioned the french and oscar wilde, the author. and also the russian ballet & impersonia. one column we have on display is somewhat pathetic. she is interviewing john f. kennedy. as we know, the last part of her ,ife she was a prolific editor of books in new york city working with several different authors on books of several

different topics. >> watch our program on the first lady jacqueline kennedy or see it this weekend at a special time, saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. our series continues live on monday as will look at lady bird johnson. "washington journal" continues. host: we are going to talk about the size and cost of federal contractors in the workforce. i am joined by paul light. thank you for being with us. guest: absolutely delighted. host: explain what a federal contractor is and how they are different from other federal employees. guest: sometimes they look awfully similar. we purchase a lot of labor from contractors and a lot of material from contractors. they are one step removed from

the federal government. they are private firms. some are working as a service contractor on schedule c 1099 income. is a very large number of people who work in directly for the federal government. there is a good debate about whether they are de facto federal employees. is a big, big workforce. host: i am looking at a chart from cnn that says the government awarded more than $500 billion in outsourcing in the most recent year. toes that number ring rrighrt with you? guest: i looked at yesterday. 2003,substantially from when we were throwing a lot of money for everything from tank

treads to ammunition to concrete and food for the military in iraq. defense is a big player in this. it takes up a lot of procurement money. i looked at yesterday. it is a very large amount of money. we have a huge budget and a huge mission. we need those contractors. host: there are so many contractors coming to the defense department. how does the government count these people? governmentfederal does not count these people. contractors would argue that they should not count the number of people who work for them. they are in the business of delivering a good or service. most of them are under performance contracts where

they're basically promising a certain activity that produces a certain outcome. we are paying for results in theory. they do not tell us much about the in visual labor costs. they are not compelled to. it is not clear it is a relevant number. we know a lot of people work for contractors, but what difference does it make? whether we are getting the competition we are promised. whether contractors are giving us the best price and are lean, efficient and very effective at delivering on the good sense of on time on contract. host: we are talking to paul light. we want to make sure we get to your calls. for democrats, 202-585-3880.

for republicans, 202-585-3881. .or independent, 202-585-3882 paul, over background checks and security. i want to read from a "washington post" article. host: walk us through that narrative and what it says about the contracting community. guest: let's rewind the clock on

the security clarence contracting community. the largest contracting that does security clarence used to be part of the u.s. office of personnel management. a very large reduction facility. reduction being the granting of clearances.-- i do not know when it was, 20 years ago the office of personnel management decided this should not be in-house. let's push it out and cut it loose and it became a private firm. some of the things we look at in terms of security clearances were once in-house. the good question is why do we push it out? wanted to reduce the total number of federal employees and to get the benefits of an efficient, low-cost operation.

sometimes you get what you pay for. this operation was checking the boxes, checking the lists, making sure they were getting the right people. the contract workforce is very large and you do make mistakes along the way. whether snowden would have been hired, it is a good question. things we do inside sometimes fail. we do use contractors for everything, really, from ladling soup in the reagan building cafeteria all the way up to management consulting, security clearances, very important activities. we do not know in this case how snowden slip through but we do know he did slip through. there wasn't full and complete review of his background. we know that people are slipping

through all the time. this contractor used to be in government and we pushed it out. how capable is a government? part of this is a lack of oversight. we do not have enough people to monitor the contracts. host: we start with darlene in sacramento on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. as the republicans were in office, they pushed a lot of federal dollars to contractors. those contractors do not have to hire everyone. the federal government has the public trust. will cut the jobs from the government who had federal dollars. as we move under the republican watch, all these links to contractors and they hired their friends and more and more money

when outside of the government. we do not have the oversight. republicans are saying we do not need a large government. the government has grown even more with no oversight. it is my fear we need to pull things back for oversight. look, we have been pushing out jobs for a long time. republicans and democrats have done that. we do not want to increase the federal workforce much above 2 million people full-time equivalent. that is a de facto limit. it is not entirely clear where that number came from. the obama administration is a little bit above right now. we will see that number go below 2 million.

if you say to the public and democrats and republicans say the government is not getting bigger in terms of the total personnel. two million, maybe less. part of the reason president clinton declared the era of big big government was over. as long as presidents feel compelled to keep the government small, and taxpayers get real upset when they hear the number. we have unemployment still relatively high. how can would be adding more government workers, etc.? democrats and republicans both favor more contracting. if you have to have a job that

is funded by the government, better that it be a private job. democrats like it in part because it is a way to hide the true side of the federal mission. we have got a big mission to deliver. we need the people to do it. if you operate under the 2 million feeling, you're going to need a lot of contractors. that is just the way it is. contract hiring is not well inspected. they are not required to tell you what the diversity is of the hiring pools, how they are making decisions, how they go about procuring labor for delivering on their contracts. they would argue that they are in the business of providing a good or service. that is it. they will deliver, stay on

budget, stay on time. and sometimes there over budget. they will argue you cannot look inside our organizations because of proprietary issues. we want to keep secrets on how we operate. host: next from bill in florida on our line for independents. caller: thanks for c-span and to mr. light for bringing us this information. my wife has a good friend who has contracted out to the army individually as a computer i.t. specialist. her contract is quite rewarding. she flies to and from her home every week. she does not live in the d c area. she receives a rental car and

stays in a hotel and receives $40 per diem per day. it seems quite a high price to pay for contract work. i had two questions as well. the pay rate comparison between the benefits and the pairing of a contract worker versus a full- time federal employee. where do you apply for work as a contractor with the federal government? guest: stay with me for a second. wife is probably on a personal services contract, a direct hire from a federal agency, or maybe not. there had been some limited studies. the best is from the project on government oversight.

you can go to the website at pogo.org and you can look at some comparisons of how much contractors pay versus how much the government pays for labor. on and employee by employee salary,n terms of raw s andbasic pay, fed contractors are paid roughly the same. the employee and the contract world gets better benefits, to some extent. they do not get that are benefits in terms of pension, vacation time and so on. this is like a apples to apples comparison. when you load the contractor with all the other things, bonuses,xecutive pay, the contractor is almost always

much more expensive and i mean much more expensive. you are not just hiring a single employee but an employee of a large firm, in most cases. more than half of all federal contracts go to a relatively small number of very large operations. the top salary at lockheed martin or boeing, that eight $400,000. the top seller in the federal government is $400,000, and only one person gets that, and that is the present of the united states. the chief justice the supreme court makes $225,000 a year, which is below the current hiring rate of white shoe law firms for associates. once youof pay to pay,

load a contract with all of the profit and the operating costs, you are paying a lot more for it. we have done some limited studies looking at that issue. not enough but some. host: talking with paul light. ed in arizona on our line for immigrants. caller: good morning, mr. light. it is a pleasure to speak with you this morning. you stated that these contractors, it is their business that they do not want to disclose their numbers and information because they are private firms. that made me stop and think. like some of the largest contractors, boeing, united technologies. paid extremely high

in the case of united technologies, making over $20 million last year, which is outrageous. that they take some of these jobs and some of the parts, especially for the joint strike jet program and their outsourcing overseas so they can make more profits. with national security and thatse, i am concerned supposedly they are allies but in the clay so snowden -- in the case of snowden where the united states is accused of spying -- host: do you have a question about federal contractors? caller: should a lot of the

information providing the number of jobs where parts are made, those specifics. the government should be well aware of that. thank you. guest: we have got a huge stack of books that define what contractors can and cannot do. quiteregulate contractors specifically. boeing or united technologies, we cannot -- they cannot bill government for more than a small percentage of the total salary. on overhead, that is a different story. there are provisions that require a certain number of contracts to be set aside for small businesses and for minority owned firms. there are provisions that

require purchasing of goods as are his is from u.s. firms. where the u.s. firms might contract some of those sub services and so forth is something that has to be inspected closely. error in the federal budget. let's take that number, the number of acquisitions, procurements postulates has not -- procurement specialists has not gone up since 1990 when the cold war ended. we don't have enough bodies to oversee contracts within the government. we don't have enough specialists to look at the interior of certain kinds of contracts. we now contract out for more than 80% of all information

-- for all information technology, we cannot compete with private firms for expertise. receipt thea contracts, that is very weak, from my perspective -- in terms of overseeing the contracts, that is very weak from my perspective. much transparency, you have to have expertise to look inside the organizations that are billing, we just do not have a strong acquisitions corps at this point, meaning enough people in sun government. back to the initial question, we are asked basically who is overseeing the contractors, how many are there, who is watching, and so on. what is the diversity of the workforce? what do we know? the answer is, we do not have governmentce inside under this 2 million full-time

closelent cap to take a look on an ongoing basis. it is up to the contractor in many cases to oversee itself. not good, that is the fox guarding the chicken house. if you get the overall metaphor. health caretalk briefly. over the last couple weeks, contractors have been in the news over the healthcare.gov launch. reading from reuters, at a u.s. contractors blame the administration for a last- minute design change that has been identified as a flaw responsible for leaving millions of visitors in the system bottlenecks. walk us through the role of contractors there. do you agree with the assumption there is a blame game going on between the administration and the contractors? guest: yes. there is a blame game. you have also occasion, --

sclerosison, arterial inside the government. i can't tell you who made any decisions inside the government on this case. i just don't know. i look at the charts, i try to find out who might have been a point of contact, i cannot tell you. inside government, we have layer upon layer of leaders, more leaders per layer. a nested contract outside with 55 subcontractors. we are trying to control the contract from inside government, telling the contractor, the lead contractor what to do. that is a devil's dilemma, we don't have enough people in oversee.t to and then the contractor is passing this on to who will have, subcontractors. those subcontractors to subcontractors will have subcontractors. who can tell jacob it is a blame game -- who can tell?

it is a blame game, if possible to hold anyone accountable. i have a lot of confidence in directorcience, former of omb, he is very good. he is really working hard to clean this up. i have a lot of confidence in him. i expect that the website will be up and running whether he meets the november 30 deadline, i don't know. it is a very difficult thing to do. he is a miracle worker of sorts. he has done this in the private sector. be that as it may, what difference does it make? make whoerence does it made the decision. the answer is probably that a lot of people were in this, no one person was at the helm. that happens a lot in government. that happens a lot in the contracting community. this is a if you do, dan if you don't situation. -- damned if if you don'td

situation. the federal government could not integrate this contract, the contractor could not immigrate the contract. we have had problems with integrating these multitiered multi-subcontractor vehicles. look, you could have given it to the contractor, we have had problems over there, you keep it in-house, we have problems there. what is the point? the website is not working, we have to fix it. let's get it done, let's see where obamacare works. there is a good debate going on about whether this particular law is too complicated to implement. it may be a great law, it may be a great endeavor. it is certainly president obama's signature achievement. some would argue that you are turning to the irs for significant and rotation responsibility -- significant

implementation responsibility. the irs does not have enough people to enforce the penalty. they are harvesting people and they will contract out. they have got to contract out, they don't have the bodies in house. you are getting implementation of a major program to one of america's most hated bureaucracies. nobody likes the tax man. going on in this very confiscated program, i think they will straighten out the website, i have confidence ts, we have some distance to go before we see whether this program actually works. there are a lot of bumps in the road. call,let's take another silver spring maryland, mark, republican line. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say that i am a federal contractor. a couple different points related to the discussion -- first, there are definitely some

federal contractors who do, for all intents and purposes, function as federal workers. in a to work every day federal facility, we work as part of a division within an office within a federal agency. i have spent my entire career in that kind of position. i can go months without setting foot in a company facility. identify for more strongly with the agencies that i have worked than with the companies i work for. is that a good thing or a bad thing, i don't know. you can attend meetings in the federal government where half of the people present are actually contractors. working in a government capacity. guest: right. caller: it is fascinating. a couple more points, i will try to be brief.

entire idea of contracting out is predicated on the idea that government is not efficient and private industry is more efficient. to get any savings from that, you have to assume the government is good at managing contracts. or efficient at managing contracts. as you have mentioned, they are not, necessarily. host: thank you so much for your call, we will let paul respond. guest: mark, thank you for your comment. as many of the contractors who work for government are deeply dedicated public servants. sometimes, they don't like to be called public servants. they are de facto federal employees. in your case n -- in mark's case, i called what he was doing ," he was sitting

in a desk next to a full time equivalent federal employee. his check was being cut by the contractor, the federal employee's check was being cut by the department and was being drawn from the treasury. r workside-by-side together and report to the same boss, they are both in government and the public service. for my perspective, the vast majority of side-by-siders are just as committed to the federal government's mission as federal employees. there are times when federal employees are less committed to the mission than the contractors. that is the case. when you go out from the side- by-sider) office and you go out to the contractor, the benefit of having a contractor deliver services is through the notion that there is competition. and that competition will drive

down costs. and if you are careful about the quality of the product you are buying, you will get a lower price, a leaner and meaner organization that will save money for you. it will deliver faster, it will be more effective. many of the contracts that we create involve single bidders. we put out the request for some cases ish in partially or fully written by a contractor because we don't have enough people in the procurement offices to write contracts -- some of them do not know how to write a contract for a particular good or service, they hire a contractor to come in. we send it out and we get one better. where is the competition there? the bidder hires subcontractors, that always happens. it is called a bundle contract. that heent situation is

have a lot of bundle contracts, a lot of bundled contracts that were sole-sourced, then we have idiq's, that is not a well-known acronym. in an definite quantity contract. we are going to give you a lot of money, we don't do how much it's going to be, but we will assign tasks to you as they go along. to do them,e going eventually we will know how much this costs. the rise of the indefinite quantity contractors is that we cannot write all these little contracts, we have got to go big. 's arebig, bundled idiq out there, there is not a lot of competition, we don't know what they cost. there are still a lot of contracts made to small businesses, minority-owned

businesses. 75% of all money in the federal government now goes to 25% of the total number of contractors who are bidding at any given time. do the math, we have sole-sour cing. if you believe that competition produces efficiency, you have to say how much competition actually exists? how many people have the inside track on a contract because they have done it before? they have worked for the same agency before. we know them. there are contractors -- i am not going to question the commitment of contractors to the government mission. let's just assume that they all care deeply about delivering good service. there is not enough competitive pressure on them, not enough oversight on them. we need a stronger in house contract work force. but there is a revolving door there as well.

you have a talented acquisition officer, they are really good at their jobs, they decide to retire, they are picked up by their contractor. they know how to get work done, they know how to get through a federalyzantine contracting process. one other point on information technology, where we are dependent on contractors. the federal government sticks with contracts -- that contracts longer thancts -- any private firm. we will stay with a bad contract longer thanths, 1/3 a private firm. the contract is so hard to make in the first place. that's why we had the rise of the indefinite quantity contract. nowcreate it, you sign it, you have a contractor and place, you can call them and say we need this, we need that.

you don't have to do a new contract. that is the reality. post that we have a lot of people waiting to talk to you. jean, nevada, independent line. caller: i agree with so much of what you have said. whene from an era apprentice programs -- it is not a short term but a long-term fix -- there were apprentice programs to bring people up to speed to do things. why can't a government do that for a lot of our people, whether they are 20-years-old or 50- years-old. they could train them in oversight. what scares me, literally, in 2007 -- up until 2007, i worked for a contracting firm. they were not government affiliated. they did get city, state, local jobs that required them,

supposedly, to use talented help. what they did, i was witness to this, they put in lower skilled, lower qualified help and falsified the reports to the city or state agency. and nobody ever check that. -- checked it. an example, a job was supposed to pay $25 an hour, they would hire a guy only qualify to make eight dollars an hour. they would falsify the report. host: let's give paul a second to respond. guest: i want to make really i think the vast majority of contractors are trying hard to honor their contracts. thatasic problem here is

politicians, democrats and republicans alike, do not want to hire more people. they just do not. you have got a president, you have had presidents, democrat and republican, who just do not want to hire more workers. they don't want more irs agents, of representatives decided not to give the internal revenue service more people. you know, you are not a popular politician if you are hiring more revenue agents, even though we need them. we have long inventories of bad information technology informationad technology systems. you say government has not shown its ability to do this kind of work, in part because the private sector creams the best workers. as long as we basically say, the public says do not hire more employees, keep government small -- but by the way, we want

government to do everything. then you will get this disconnection or you have got to have contractors. you have got to have them. there are benefits of having contractors, including the competition benefit. but you have got to have strong oversight, you have got to deal s,th the lack of bidder gete more bidding so you the impact of competition. if i am going to give the job to one contractor -- there is only one contractor out there, for example, who can do a job. then there is no competition to force the contractor to behave differently in bidding. we have got problems on both sides. as long as the american public says don't make government bigger end then the american public to find government -- defines government size by the number of people who work for

government, we are going to depend on contractors. we are not going to hire more workers to oversee the contracts. that is just the way it is. americans have got to say we want all these things the government does at the federal, state, and local level, you have to accept contractors and build in oversight process that is responsible and injects accountability into the process. acta obamacare -- back to overseeingwho was the contractors, the federal government. the federal government did not have enough people, the blame game, it is irrelevant. host: let's talk with charlie, florida, on our democrat line. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you very much. a wonderful topic. i have been wanting us to have this discussion on contractors. it is a very relevant issue. especially as it relates to this

rail -- real web, this revolving web. we have a country that is saying it wants optimal services and opportunity for its people, but yet there is an ideology that is promoted that says that the government cannot do that. then we have people who are currently, now, without employment and without opportunity. and upward mobility, especially young people. the notion that we cannot create opportunity for our oversight and for our procurement and acquisition review, we have many young people graduating from college. anm an academician, i have understanding that we have many young people who are very capable of coming into these jobs. but yet we have a system that of conflictthis web

cronyism that comes with this system. this is about a system that the american people have accepted. we have a web of deceit. if it is competition, i would have an intellectual conversation. unfortunately, just saying oversightthat we need and we do not have the structural personnel in place, why not? we have millions of young people in college, you are a professor. they are needing to be given opportunities. therefore, we need to hire them. we need to go forward as a country and make a decision. we are at a crossroads. my question would be, could you please tell me about this web of deceit that has been brought

forward through ideology, through cronyism, through this methodology that the american people have bought into. how do we create opportunities, upward mobility, and future economic growth for a country where its people are about to perish? 75% -- host: i want to make sure paul gets to respond. guest: i suggest that you go to usa jobs -- usajobs.gov. and take a look at the jobs, take a look at how difficult it is to apply for a federal job right now. it is the same in many state and local governments. hiring,ems for training, retaining federal employees to do the kinds of jobs that we are talking about are fundamentally broken. the delays and hiring young people -- i work for the nyu school of public service.

our students are absolutely issuesed to working on that matter to the future of this country and the world. they find by getting a federal job is extremely difficult, no feedback, it takes a long time, it is very difficult to find the jobs even though we are supposed to have a single portal into the federal government. a lot of agencies don't post there or don't post their best jobs there. at the federal government, president obama promised years ago that he was going to do an overhaul. guy, heas in auto parts did overhauls. he had a machine shop, he rebuilt engines. when you do an overhaul, you don't just change the oil filter, you have got to pull the engine out and take it apart. we have been 70 years since the last overhaul of government.

i talked about ossification, brittle bones, arturo's grossest i don'trial sclerosis, how to talk about this to get attention from policymakers who do not seem to care about making it work better. up in the situations where the hope is that a contractor is going to do a better job. and they are fast. you are sitting in a federal agency and you want somebody on board tomorrow, where do you go? you do not go to your human capital people and post a job and wait 120 days for it to be filled when he gets posted. you will go to a contractor. fast.ike that, an idiq, if you want to get rid of an employee, how can you get rid of one fast? call the contractor, say i don't

want this person around. and they are out by the end of the day. contractors are not always the answer, but we have that big mission, how many contractors do we need to deliver that mission? we have got 6 million to 7.5 is a large workforce of contractors who help run the federal government, or deliver the services for the federal government. the goods and so forth. we need them, we have to have them, nobody wants to change. we don't want to give up anything and we are satisfied with duplication and overlap in government. we are satisfied with the difficulties in hiring and operating our agencies, we take that for granted. we have got to have these contractors. we have to oversee them. i would be glad to talk about this, i am pretty frustrated about it.

i don't how we get congress and the president to pay attention to this. despite president obama's promise, he did not do it. it is hard work to take the engine out of a car and grind it down and repair it. it is hard work, it is boring work. that not the kind of thing gets you elected. president obama's own campaign people argued a couple weeks ago that this issue of improving government management did not cost them a vote in 2012. that is right. but the fact that obama's people are saying it does not really matter to the electorate does not justify the lack of attention. the president is responsible under the constitution for executing every law faithfully. that means pulling a government that works. a government that works. president obama could have a wonderful achievement if he

would pay attention over the next two years to the reform of the federal bureaucratic system. boring, absolutely. important, absolutely. it would be a real legacy if he did. host: paul light with new york university, always a pleasure. guest: totally. host: up next, we take your calls on today's question. what news sources do you trust? but first, a news update. 9:26 a.m. consumer groups in the eu say they are worried that a trade deal with the u.s. will lead to a flood of unsafe food, medicine, and other imports. u.s. and european union representatives are negotiating the proposed transatlantic trade and investment partnership, which could give products authorized for sale in the u.s. automatic access to european markets and ice percent.

here in washington, interior secretary sally jewell says she will recommend that president obama act alone if necessary to create new national monuments, sidestepping congress. she says the logjam on capitol hill has created a conservation backlogged. she plans to recommend that president obama uses powers granted under the antiquities act of 1906. that gives president's authority to name new not -- new monuments, a power generally resigning with congress. presidents going back to theodore roosevelt have used the act to set aside natural areas, including the grand canyon. an update on iran, the foreign minister blaming divisions between western powers for the failure to agree to a deal i nuclear program. kerry's claimjohn that iran was unable to accept

the deal at that moment. he said "no amount of spending could change what happened in geneva." but it could "further erode confidence." blame france for gutting over half of the u.s. draft a deal. d presentative from iran an 1, the u.s., france, will meetd germany again. those are the latest headlines. >> from a young age, she left to right. she would create problems as gifts for her parents on christmas and birthdays. she would write a poem and illustrate it. we have two examples here from when she was 10 years old. in the fall 1950, jacqueline entered a writing contest. essays, one was a

self-portrait. question three, who were three people you wish you had known in history? the two she mentions are charles baudelaire and oscar wilde. ballettion, the russian and passaro -- impresario. she was hired as a camera girl times herald.gton one column we have is prophetic , she interviews senator john f. kennedy, who would be an adversary in the presidential campaign. in her later life, the last part of her life, she was a very prolific editor of books in new york city, working with different authors on books a different topics. >> watch our program on first lady jacqueline kennedy on our website, c-span.org. worse it is weakened, saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern or send it at noon.

our series continues monday as we look at lady bird johnson. >> "washington journal" continues. welcome back, we are going back to our question of the day. which news sources do you trust and why? it has been in the news lately with reports that cbs' laura reportsologized after from benghazi, it will be a -- libya. ae associated press fired long-term car spotted over areas in aps on the virginia gubernatorial -- a longtime inrespondent over errors reporting on the virginia gubernatorial race. here are the numbers. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881.

independence, (202) 585-3882. let's listen to laura logan. [video clip] correction on a story reported october 27 about the attack on the american compound in benghazi. in which ambassador chris stevens and three other americans were killed. in the story, a security officer working for the state davies, toldylan us he went to the compound during the attack and detailed his role. after our report aired, questions arose about whether his account was true when a report surfaced. it told a different story about what he did that night. davies denied having anything to do with that report, and insisted the story he told us was not only accurate, it was the same story he told the fbi when they interviewed him. on thursday night, when we discovered the account he gave , wefbi was different

realized we had been misled, it was a mistake to include him in our report. for that, we are very sorry. the most important thing to every person at 60 minutes is the truth. the truth is, we made a mistake. logan, we will be back next week with another edition of 60 minutes. that was cbs' laura logan. m a look at headlines following up on that. first, "how the 60 minutes debacle is similar and different than rathergate."

again, that was from pointer. at the huffington post, "60 apology leaves questions unanswered. laura logan apologized for her discredited report. does not need to apologize, he needs to explain. to your calls, starting with raffaella and louisiana on our democrat line. caller: good morning, c-span. on the question you asked about

what news sources do you trust, i trust msnbc 100%. they deal with facts. now, c-span was a great new source. the last year, they have been leading gop. gop, probably because of corporations. i watch it every day, i am disabled. we appreciate you watching. ohio, republican line. morning, c- good span. [indiscernible] notews sources -- i would trust any news source. i should be able to evaluate every source of news.

coordinate and correlate each one of these to get the facts. before i make any decision. -- and we will not america. i hope everybody does that. , independent. minds.ve informed we need you to make the right decisions at those times. thank you, c-span. host: let's take a third call, astoria, new york, independents. caller: good morning, c-span. i want to thank you for treating your guests and your callers with dignity and respect. that is why i keep coming back here. you are a major source of information. i like to have a balanced approach. i am a good person for radio, public radio. in newdo television, pbs

york city. for print media, i try to get balanced. ultimately, i like to take responsibility for my own conclusions. i like to draw from a variety of resources. there is a lot out there. i like to think i take advantage of all that is being offered. host: can i ask you a question about your news consumption? what do you look for in a news organization when you decide whether you want to be a not a member? caller: i try to say rather slam, i like to have friday. -- have variety. i like to have balance. i try to glean what is facts, balance, literary license. host: you like to watch pbs in new york, what do you like? caller: i grew up on brian blair reports. i am a listener. i like to listen to the news, whether bbc or new york city,

that i am online, i can get access to cities across the country. what i like about pvs, i can get good, local information that expands from there and uses other sources. host: thank you so much for calling in, we really appreciate it. talking about which news sources do you trust and why. let's talk with seth, ithaca, new york, democrat line. easy.: this is i listened to everything. i probably don't trust anything. the only one i trust is c-span. you ask open ended questions, you stay out of the way, you let us see the original sources. as far as trust, i trust c-span. that is easy. host: that is what makes you -- what makes you not trust other outlets? tell,: you can usually

even on npr, there is a slant, and angle, that approach to the story. the great thing about c-span is you guys try and give us the information as clear as neutral as possible. every other source, from rush limbaugh to meet the press, it will always have an anger or -- or approach. you put information out there and step out of the way and let us make our own decision. your call. you for harold, north carolina, republican line. caller: yes. the reason i called. i listen. host: can you turn your radio down for it me -- me so i can hear you better? tell us what news sources you trust and why. caller: i beg your pardon. host: we are going to put you on

hold until you turn your radio down, we will come back. let's go to michael, new orleans, independents line. -- when iwould say was a young man 50 years ago, there were about 65 independent news networks.today, there are 5. all five are basically owned by the same conglomerates. you do not repeat -- do not -- get any truth on mainstream media. i will give a case in point. there are callers that colin every day about the world trade everydaythat call in about the world trade center 7 calling in freefall. anyone with brain cells and an can see thatection there are huge questions about 9/11.

but not one single mainstream media source will look into the idea that 9/11 was an inside job -- wasou off the skate an inside job. you paint the people trying to conspiracyanswers as theorists. the conspiracy is in our government. host: thank you for your call. we did have a discussion this the newwith guy from york herald. going back to for carolina.-- north carolina. used to listen to cnn, it has become so liberal that you cannot pay attention to it. i watch fox news. they will actually be on the news. you turn to cnn, they are on a movie star or a ballgame or

something. it is irrelevant to most people. sides.s has both they have a liberal person and a conservative person. you get to listen to both sides and make up your own mind. andll you that the liberals this country have really ruined this country. this obama guy has made it where you do not even recognize our country anymore. it is going down the tubes fast. we are non-christian anymore. to pot completely. i am ashamed. host: thank you for talking with us. we want to turn to paul richter at the los angeles times joining us to talk about iran's nuclear talks. thank you. it has been reported that nuclear talks with iran failed to reach an agreement. how did the fallout happen? there were rising

expectations that the seven countries have met in geneva at the end of last week, it seemed like a deal was within reach. ians, the british said so. there was turbulence at the end on saturday, the french foreign minister laurent fabius gave a radio interview and said he had problems with the draft of an agreement being circulated. he said he wanted more limits on a heavy water reactor that the iranians are developing. ofwanted firmer disposition medium enriched uranium that iran has. by late saturday night, it looks powers, including the u.s., the europeans, china, and russia, had agreed generally

on approach. but iran could not sign off on it. the iranian team said they needed to go back to rouhani -- to tehran and get clearance for a deal. some diplomats are saying that one obstacle was that iran wanted an exclusive commitment from the six nation that it would have the right to enrich uranium going forward if it signed onto this deal, which is only an interim deal. the group came up slightly short. it is possible that at the next meeting on november 20, they will be able to get across the finish line. the obamament, administration has to deal with opposition to the deal in among arabn israel,

countries in the persian gulf as well. they have other handful. host: you mentioned comments by the french foreign minister. how much weight you think they had in no deal emerging from the talks? guest: it is unclear. the american diplomats say that that was not the problem. several of thet 1untries within the 5 plus group did have concerns, there was discussion -- as the deal to being completed -- they came down to the nitty- gritty as they have not done before. in the it is only natural that various delegations would have issues.

in any event, they seem to have come together at the end. it seems like going forward, when they get to the phase of having to negotiate the final deal, which may happen in the months ahead, there is room amongen more disagreement the six powers. host: paul richter, your report ,"d -- in "los angeles times the u.s. and iran traded accusations monday. even as they insisted that a dealer remains possible. with this blame game taking are our the press, what expectations for the next round of talks at the end of the month? even thoughguest: secretary of state kerry and the iranian foreign minister traded

accusations of what happened in geneva and caused this snag, they were insisting that they see a good chance that a deal can be done. even though there is maneuvering and public relations contest, ians, or at least the new administration in iran, wants a deal that will ease economic pressure on iran. the u.s. wants a deal, they don't want to go to war with iran, they don't like the idea of iran obtaining nuclear weapons abilities on the record of this administration. there is a lot of pressure for the two sides to get a deal. there are still sticking points as well. host: i would return to a report in politico. on anyate will hit pause plans to consider further economic sanctions on iran until the chamber is briefed by the obama administration this week. john kerry will brief the senate inking committee on wednesday --

banking committee on wednesday. what will we hear from him, what way is this decision to halt -- weight is this decision to halt likely to have? the hearing will be behind closed doors. we may hereafter would happen. if congress is to impose additional sanctions, there is a chance that that could make negotiations more difficult. it could encourage some of the countries that have been , thatsers of iranian oil they should stop complying with u.s. sanctions. there may be -- there could be from countries that have been holding back on their purchases of oil. they may decide that there is

not really a diplomatic outcome in prospect here. they ought to start buying the oil again. anyways, that is the administration's warning that new sanctions could blow up all of the diplomacy at this point. many people in congress are not convinced of that. we're going to see those choices starkly this week. host: paul richter, i want to ask you about one more sad story in the washington post. son of official, oklahoma senator inhofe killed in a plane crash in tulsa. a statement was released last evening. i wanted to get your thoughts. i am not well informed, i saw the report, that is as much as i know. host: will leave it there, talking with paul richter of "los angeles times," thank you

for joining us this morning. some more of your calls. the question is which news sources do you trust and why? david, new york, democrat line. good morning.ler: this is a side story. there was an online political iq test. izzed you onal -- qu where you got your news sources. the people that watch jon stewart answered way more accurately than people that watch fox and cnn. i thought that was interesting. actually, i watch the news and i will go to fact checker and see who is telling what story on the news. you can kind of get the truths that way. that is all i have.

host: thank you. let's read an e-mail. jason in north carolina. get my information from pbs news hour. i do not feel they are pushing a stock and focus on how the overall market is thinking. notnew york times does support any administration. the wall street journal, balances the new york times. c-span for news on the government." that was an e-mail from jason in north carolina. let's talk with george, tennessee, on our live for independents. caller: hello. trustly sources i really are what i would call original sources. c-span televising congress committee meetings or similar

programs, where you hear the main actors, especially clinical events.-- political you understand their bias. host: what don't you like about other sources you engage with? every newspaper -- i especially this trust national media like washington post, new york times -- distrust national media alike "washington post," "new your times," cbs. they have a significant bias. you can tell by the headlines and the adjectives. both in the verbal and in written stories. years as an engineer. i have a distrust of opinion, especially second or third opinion. get the facts

right. there is an awful lot of institutions that are modifying facts. that are creating facts. news tried -- i listen to and i put my filter on. sharing yourou for thoughts. a couple tweaks this morning. cspan. into pbs, bbc, they do not have an agenda." harrington tweets, each report needs follow-up. the answer is trust no media at all. it is all corporate owned and put out whatever aligned it is told to put out. it is a set up. coming up to the 50th

anniversary of the assassination of john kennedy. everything you will see on the main media is about how lee harvey ostwald was the sole assassin. a provable lie. if you take one look at the film,t of film -- zapruda there has to be more than one shooter. someone who was suspected of being an assassin confessed, it was only on "rolling stone," no news outlet picked it up in the u.s. confessed tot being part of the assassination team and said it was a government plot to overthrow the government by lbj and the cia. what the truth is. this is how little news we get in the u.s. host: ok. next, let's talk to texas on our line for democrats. caller: hello.

i watch you all, of course. tch msnbc.i wa i love "politics nation." -- itbc, they put clips seems like them and fox are competitive. they put live clips of what people say. rather than just out there saying something. they get the facts more. the regularme of news stations. you all do have the facts, you are television in the senate and all that stuff. i am a person -- i do not just believe in polls. i am from texas, i don't like senator cruz up there. we are a state that is really hurting now. we had a republican governor for

20 years. he has cut so many medicaid, all kind of stuff. polls.ainst i am almost 61 years old, i had i have beenolled, voting since i was 18-years-old. any newscast talks about polls, that is fictitious. you have not talked to every american that is a registered vote, you are lying. i'm a black female. how can you say what i think if you have never talked to me? ust: thank you for giving your thoughts. next, frank, hollywood, florida, on our live for independents. frank? caller: i am here, good morning. i listen to a lot of different newscasters. , in i feel depressed

i just areachel, laughing. i listen to c-span. the question i have -- bringing up who is colin, republican, democrat. don'te watch the news, we know if that person voted republican or democrat. they should have a sign on them. host: thank you for those thoughts. interesting idea. next, arkansas, on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. one thing i think is more dangerous than a crooked government is a cricket media. -- crooked media. you will make voting decisions based on the news. we have a very corrupt system. one example, when we were discussing the health-care law, numerous republicans, including the factor, brought up that all these people were going

to get kicked off their insurance. they proposed a bill to fix it. harry reid, mary landrieu, president obama got on the news and said the republicans are trying to scare everybody and made a big deal out of that. now the chickens have come home to roost. republicans were telling the truth, marilyn jo and the landrieu -- had mary and the democrats voted, we would not have this problem. host: how do you think the republicans would have handled the problem? caller: it would've been good if obama had kept his word. they did all these deals in back rooms. all the senators on the democrat side got their gravy deals for the state. this whole thing was a bride and a sham, it was passed through on a single party line. if the democrats lose control, i don't want to hear them complain if the republicans do the same and shut them out on something as important as health care.

host: thank you for sharing. dan, illinois, republican line. what news sources do you trust and why? caller: i don't really trust anyone, they all have an agenda and a bias. no one would -- is bias free. mediahe last caller, the in general, cnn, abc, nbc, mainstream media. if they would have covered this fairly in 2010, we would not be in this position. the reason we are in this position is because a certain demographic and power structure in the media wanted a certain party in power. they got it. now, right now, the democrats are getting elected, they are horrible at governing. in itself is culpable to an extent. they can claim that they don't have sides, but when you look at

the facts, they are absolutely culpable in electing someone who can't govern and the decisions -- make decisions. i listen to cnn and that i switched to fox, then msnbc. i know what i am getting when i look at those. i know what bias i am getting. when i see one of them change their rhetoric to going against what their norm is, that is what i think the real news is. cnn putting out something that is not towards the democrats. that makes news to me, or fox putting out something that is against the republicans. that is where i see news. i don't the news in their standard rhetoric. that is not news to me. news to me is somebody doing something that actually shows something that is news. it is not news if msnbc has a happy face for democrats. it is not news if fox has a happy face for republicans.

it is news when cnn or even john democratakes fun of a or said something derogatory about democrats. to me, that is news. that is what we have had. i truly believe that the democrats are going to get slaughtered in 2014. absolutely slaughtered. when that happens -- host: we really appreciate it. that is all the time we have for today's program. tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >>