will discuss efforts by the obama administration to create manufacturing hubs around the country. "washington journal" is next. host: concerns about snowfall have caused congress to cancel sessions today. terri leads state today.y leaves good morning. to "washington journal." in our first 45 minutes. we welcome your thoughts on

what the u.s. response should be to the events going on in ukraine. here's how you can reach out to us. if you want to give us a call -- democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. 585-3882.ts, (202) if you want to send us a tweet, .o so @cspanwj -- sendsend this e-mail us e-mail at journal@c-span.org. secretary of state karri plans on tuesday. region he discussed the situation in -- ukraine.red >> there are serious

repercussions that can flow out of this. there are a broad array of options available. i spent yesterday afternoon on the phone with many of my counterparts. foreign ministers of countries most engaged and all of them, every single one of them are prepared to go to the hill in order to isolate russia with respect to this invasion. they are prepared to put sanctions in place, they are prepared to isolate russia economically. the ruble is already going down. russia has major economic challenges. i cannot imagine that an occupation of another country is something that appeals to people who are trying to reach out to the world and particularly if it involves violence, i think they will be inviting difficulties for the long-term.

the people of ukraine will not sit still for this. they know how to fight. they have demonstrated remarkable bravery. you think about yanukovych positioning his snipers on the , andtops of kiev notwithstanding people falling to the right and left, these marchers kept on marching and demanded their freedom and opportunity to have their voices heard without a clip talk or see y.n leptocracy want to businesses may start thinking twice about whether they want to do business with a country that behaves like this. these are serious implications. secretary -- is secretary of state kerry.

democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. us on social media as well. the russian foreign minister says that russian troops that have streamed into ukraine are protecting his country cost citizens living there. that it is necessary to use russian troops in ukraine until the normalization of the political situation. inventions -- interventions on the pretext of civilian populations produce the opposite effect. ukraine has accused russia of a military invasion. is our,ll, here

chicago, illinois, morning. caller: good morning. host: what you think of the situation so far and the u.s. response? i am not the president nor do i serve on his foreign relations or national security team. what the u.s. response should be. unless anyone else who is calling and serves on those two hearties, they have no idea what the u.s. response should be, either. host: is any other response appropriate? caller: i can't say if a response would be appropriate, but there should be a response. georgetown, massachusetts, dan. caller: i suggest to the last caller that he actually digs

into it and find some than relyingrather on the information we get from big media. not being reported in the press is the fact that this appointed leader of ukraine happens to be a western central banker himself that aligns with the western central banks. what a lot of people in america are not paying attention to is that a lot of the wars, these afghanistan, iraq, were central-bank wars. now, it looks like the banks are going in on ukraine.

americans, or as americans should be informed, and they are not being informed by watching the large media. they need to dig into this stuff to get the facts. your perspective then, what's of the u.s. response be? hard to say. groupk -- there is a called canvas and they are out washington,ttees in fundedd they have been by taxpayers. this uprising in ukraine has origins of this canvas group, funded by u.s. taxpayers. to takeican people need

more responsibility and how the government is using our name. host: walter, independent line, good morning. your two previous he has tos -- understand the history of the reasons i keep going up in our face. we are not responsible. i remember back in the early, -- early busherm term, there was no nationbuilding. we must not build these nations. economically build resistance towards the bullying that the russian president is undergoing. it seems like he is doing the same thing that bush did. iraq.ieve our way into

we had to respond to afghanistan. we do not need any more military involvement. we must not involve ourselves. hundreds of thousands of russians were killed and more were two. if that does not prompt you to understand why putin would go in there -- he did not go in all of ukraine, he went into the crimea area. he went there not to defend his people, but to defend that port area. would you say stand back and do nothing? caller: i said respond economically.

we do not need to revisit the cold war. we do not need the star wars defense shield. isolateto economically russia and show them that the $60 billion that he spent for the olympics is almost equal to for the 36pense olympics. this off of twitter -- deeply concerned that russia will expand its military intervention in ukraine. sts"a needs to impose "co now. here's bethany, columbia, maryland. independent line. that the media is and they vilify the

russian president and there is still those cold war mentality that the russians are always wrong and they are always bad and they are some sort of monsters. go towesterners the rescue. that is not always true. host: what you think the proper response should be? they should let the russians and ukrainians figure out what is best for them. there is truth about the outer-nationalists. they are not good for the ukraine. -- majority of ukrainians they voted for the president. the president was elected.

he won the majority. from the very beginning they hated him and they wanted to depose him. westhey think of the automatically takes up their side. conflictsilitary happen, does that change your stance? caller: i don't know. and the west attacked iraq afghanistan, did anyone else -- i don't know. military solves anything. it is just more killing. there should be diplomacy and fairness and many people should take part in it, not just one side. i know the western part, they have a lot of friends here. media automatically takes their side. senator carl levin also

responding on twitter. gary, from twitter, adding we should do nothing. it is not our problem. when the russians cross our borders, call me. you can give your thoughts on what the u.s. response should be when it comes to ukraine. the numbers will be on your screen. south carolina, richard, good morning. caller: i am calling in man that to our second was calling saying we should stay away and let russia and ownaine solve their problems. if you think about it, every time we try to involve ourselves, we end up make it more worse than what it was in the beginning. benghazi, syria.

we try to involve ourselves in too many things. a bunch of will be turmoil over and over again. we have not settled any conflict. it is costing us crazy. host: if you see a large international group going towards this together, including the u.s., that would be ok? caller: i think that is the best way to go. have other countries involved. we have been trying to do everything on our own and it has broken us. with the money we spend, we're spending 20 billion a month when we were in iraq. a week or twobout ago that last year alone we spent $44 billion in natural

disasters. we can't do this. we have to have other countries involved. we are not getting anywhere. we are spending it -- spinning our wheels. facebook is one way you can reach out to us. here is betty. republican line. caller: we should go back to poland and the czech republic and begged them to let us that wethe missiles decided not to install. it is a shield that we need. we always needed it. maybe they will let us go ahead with that. host: what dictates the need for

reemphasizing a shield? caller: if this doesn't prove dot the russians are -- how you trust them when they do stuff like this? think they can pour thousands of troop into another country and that is ok, breaking something like five or seven different treaties. they are not trustworthy. host: bob corker weighing in on twitter. congress will consider targeted sanctions against russia's persons and entities that undermine sovereign and territorial integrity of ukraine. you can give your thoughts. facebook, twitter, and e-mail. piece --an op-ed

options to out maneuver russia. they might consider a creative demonstrate that support. by the foreign ministers of the u.s., poland, germany, the u.k. and france to stand with the new ukrainian leaders. this is rich, pennsylvania, democrats line. think we should stay out of it. it would be just like if the texas gulf coast want to separate from the united states. go in think we would there and stop it? we need those gulf ports.

take another look at what is going on china. they are laughing at us. we owe them billions of dollars and keep borrowing from them. they are not sending troops anywhere. host: was is the value of staying out of it? fix our ownave to country. we need the money right here. host: bob is up next, crystal lake, illinois. oil,r: ukraine needs natural gas. what i don't understand is why don't the ukraine leaders compromise? keep backing leaders instead of explaining to them how inclusion of the minorities will help them. ukraine should include russian speaking people in parliament.

it would make a lot more sense if they were inclusive, such as the united states has done. you would not have this problem in the first place. on twitter -- there must be accountability for the deaths in kiev. it is key to future progress in ukraine. taking a look at this event. invite of recent decisions, the russia rift fuels u.s. defense debate. ukraine crisis comes just as mr. obama this week land to unveil a budget plan that calls for cutting the size of the u.s. army and further reductions. cutbacks are likely

emboldening mr. putin in it ukraine. be releasedwill tomorrow. we are looking at the u.s. response and what should be in your opinion. here's how you can reach out to us. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. you have heard thoughts off of twitter and facebook. you can send us those, @cspanwj and on our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. legislators are making their thoughts on shows yesterday. we will give you those thoughts momentarily.

you heard from the wall street journal as far as the military defense. editors weighing in this morning. this is the new york times. russia's aggression is the title. that is from "the washington post."

the risk of wishful thinking. those with the title of the -- that is the headline. here is wrong, new york, republican line. ron, new york,

republican line. caller: if you watch what is going on in ukraine, it is a wonderful thing. they showed the world that they can make a stand and make a difference. should take ina that we are the leader of anyone that wants to fight for their freedom and make a stand. we should not have borders discrepancies and the abuse that is what it is. host: what should the stand look like? caller: i don't believe the military is the way to go. iran showed that sanctions could be put in place. if we state a policy and don't

impose, andhat we will bring the world to the same stage to show everybody what is going on. we don't want to go in there with the military, but whatever it takes to help these people out. host: does that include economic support? caller: if need be. i would put a timeframe on it. seem tome the americans get involved with somebody, it is never a quick fix. it is always long and drawnout. host: rené, mississippi, independent line. [indiscernible] host: mike, roseville, michigan. caller: we should stay out of it.

every time we get involved it goes wrong. our democratic process is not that great to be imposing our own world. the minorities are not included in our democracy, but we are trying to force this democracy all around the world. it is some -- in some way hypocritical. as russia and of their people -- we're way over here on the east. legislators weighing in. sndsey graham, the enator, both are asking what president obama's response should be. [video clip]

>> every time the president goes on national television and threatens anyone like putin, everyone's eyes roll. he needs to do something. suspend russian membership in the g-8 and g20. every day they say in crimea, add to the suspension. do something. disagreeine you will with the description of how president obama has handled things. >> of course i disagree. you expect the president of the united states to speak out about putin is trying to do here. invading countries and daring people to go to war is the tactic of a bully.

with the president has done a speak out against them. this notion of taking him out of the g-8 has been 6:00 a.m. -- suggested by the administration. what congress us doing what the senate should do is a resolution has doneg what putin and say that if ukraine was done -- will stand up for real or form, and make it clear to the allies in nato that the alliance is strong and neighbors of russia that we are going to do everything in our power to discourage further aggression by putin. host: we are welcoming your thoughts off of twitter and facebook. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. post" has anon interview with haman karzai.

afghan's died in a war that is not ours. mind, al qaeda is more a myth than a reality. the majority of the united states' prisoners here were innocent. some americans call karzai a delusional leader, who became an and adversary during the 12 years of his presidency. grand rapids, michigan, democrats line. i would like to point out some similarities in terms of conduct pretext -- from up

pretext.- trumped up memod the downing street and cherry picking intelligence. that seems similar. i will take my response off air. you mean it is similar to the ukraine situation? how so? activity in the backyard of russia. if we had that same activity in our backyard, we would be sending in tanks. host: that is john, grand rapids, michigan. putin declares war is the headline. actobama and the west must

instead of merely threaten. after the invasion of georgia, wassident obama pretended it was dick cheney. as part of the thoughts of the wall street journal. this is twitter. nato leaders should play a proactive role. they're hiding kind amerco's position -- america's position. if you want to make your thoughts part of this discussion, off of twitter, it is @cspanwj. for facebook, it is facebook.com/cspan and if you

want to send an e-mail, it is journal@c-span.org. other nations at russia's doorstep. the romantic gesture such as smoothing russia's entry into the wto worse this post -- were supposed to help as was the decision to of the g-8 meeting in sochi, the site of the recent withdrawal of picks. senator graham and others talk about the situation. tyrone, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say in reference ukraine, here we

are, we went into afghanistan after russia, russia had to leave. they were going broke. we are following the same ,attern of being in a country all of our treasures are gone. we lost a lot of soldiers. we are having a big fight in the senate and we cannot get anything through to congress. we're going to tell this country what to do. n is saying they have no money, because we are constantly claiming broke. he is going to ratchet his war of. he has no reason not to go at because he sees no backlash from the united states. he will not get it. gas, controlling the oil, and this is about money. this is economics. if we don't take the money back

from him and slow them down, we are not going to do anything to putin and he knows it. host: are sanctions the best way to go? caller: that is the only thing he will respect. he went broke in afghanistan. we are the ones having the problem. host: dave, florida, republican line. caller: good morning. we need to stay out of it. -- we do not realize how expensive war is. is on the other side of the world. i say ask the middle class because they are the ones that are going to pay for it. what is the value of staying out of it altogether is --umer and we get from? staying out of it altogether. what do we get from it?

enough is enough. let's get our own house in order before we tell someone else how to run theirs. host: louise, republican line. caller: our institutions are totally broken. there supposed to have state department -- they are supposed to be peacemakers. they don't make peace. they may or. ukraine is the breadbasket of the world. -- a commodities

i am talking about the world commodity dealers. they need to stop buying and selling the hedge funds. they need to get out of the business of commodities. john, crofton, maryland. >> i don't always agree with senator graham, but he is probably giving a measured fromnse to suspend russia attending the g-8 and to have a

penalty for every day that their troops stay in the crimea. they have no business being there. however, i think obama has been an enabler. putin knows he won't do anything. putin just had to wait until the olympics were over and now he is having his will. they are not going to give up the crimea without force. i think obama caused this by appointing john kerry, who is on the same page as obama. by reneging on the red line to do something in syria.

he is a week president. putin knows that. rejecting the notion that he underestimated mr. putin. they said he had a cold eye assessment of the possibilities and limitations of engagement with mr. putin. while mr. obama had not gone as far as many in washington want him to go, the president has been less focused on immediate action than on making sure he and america's traditional allies on the same page. working from the oval office over the weekend, he called several of his g-8 counterparts to make sure every city is him

lockstep with low we are doing and saying. we will take our next call. frank, new york. caller: good morning. this war should say and stop were trying itself as the police of the world when in reality we are the bullies of the world pushing for corporate interests. we need to stop this. our freedoms are at risk because of corporate greed and a corrupt government. we have enough issues here. we need to stop being hypocrites and making the whole world hate us as we leave them. war, letant to go to the government officials go to war.

leave the minorities and the poor who do not benefit out of it. several ambassadors got together and wrote this. ukraine will fight. suggestions, they should continue to exert restraint in the face of russians. don't shoot first. second, they should continue to make clear that there is no threat to russian citizens and russian speakers in ukraine. the new government and kiev intends to represent and serve all ukrainians. a new government in kiev should bring in moderate all citizens -- moderate politicians from the

east. i was a peace corps volunteer in ukraine from 2007 to 2009. i want to reply to some of the information out there about the fact that the u.s. has been there for a long time instigating this. i would emphasize the word peace in t score. that has been the majority for the past 20 years. need to the route we c continue to take. this is not something the u.s. can take on by itself. it is not about war with russia. it is more about ukrainians. maybe we should be listening to the interim government. tennessee,, memphis independent line. caller: we cannot have a double

standard. we just allow the egyptian military to intervene and take elected headatic of state. we had our ships outside of anhi in the event of accident or terrorist situation. now, the russians say they are going to protect their citizens and we say you cannot. if they want to fight the russians, what they're going to do when they turn the gas off? thank you. to giveu are welcome your thoughts on what is going on in ukraine and what the u.s. response should be. the numbers are on your screen. tweetce sending out a

thathed to a relief saying the hearing on the situation -- time is of the essence. our allies must make clear to thata that it is -- aggression against ukraine will have major adverse consequences. the western response should include financial, economic and diplomatic leverage to press russia to respect international norms and the right of the ukraine people. jeff, frederick, maryland. i am 27 years old and i a family that is into politics. i see both sides. the wars that we have been , theing since day one

interest is only in corporate america. the rest of us that are waking up right now are poor, without jobs, needing money, just like you do, like ukrainians are. i am happy they are standing up and demanding democracy the way americans should be demanding democracy. the constitution is being rewritten way too much. .e are losing our freedoms we should revolt. i believe americans already. all of these politicians are fakes, phonies, and liars. do you think there should

be a u.s. response to ukraine? caller: the response we should have is like any other country. if we need to go drop solvation boxes, that is one thing. that is one thing that people would support, the livelihood of humanity. should we go over there with guns? no. we should not be anywhere posts and telling shouldis is the way you live your life. culture is widespread. maybe we should learn their culture in our country before we go and tell them to live like we do. a story about the present opossum budget marking the start of a new battle. his proposal would include $20

billion in new domestic funding, funding for new manufacturing hubs, job training and early childhood education that will be offset by cost savings elsewhere. the white house has made the case that the president's/two deficit has been mitigated. 's slash toidents deficit has been mitigated. on the front page of "the washington post," the republican response. the budget from the republicans will focus on welfare reform. a 204yan will publish page critique, questioning the

efficacy of dozens of initiatives and underscoring where republicans say consolidation or spending reductions are needed. democrats line. caller: my name is patrick. i want to talk about the guy that just called talking about the revolt that he wants people to revolt in america. this guy is sitting on his high somewhere,e suburbs eating snickers bars. we are not going to go there. ukraine is a part of russia. it has been a part of russia for the last couple hundred years. we all know that. america, the european union, they have no business in the affairs of russia and ukraine. america needs to clean up its own house before you can go overseas. those folks are fighting for independence.

host: that as a last call. we continue on with our discretion about ukraine. josh rogin will join us. later on, how small businesses could be affected by the affordable care act. journal" reporter, jennifer corbett-dooren, will join us. all of that when "washington journal" continues after this. ♪ >> the internet as we know it today bears no response to fromoly television service

the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's. -- if i walkts into a grocery store not buy a gallon of milk and pay $3.50 a gallon, if i buy 10 gallons, i pay $35 a gallon. -- for all 10 gallons. the sec week says you can use as much milk as you want and you only have to pay three dollars 50 cents. netflix is the biggest user of the internet. sometimes they are as much as 30% of the total volume of the internet. they should pay more than someone that uses the internet once a month. that is the genesis. these companies have spent billions and billions of dollars to set up their systems and to provide the fiber optics and all the mega-speeds that we take for

granted. at some level, they should be allowed to charge based on volume. >> tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. the new c-span.org website makes it easy to find and watch the extensive coverage of official washington. look for on our homepage. will findyou comprehensive coverage of house and senate debates, and russia committee hearings, thence with the president, and members of his cabinet. press briefings from the white house, capitol hill, the state department, and the pentagon. plus, selected oral arguments and appearances by justices. watch live or on your own schedule. federal focus on c-span.org. making it easy to keep tabs on

what is happening in congress, the white house. >> washington journal continues. josh rogin of "the daily beast." welcome. tell us where the administration finds itself with what is going on in ukraine. a crazy weekend. on thursday, the intelligence community predicted that putin would not invade ukraine. by friday afternoon, president obama admitted the invasion was underway. they scramble to figure out a way in which they could respond , to show the russians that we were serious about objections to its actions. secondly, there was a parallel process going on behind the scenes.

a lot of this we reported this morning in the daily beast. sanctions that could lead to an executive order that would additionaln and put pressure on the russian federation to reverse the progress of its forces over the past few days. most of these tools are sanctions that can be imposed without congress. separatists and crimea who have taken over government buildings have also become targets. another set of options involves removing russia from diplomatic and political bilateral and multilateral interactions. energy cooperation talks were canceled.

the obama administration has placed a hold on all aspects of bilateral interaction. host: is it enough to have sanctions to influence what is going on in ukraine? the economic situation in russia may be more marvel to economic pressures than most -- may be more vulnerable to economic pressure than most people think. other analysts are not so sure. the russian system is extremely opaque. not a lot of good data is coming out. they have the ability to manipulate that data. has taken the decision that whatever costs or pressure he is to suffer under,

willing to take those costs. he still sees the benefits. what is the point of all this? putin, ukraine and crimea are personal issues. many russians believe that crimea is russian territory. the people there identify as russian and crimea should always be a part of russia. there is a nationalistic element , a domestic, political element. has aly, putin long-standing policy of projecting russian power. some will say it is an effort to reconstitute the soviet bloc. i think that goes too far.

his view is that russia still has a role to play as a regional. russia has energy, a black sea fleet that is based in crimea, do not want to set to overturn government on their borders. the number one priority is survival. worldsia looks around the and see autocratic governments turn over in places like egypt, even though it turned back, and libya and syria. they see this as a slippery slope that could lead to a turnover of the government in moscow. were these actions to move troops into russia and the case of what he thinks about

president obama? guest: we used to wait until the crisis was over before we would start criticizing the president for being too weak and not responding forcefully enough. these events are happening fast. the history here is that the administration spent 3.5 years reaching out to vladimir putin. about two years ago that policy ended. both sides know that. this is not the end of the u.s. -russia reset. this is the middle of the next phase. obama'sether or not weakness emboldens those around

the world, that is not 100% fair. the obama administration always has a broad vision and ideology that includes bringing the u.s. out of the position of active control of all of the world's conflicts. they don't believe america has a preeminent role to play in every situation in the world. you can look at that and say that has left a vacuum for other powers to fill. weaknesses pejorative and does not reflect what goes into obama's policy. does the idea of sharing power -- you can call in and ask our guest questions. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882.

brief us on what happens now as far as nato is concerned. [video clip] what russia is doing violates the principles of the united nations chapter. it threatens peace and security in europe. russia must stop its activities and its threats. we will discuss their implications for european peace and security and for nato's relationship with russia. afterwards, we will meet in the ukraine commission. ukraine's sovereignty. we support the rights of the people of ukraine to determine

without outside interference. we emphasize the need for ukraine to continue to oppose the democratic rights of all people and in that minority rights are protected. ukraine is our neighbor. they are a valued partner for nato. we encouragearties -- we urge all parties to move away from this danger situation. i call on russia to do yes good tensions. awaycall on russia to do with tensions. not everyday a major world power invades a smaller country. that is a big deal.

everyone is sounding the alarm and saying this is a crisis that everyone will have to be involved with and will have to respond to. it is not enough to be busy. you have to look busy. that is part of what we're seeing. this is more a bigger issue for the ee you in some ways than it is -- the eu than it is for the united states. the eu that took the leading role in a lot of cases. iny have more economic skin the game, more leverage, more dependent on the energy that flows through ukraine. when the final deal was made between the government and the thatition, it was the eu negotiated the deal. they have to be part of this. the obama administration has the

most tools and the most power, but the eu has the most to lose. the third thing is -- we are talking about how our age everybody is. obama said russia must stop. there will be costs. what what are the costs and the enforcement mechanisms to hold russia accountable for the international law they are clearly breaking. the conventional wisdom is that we have few levers of influence to enforce all of these things we are talking about. host: probably no drawing of redlines, as it were? guest: right, the word redline will never be used again by this administration for obvious reasons. there are plenty of people who the drawingu that

of redlines in the serious debate and the decision not to enforce those redlines enables him to use that real threat against vladimir putin. there is some truth to that of the bottom line is that we will not go to war in ukraine and ukraine is not a nato country we don't have a right to defend them. is aukraine going to war worst-case scenario. that was one of the lessons of the russian invasion of georgia in 2008. vladimir putin would love for them to start firing at his troops on that was start a whole host of things he would like to do. the idea is to de-escalate, to look tough but not necessarily to use all of the weapons in our arsenal white yes. host: first call for our guest from chicago, illinois, independent line, good morning. caller: what i would like you to ofy is the telephone call

the woman and the state department to our ambassador in the ukraine. was, it was her vocabulary at the end but also the discussion of who they wanted to be the leader. the idea that we are not involved -- we were involved before these things happened. the second thing i would like to say is the crimea was given to the ukraine. stalin was aet, georgian. then we have a ukrainian. a russian thatys was the head of the soviet union. did the people of crimea ever had a chance to determine who they wanted to be? about aou're talking

phone call from assistant secretary of state for european affairs, victorino and -- victoria newland. what the phone call said was she negotiated or tried to negotiate a deal to end the standoff between the government and the opposition. and that negotiation, she used an expletive to describe the european union. it was not very nice of her. in the end, the takeaway from this call were that the u.s. was very heavily involved in trying to negotiate an end to the crisis which is probably a good thing. were that the russians taping the phone calls of our u.s. ambassador to the ukraine and leaked them in an intelligence move. exaggerateot over the implications of that call.

that's how this plummets he works. -- that's how this plummets he works. -- that's how diplomacy works. they are trying to work things out and when no one's listening, they sometimes use expletives. thatd to a vulnerability allowed the russians to accuse americans of outside interference. this is a canard. that's what we do. we do it and the russians do it and the eu does it and everyone interferes all the time. the ideas not to get caught and two when the interference war. the interference war. that was an instance of the intelligence counterespionage. that was overtaken right away. that ther point is u.s. and the eu have been over -interfering in the ukraine -- i don't know -- the administration has been more active in the

ukraine more than it usually is on this issues. where you sit is where you stand. there has been a lot of act tivoli and none of it has yet to vince vladimir putin to reverse course. the game is not over yet. we are in the first inning of what could be a long match. host: from new york, area independent line, good morning. caller: first the, and then a question -- george orwell wrote that real reedom is being able to say 2+2=4. have a similar situation in that the government and corporate media are telling the public that the laws of physics have no credibility when physics laws are well established and have more credibility to most people than the media and the government. in bad do things have to get

the post-9/11 world for the media to realize to stop name-calling people who talk seven on 9/11 and do their jobs by using their platforms to write about a real and important issue. guest: i am in the media and i work for a corporation but i can tell you that the corporations not influence my reporting. they leave me alone and let me do it i want. aboutis a lot of talk media influence and conspiracy with the government. on a couples based of bad examples of where that's happened. the official story of the events of 9/11 has been well hashed over over the last 12 years. there are certainly some discrepancies but overall, we are not here to litigate what happened on that tragic day. that theust say

history books will have to tackle that one and i encourage you to research it yourself. host: new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning, in 1991 when the soviet union split apart, the ukraine found itself being the owners of the third-largest nuclear armaments. in 1994, because of the concern of the possibilities with a countriesmaments, course ukraine into giving up those arms. ukraine at that point knew that that was their ace to protect them against an invasion from russia. nevertheless, they gave up the nuclear armaments. states, the united kingdom, and russia all guaranteed the sovereign borders of ukraine. it seems that what they thought

-- withoutme around the nuclear armaments, they are very vulnerable to any invasion from russia. taking it further, host: let's let our guest respond. guest: i'm glad you brought up that point. issue is what happened in 1994. ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees that were negotiated between the u.s., ukraine, the u.k., and russia. it resulted in what known as the budapest memorandum which is the document where russia is never to invade ukraine which they violated this week. breaks bothissue ways. on the one hand, if the ukraine had not given up its nuclear weapons, some analysts argue that russia would not have been able to invade.

therefore we would not have the crisis today. other people argue that if ukraine had nuclear weapons and russia invaded, we can have a nuclear war on our hands because that would be the only way they could repel the invasion. i don't know. it seems that ukraine with nuclear weapons is more dangerous than ukraine without. the russians were going to have a huge influence and ukraine whether or not they had nuclear weapons. the way this impacts the does, say -- but supplements he is the russians violating the budapest is a point of contention. a shaming ofof russia than actual punishment. host: as far as the future of a possible conflict, how does the nationalism issue come in with especially those in crimea and these are part of the country? twain once said that got invented war so that americans would learn geography.

we are where catching up on crimea. it is a peninsula that has changed hands multiple times over the centuries. there are people there of all ethnicities. there are ethnic tartars and crimean's and russians and ukrainians. the bottom line is that any fees of land, you will always have more than one people claiming supreme ownership. my russian friends tell me that they believe that because the peoples week -- that the majority of the spiegel who speak russian, identify themselves as russian. when the russians invaded, they met almost no resistance. we should acknowledge that reflects some sort of acceptance by the crimean people. whether or not that justifies limited autonomy for crimea

inside ukraine is a political debate. ethnically and culturally, it seems that the crimean people are ok with the russians in control of their peninsula. host: indiana, democrats line. i think vladimir putin is worried about his naval base in crimea. he just signed a new deal with the ousted resident to keep the base there and he is worried about the new president not honoring it. i think vladimir putin is trying to best to protect the naval base. he knows if that goes, he's in trouble. guest: i think the naval base is one important parts of his calculation. surether part is to make that russia can influence events in ukraine going forward and having a piece of it covered with russian soldiers is a good way to do that. he wants to de-stabilize and delegitimize the new leadership in kiev which he views as part

of a coup to oust a democratically elected government. is good base in crimea for strategic reasons but it is also good because it allows russia to continue to make mischief inside ukraine, to always have an ability to threaten the rest of ukraine and also to keep ukraine from joining international organizations like nato. as long as ukraine is a divided country, they will not be able to enter into defense alliances that require them to have control over their sovereignty or territorial integrity. host: butler, pennsylvania, republican line, good morning. caller: i want to go back farther in the history. we speak about crimea. lin wast is that sta

removing the tartars which were the majority of the population in the crimea at that time and sending them to siberia. many of those people never got a chance to come back. some did return after stalin died. should bee part that taken into consideration. since vladimir putin sent 800 tanks -- like a lot more than the conversations going on. guest: that's a good point. that is a fairly accurate reading of some of the crimean history. the take away here is that there is not a lot love lost between the crimean's and the kremlin. ins not as if ukrainians

crimea want to be part of russia. that seems not to be the case. they also don't want to be part of the ukraine that is run by the new kiev government. they are seeking some degree of autonomy inside the ukrainian system. yes, russia has committed a lot of atrocities in its history as have many other powers but we are where we are and the crimean's need russia to resist the new government in kiev. it will be interesting how they view this russia influence and occupation once the current crisis has subsided. will they like being under vladimir putin's when there is no longer a direct threat to their security? host: what is the scope of ukraine military? guest: it is pretty robust. they have 130,000 troops. relatively updated armaments but they are no match for the russian military. and they know it.

especially in crimea where there is 15,000 russian troops, there is only 3500 lightly armed ukrainian troops and they are surrounded by russian paramilitary and navy seal kind of guys. they are scared. this is a standoff that is unfolding as we speak. they have been told to hold the line and not give up their bases. that could be an untenable position in the long run. know that the worst thing they can do is fall into the trap of attacking the russian army because that would be an existential decision for that ukrainian armed force. they would lose that battle. that is what they are trying to avoid. lesson ofearning the georgia in 2008 but they have called up the reserves which is a few hundred thousand more troops. , wee are loyal ukrainians assume they are. it is not entirely clear.

the ukrainian armed forces, the leadership has turned over three times during this revolution. the naval chief was said to have been sympathetic to the russians. he went to crimea and had a heart attack. then they replace him with another guy. the military has taken the position they should not get involved in the ongoing political strife. they refused to fire on peaceful protesters which aided the opposition but that could work the other way, they could refuse to step in to defend the duke government that many to -- to defend the new government. the main thing is to stay out of the conflict. everybody knows that. it is not totally clear if that will be possible. host: if conflict happens, who would be the first responders to help militarily internationally to help the ukrainians? guest:. that's a very open question i do not think there is a high likelihood that nato would

respond militarily. the nato military responses operate by consensus which is 27 countries have to agree which is very rare. andappened in libya, barely is not likely to happen in this situation. in georgia, nobody came to help. thisfor a possible that escalated, we would see a large-scale invasion of ukraine from its eastern border with russia and that would have grave consequences for the ukrainian people host: ukrainian ambassador to the human was on "state of the union" and talked about expected military help from others. [video clip] to address this and stop this aggression, it's the first stage in until putin has not decided yet the decision of the parliament.

secondly, today the parliament and the government addressed the guarantors under the buddha test memorandum -- budapest memorandum -- it was signed on our decision to get rid of nuclear weapons to protect our namely theects, nuclear plants. it means that we need military support as well. >> so military support in terms of weaponry but so many, including the united states, seem to at least come very close to ruling out military involvement by other nations. is that your understanding? >> we are to demonstrate that we have our own capacity to protect ourselves as it was decided today in the parliament we are preparing to defend ourselves. aggravation is

going in that way, when the ,ussian troops are enlarging ask fory, we will military support and other support. guest: what the ukrainians can depend on is financial support. there is a huge imf package being put together and additional legislation could pass and they could use that money for whatever they want, i guess. there is not a prospect that we will be funneling troops or even military aid to the ukrainian government anytime soon. theyis a great reason that should try to avoid war with russia at all costs. administration officials tell the reporters is that russia is using hard power because they don't have soft power. this is the administration spin on the differing responses.

russia uses guns because they cannot convince the world to go along with them based on their ideas. that is an interesting way to think about it. on the other hand, guns have an influence of their own. the powerst say that we have is a soft power. in western ukraine, they want to side with the west rather than rush and we have these financial and economic levers and that's how we can wage cultural, political, warfare. warfare, i don't think we are willing to wage that. host: republican line -- caller: what are your thoughts on the possibility here within the next few years or even a few months or a few weeks -- what are the chances ukraine breaks apart?

ukraine waseastern ruled by habsburgs. [inaudible] what are the chances that russia ends up tearing the country apart? guest: there are a number of scenarios that are possible here. i think the scenario you describe where ukraine is split into two roughly equal parts is less likely. there are a couple of scenarios that are more likely. roughly, we can compare them to other historical examples such between china and taiwan in 1949 which is that taiwan operated basically independently and received de facto if not

legal recognition from a lot of to be theand claimed legitimate government of china and then you had the actual government of china which was running most of the country. we could end up with that scenario or we could end up similar to the one in georgia were the breakaway regions operate with russian troops on their soil as occupied territories. that is a frozen conflict that could last decades. i think that's a scenario we might end up with in ukraine. russians so far according to the administration have not deployed troops in eastern ukraine. they are consolidating their position in crimea. they are there to stay and are not going anywhere. that seems to be the focus of their occupation for now. you could also have a situation whereby the russians promote mischief in eastern ukraine and unrest and discord but it never actually breaks away from the rest of ukraine and only crimea

is where the ukrainian government lost total control. host: from twitter -- could pull together a bunch of examples of russia pulling together. that russiaine is believes it has the right to have influence. some of those countries will be vulnerable and some want. the soviet union is not returning and will never return. new erantering into a

where the russian federation is willing to use its military might to secure its interests in countries without the permission of the international community. that is their decision and we will have to grapple with that. host: dallas, texas, independent line. caller: good morning. this reminds me more of pre-world war i down to the gilded age in this country. i want to bring up that webahrain. bahrain, which is hardly a democracy. there is a democratic movement which we are not supporting. if it turned violent and they started throwing molotov cocktails, how would we react to their? guest: first of all, the has turnedbellion violent. i was there last year. insurgencyy vibrant

facing a very brutal crackdown by a very autocratic machine. we have a base there and interest there as well. what you are getting at is what some call the hypocrisy of american foreign policy that seeks to balance our values against their interest but often favors one over the other. the decision by the obama administration to approach each of these revolutions and situations i case-by-case ad hoc basis is based on what they believe is pragmatism and realism and the recognition that american power is limited and we have to prioritize some interests over others. decision that they have decided on. that is the calculation made by each administration and i'm different way. the bush administration was more forward leaning and democracy

and human rights but they were also more forward leaning and using military around the world. we can have a whole another show about how that worked out. situation is tragic and u.s. policy is failing there. that has little or nothing to do with the ukraine. massachusetts, republican line, thanks for waiting, good morning. didn't one of the worst massacres in the holocaust happened in abyar, part of the ukraine? didn't -- wasn't chris jeff a wasn'tan and they -- nikita khrushchev by your ukrainian and works together to defeat the axis? guest: without getting into the ukraine it's true that

was part of the soviet union and and is still closely tied to russia and a host of ways. the decision by khrushchev to give crimea back to ukraine was, at the time, related to his ethnicity. that was then and this is now. the situation of crimea and ukraine has turned over so many after the revolution they had in 2004 and the revolution last week that anyone who wants to make and a store call argument to claim -- a historical argument that they believe they are owed or entitled to last could cite and historical example. it is not particular irrelevant to the situation today. vladimir putin knows that. that's why he is working hard to change the facts on the ground. you could make a circular

argument but when you have 50,000 troops sitting on a peninsula with big guns, those historical arguments are not going to win the day. host: this talks about the ukraine from "bloomberg business"- can you talk about the natural gas aspect? a part of the reason the ukrainian revolution began was because ukraine was about to sign a trade agreement with the eu designed topart wean them away from their dependence on the russian federation including their heavy dependence on russia for natural gas and other energy resources. has been oneces way that vladimir putin has maintained a high level of influence and ukraine. they manipulate gas prices when

they want. they want ukraine to do something, they bring the desk prices up. prices up. they use it as a hanging threat. part of u.s. and european strategy has been to move ukraine off of its dependence on russia for energy and natural gas. they want to develop the ukraine capacity to become more energy independent. that is a long-term project. that is not necessarily going to affect the current crisis. it speaks to the overall effort to use nonmilitary means to increase the basket of goods we can offer countries to join with the western community culturally and economically and politically. that is part of what vladimir putin is responding to. host: from kentucky, our independent line -- caller: i would like to bring up

recent political history as it pertains to russia. remind everyone of something that was said. there was a speech condemning russia going into georgia. it was said there were no repercussions. ukraine?go into the was asked who is the major opposition to us or our most important enemy. he said russia. mr. obama belittled him and said the cold war had been over for years. the point i'm trying to make is the advisers were correct. the ones who were advising mr. obama were incorrect. it has not necessarily

been proven that russia is our number one political foe. there are many other geopolitical foes around the road like iran and china to name two. we should not underestimate the seriousness of this crisis. we should also not overestimate russia's capacity at large. it will still be a regional power, not a world power and the economy is shaky and there is at least a risk that they have overextended and that this will lead to a retraction of russia after the crisis. 2012, the debate in obama administration had an aspirational policy to move past a zero sum game with russia. the russians never bought into that policy but that does not mean it did not have a chance to work.

obama campaigned on the idea outstretched, competitive countries would relax their fists. he has pursued that and in the case of russia, it failed but that does not mean it was not a policy worth pursuing. the cold war is over. we had two superpowers then and we have one superpower now and one regional power. the effective implementation of power is not when everybody gets exactly half the results. it's when every country uses its potential levers proportionally very . hasinternational community a lot of ability to confront russia in this exchange. i think that will play out over time. romney right?

partially. thatwere not right in russia is the number one threat. in the end, we will have bigger fish to fry. host: the last call is from colorado, independent line. aller: to me, this looks like real test of globalism and interconnectedness. how will russians in russia respond if russia is eliminated from the g8 and oil contracts are canceled with the european union? dollars spenton on the olympics backfires now because of vladimir putin's behavior, how do the russians respond? russians have a media which is heavily controlled by the state and therefore their information is filtered. the majority of russian opinion

is that the vladimir putin's policies of nationalism is the right one. there is a rising democratic opposition to the vladimir putin government which is part of what thes trying to squelch bottom line here is that russia is evolving very slowly. last eightarea could years and could be a transformative time for russian -- the vladimir putin era could last eight years and could be transformative for russians. but ifd be more tenuous vladimir putin can continue to just keep the russian standard of living increasing, russians would be inclined to let him have his way on the international stage and that is a character of russian politics. house is white supposed to meet with the

israeli prime minister. a framework for the middle east is poised to be released by secretary of state kerry. where are we in this process? guest: prime minister netanyahu is in town for the annual apec conference which is a chance for him to meet with obama. that he tends to pressure prime minister netanyahu into agreeing to the john kerry framework for middle east peace. he is warning against israel's grave consequences for their future if peace with palestinians is not pursued in short order. prime minister netanyahu is not likely to be persuaded to change his views on the interim framework agreement by any conversation with president obama today. knowsws the issue and he within the framework agreement and he will either supported or not supported. will not change between now

and whenever they meet. we will have to see it prime minister netanyahu is willing to make any concessions that john kerry and president obama want to make. my guess would be that his position is likely to remain the same. host: thank you for being with us. up, we will take a look at small businesses and how they might be affected i the affordable care act. they might see a significant rise in cost. later on, the obama administration is providing seed money for future technologies to develop jobs. we will talk about the so-called manufacturing hub. first, we get a news update from c-span radio. >> it's 8:36 a.m. eastern time -- from or more on the ukraine from the britain's foreign secretary -- he says military options are not on the table as a response to russia's effective

takeover of crimea. he is going for unified, tangible and economic and political support for kiev. the russian foreign minister says russian troops in ukraine are protecting his country's citizens living there adding that it's necessary to use russian troops in ukraine until the normalization of the political situation, he says. meets today with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu in the oval office. in an interview with "bloomberg news" last week, the president said his message to the prime minister will be " if not now, when, and if not you, mr. prime minister, then who?" tothe prime minister headed washington, he vowed to maintain a tough line in the face of heavy international pressure to begin making concessions to the palestinians. the associated press is prime minister netanyahu's defiant town set the stage for what

could be a difficult time. the premised are about to stand steadfast on israeli interests. c-span will be covering and remarks from the two leaders this afternoon. you can hear them later in our programming schedule. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry in five years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. onch is in hd, like us facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> the internet, as we know it toay, there's no resemblance monopoly telephone service back in the 19 ares and 1940's and

1950's. what the courts have said and what the congress supports is if to a grocery store and i buy a gallon of milk, i pay $3.50 per gallon. if i buy 10 gallons, i pay $35 for all 10 gallons. fcc wants to say you can use as much milk as you want and you only have to pay $3.50. that is just wrong. netflix is the biggest user of the internet as people download their movies. sometimes, they are as much as 30% of the total volume of the internet. obviously, they should pay more than somebody who uses the internet once a month. i am being very simplistic but that is the genesis. these companies have spent the audience and billions of dollars to set up their systems and and alliber optics

themega-speeds we take for granted. at some level, they should be allowed to charge based on volume. >> net neutrality tonight on "the communicators" on 8:00 on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are covering health policy. good morning. we are here in part to talk about a report that came out from the centers for medicare and medicaid services. it takes a look at small businesses and what they might experience as far as providing health care. what did this report tell us? guest: this report looks at one provision in the health law. under this one particular provision, it said that 65% of small businesses may see their premiums rise. dirty five percent might see a decrease. is that the note

report did not give any predictions as to how much. there is a lot of caveats. it looked at one provision and did not take into account a lot of other things in the law like tax credits were businesses are eligible. the report says -- let's go back a little bit -- it did not say how much it will rise but what determines of a small business will see an increase in rates? thet: this report looked at

pre-affordable care act law and projecting out. it looked at one provision that involves how insurance companies rate for risk. the law before, insurance companies exclude people with pre-existing conditions, charge sicker people higher rates. older people could be charged more. what the law has done is taken out the pre-existing condition thank and it has narrowed the ages. you can still rates a little bit higher for an older person but it narrowed that split. it has changed the way that companies can price risk. host: so the premium is what we are talking about and what factors go into determining a premium? guest: it is still age and it is smoking status. insurance companies have to take all comers.

they used to be able to exclude someone. was less expensive because you had more help the people in your risk pool. host: that determines what goes up and down. if a company generally has younger people, they are healthier -- chances are they will see their rates go up or down? guest: it's hard to say. potentially, that group would go up. then you have other businesses where you have not as healthy workers and their premiums may come down. this is under this one provision that the report looked at and it does not take into account all these other factors like tax credits that businesses would be eligible for if they offer insurance to their employees. of a the report suggests company pays more for premiums, ultimately the customer will pay more? guest: exactly.

you are seeing that under the health law that individuals, some will pay more. 65% of small businesses possibly could see increases which is a report from cms. you have heard some details already. if you have questions, you can call us. if you are a small business owner, and have experience in's already as far as the health care, here is a line we have set aside especially for you -- as response for small businesses, have we heard what they are thinking about it? there hasaven't but

been other changes in the law were things up and pushed out like requirements to offer health insurance at least for certain small businesses. they don't have to come lie until 2016. until 2016. the impact on small businesses is probably muted right now but laster, many companies renewed their allah sees before the law so they are still under their old insurance. i think it will take a year or maybe a few years to really see what the impact of the law is on small businesses. host: i suspect we have heard from legislators on this issue? guest: yes, when the report came out, house republicans were the ones that circulated the report and used this as a reason to criticize the law would say this is another example of why this is not working. host: it also said the report was doing a certain time but

past the deadline. when was it initially do? house republican said it was due to years ago and it just came out. depends -- administrations missed congressional deadlines all the time. out probablything late on a friday and it did not circulate until monday. host: with that in mind, we go to the viewers with questions about small business. and iss up from virginia a small business owner, good morning. caller: good morning, i enjoy your program. we own a small business and we had a renewal that came through on her insurance. it was due the first of march. the cheapest increase we had was

48% which was $24,000. 72%ent all the way up to a increase and it put us out of the insurance business. we were providing insurance for employees but we could not stand the increases. host: tell us about your business. how many employees do you have and what's their general health like? guest: probably average. caller: we have some guys and ther 20's and we have 12 employees. we are a small independent lumber company. we had been paying the majority of their insurance and they were paying $25 per week and we paid the rest just as a service. we thought it was the right thing to do. bill q and we haduotes from aetna, anthem and

health which was the highest at 72.9%. it was a plan comparable to what we actually had. host: thanks for the call. guest: you are hearing things like this from small businesses, that they are getting their renewal bills in the mail. some small business owners try to do this on their own. theycould be a year were could find somebody who can help you find insurance broker. there could be other options for these small businesses. host: i was impressed by the swap of the cost. -- swath of the cost. guest: most small businesses, if they got a bill, operate on thin margins and that would cause concern. next whohael is up

owns a small business from new york. caller: good morning, i have a small publishing company in new york city with six employees. most of them are part-time but i have been providing health insurance. i think it is the right thing to do. i sat down with my accountant i amor the year began and expected to get a 25% increase in my health insurance but we are a small company and we don't have a large profit margin. that iuntant suggested cut my employees hours back to make them part-time and that suggests that they move on to the affordable health care marketplace and i would drop my health care altogether. i health care costs make up about 20% of my profit margin. as a regular business, my overhead is high and in new york, i have high taxes. it is fiscally responsible to drop health care altogether.

to find a way that i can keep my employees with health insurance but shopping the marketplace, it's better for them. i know the quality of health care will go down because we have very good health insurance but i am stuck in between keeping my doors open and taking care of my employees. where does someone go from there? host: when do you have to make a final decision? guest: i have to make a decision by december. i have started shopping and have spoken to a couple of other small businesses in the area about possibly coming together. new york does not allow you to do that and create consortiums. we have to create a larger parent company and then we would become subsidiaries of a larger company. that is something i don't want to deal with. i would religious control of my business. -- i would relinquish control of my business. guest: new york state is running its own exchange, have you

looked at the options on the new york state exchange? the employees can have options for small businesses. .ou may get tax credits it is really complicated to. it might be worth finding somebody understands insurance and can see what options are out there. the problem i have found is purchasing as a businesses i would have to put up so much up front and try to get that back through tax credits. year, i amve a good possibly going to have to take a loan to keep my doors open and keep my press running to get that money back is a tax credit the following year. essentially, you are projecting your earnings a year ahead. unless i am doing well enough to stay open, i will have to close. my dad is very low. guest: it sounds like you're in

the process of looking. sounds like he is smart and knows what he is doing and he is sitting and looking at all the options. it's true, some employees may be better off not getting insurance through their company and going out onto the individual market. host: a line or two from the cms report says -- guest: exactly, if you make under a certain income threshold where people can be eligible for to credits and individuals buy insurance on the exchange and like the small-business business owner in new york, that is a state running its own external -- insurance exchange. host: democrat line from arkansas, hi. caller: good morning, comment

and a question -- health insurance premiums have for, as far as i can remember, at least 10 years. i don't know exactly how much. healthalso seen in thece premiums not individual marketplace but also employer sponsored insurance plans. my question is -- premiums,rise in especially with small businesses, be due in part to thegraying of america and more older workers working in small business as well as large-size businesses?

there is a lot of factors that go into rising insurance premiums especially in the individual and small group market a. of the impetus of the affordable care act is that premiums have been going up sometimes double digits. the large insurance premiums have been more stable. they were rising prevent before the law. there is still rising premiums so it's an issue. 65% rise, ise is a that just for this your only or will we see those increases go on? guest: i believe it was estimated to 2016 but it did not say how much on their other forecasts out there like the congressional budget office.

that it was a was small range so they could fall by one percent or rise by two percent. nobody knows exactly how much. on average, the premiums will rise. host: how often do small businesses have their insurance premiums looked at? guest: i believe it's annually. people who work for big employers have to re-up their insurance every year. host: we are talking with jennifer corbettdoor about the potentialen rise. you own a small business, democrat line, hi. caller: i have a small business and have had for -- with about six employees. most are part-time.

into thet looked options for obama care. we have a very attractive plan with aetna where the total covers more still the small copay with doctors and very good hospitalization with a very small deductible. it's $360 per month. has gone up from $300 per month. it was maybe four years ago. my question is -- we pay 50% and the employee pays 50%. grows, will we be required to pay more than 50% in the future if business grows and we become regulated by the new health care law? guest: suarez i know, that will

not change. -- as far as i know, that will not change. as businesses -- you probably know that businesses who have fewer than 50 workers and not required to offer insurance to their employees. wantsmall business owners to provide insurance for themselves and their employees regardless of how big or small they are. host: next call is from the republican line, thanks for holding on. caller: i'm a democrat. question is my sister has a is this in west haven, connecticut. it's a small business and she said her employees who are well-paid are going to have a hard time affording health care is she small enough where she does not have to provided?

do they still have to buy it individually? guest: yes, as far as i know, her employees would have to buy it individually. in connecticut and that's another state running their own exchange. she may be advised to just go on the state website and look at the options for individuals and states. it's a lot for small business owners. to consider whether they are better off going on the individual market or staying and the small group market. they might get sticker shock. atst: they have more to look them large employers. host: as far as small businesses, we never really defined how the government looks at a small business. what's the definition? generally, 50 or under employees is considered a small business.

it's the equivalent of full-time employees so you could have more employees if some are part-time. a couple of other things related to the affordable care act -- a story yesterday isked about the deadline march 31. where are we as far as what the obama administration has to see as far as sign-ups? guest: i believe the last figure i saw was about 4 million people had signed up. i believe that was in the individual market so i don't know how well small business sign-ups are being tracked. there has been problems on the federal level in some states with exchanges. are not quite as reliable for the small businesses. business have just renewed their policies from laster said they are still -- they still have their old policy so it will be later this year

when they have to make decisions. the larger number is those who have to sign up at march 31. what is the administration have to do to meet that number? then to meet the number? guest: i believe they were aiming for six or 7 million. the individual deadline is by the end of the month. as far as i know, small businesses have more flexibility and can go into this mall business exchange at any time or go to the insurance broker and renew a policy. host: just in from tennessee. small business owner. caller: i have a small business with one employee currently and a lot of independent contractors. the market here in chattanooga, and it is very important for the individual policies. having been on the other side of that, independent contractor in

the industry and not accessing insurance over the past 10-15 years, i think it is a great idea what is going on. think eventually we could eliminate the companies from the industry. because it that way -- cut out the middleman, that is what i am thinking. am sure there would be a huge impact to cut out the middleman. guest: new castle, delaware. good morning. not a: i am small-business owner, but we have 10 employees where i work. i am not on the plan because my wife works for a large employer. for the other employees, they have health savings accounts end of major medical policy and it is all gone because apparently it was not able to be offered

anymore. apparently the rate has about doubled. will not hire another employee because that is the extra cost of the business of the insurance this year, and deduct the bulls have probably gone up threefold. a lot of people are going to pay the fine for not having insurance or not participating and will feel individually -- deal individually with providers and pay cash because there seems to be no benefit to having insurance right now. that is the situation my fellow employees are running into. everyone is pretty upset about it, especially employees. >> what changes has your wife seen i? works: nothing but she for the health-care industry. they value employee a's and have

taken the position that they will pay what it takes, because they are making money. , this isnal businesses a life or death situation for them. they have had to make some very tough decisions about the future of the business. a lot of businesses are not going to survive this. this is another way obama is trying to make it impossible to survive in this country. there are definitely businesses being impacted in a negative way. there are other stories were business owners will do better under the law, but definitely some doing worse. guest: lisa from jacksonville. a small business owner. caller: i am calling because as

a small business employer was under the the employees, i cannot afford to pay the premium. so they will have to do it individually. i cannot afford to pay them enough money to take the premium to afford obamacare. what is obamacare doing to make insurance companies lowering the premium so they can afford to opt in? host: insurance rates are regulated at the state level. they have to approve the rate each year. i do not know what your employees do now or how that works. host: so the insurance companies cannot the age insurance based on health or the status of health? yes, for pre-existing conditions. they used to be able to exclude people. now there is still a little bit on age, but not the lot of

factors they can rate on. host: james, thank you for holding on. independent line. caller: good morning. i do not have a small business as of yet, but nevertheless, right now i am disabled and owning a get back to small business. time will tell. stands right it now, medicaid, medicare and part on the total care plan. i tried signing up with obamacare. i am not eligible for obamacare. whatld like to understand

is happening with the whole situation. maybe you can explain it to me.com guest: i guest: it sounds like you probably did not need to do anything. if people are on medicare, they do not need to do anything. couple of lines i wanted to read to you and see if you can explain it to us. it said alternatively, it may be attractive for small employers with relatively healthy employees to continue to provide coverage but a self insured arrangement. if this becomes widely available, analysts expect a substantial increase in self-insured small employers. right. i am not 100% sure what that means. option that's small businesses can look at. an insurance broker probably walk them through that. next in atlanta,

georgia. republican line. caller: all of the people having trouble with health care now reid says law, harry they are all lining. lying?ying or who is this thing is terrible. i am thinking about investing in crematoriums. host: peter in maine. republican line. is moremy question directed to the reporter. this has been long now for four years. seems like the people were ambushed. all of the lies that were given to us about obamacare, we are all had seen this ip will research for four years.

now the american people do not .now what is happening >> definitely a ton of confusion out there. most people do not understand the law. still very complicated. well,ing i do not know as well understood if you are on medicare, you are not impacted. if you have insurance through a large employer, that your insurance, you are generally ok. there are still millions of insurance have to buy on their own or work for small businesses that are impacted. this is where you hear a lot of the noise, positive and negative. complicated people are just not sure what they need to do and are worried. they expect a small

increase but maybe not to the extent of how much it says in the report. >> they did not say. 65% could see an increase. might be a small increase. of are going to hear stories people getting bills where the premium is 2600 higher than last year. conversely here, business owners that have done much better. i talked to a small business and her deductible was like $15,000 per year. went on the individual market and did a lot better. again, we winners and losers. as small a small business owner, the small business access? guest: they do, but at least at the federal level, not working that well. reading you walk them through

that. some exchanges are running, some are not. probably have to consult an expert in this case. the federal level, i believe that online enrollment is not working. insurance to an broker and do it by paper and still be eligible. we are offering insurance in certain cases. jim is from illinois and next on the republican line. caller: good morning. a fascinating program. .wo questions for your guest you mentioned about the small business exchange and whatnot. my understanding is the small business mandate has been delayed for two years. i was wondering if you could

talk about the circumstances surrounding that delay. also, the cms study methodology. why would some businesses see their premiums go up, and other businesses see their premiums go basicallythey are all buying into what is essentially the same market. guest: it small businesses have fewer than 50 full-time employees, they do not have to buy insurance. probably the most significant part of the delay is between 50 and 99. they do not have to comply until 2019. the 50-99 was the biggest delay. , they looked at

the time preowned affordable care act and then post and it is the changes involve how they rate for risk. saw a copy of the report. paving. these was going to say is businesses, if they want to switch employees, they can switch them to llc's. each individual employee. by doing that, they get a better tax write off. they are not responsible to pay the insurance. guest: i am not quite sure about

the llc's. sounds like they -- he has done his research. for each of you individually buying. eddie from north carolina. republican line. like you areems saying some people are better off than others. it seems like everyone else has to purchase the plan, as if they are being hurt by this. , you hear stories on both sides. you have some people paying more and others paying less. you hear stories of people who cannot get insurance before because they had cancer or diabetes or some pre-existing condition and they cannot get insurance. >> for those that sign up on the individual market, how many of

them did not have insurance to start with? we really do not know. it is not being tracked. i think there is not even a form on the application. part of the goal of the affordable care act was to extend insurance to people who are uninsured. there is a lot of evidence that people signing up in the exchanges had insurance on their own and now they're going to the exchange. there is probably a good that that states are expanding medicaid, that many of them have been insured before and are now able to get insurance. host: do we know how many are using the insurance already ca? have seen conflicting reports. i am not sure if the federal government has put that report out.

you can view her work on mine thank you for your time. coming up, helping to lead to spurring industry creating jobs known as manufacturing hubs. mark merrill will tell us more about that next. first, and up date of c-span radio. on today's talks at the white house. mic noller, chief white house correspondent treats this hour that president obama and the israeli prime minister will talk more and then a plan for the middle east will also include on iran.an agenda also tweeting that there are white house talks scheduled from -- two weeks from today with the palestinian president. the commerce department says u.s. consumer spending increased

in january while income was up zero point three percent. americans boosted spending in january despite the harsh enter weather but activity much weaker in december than initially reported. closely spending is watched because it drives 70% of the economic activity. despite the snowstorm that shut down most of the nation's capital, the supreme court will hear oral arguments in the death penalty appeal or a condemned man claims he is disabled. left the decision on setting the standards of disability to the state. the high court releases audio of the oral arguments in c-span radio airs an argument every friday afternoon. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. the internet as we know it today bears no resemblance to

monopoly telephone service back in the 1930's and 1940's and 1950's. and what the courts have said supportsthe congress is if i walk into a grocery store and buy a gallon of milk and pay $3.50 per gallon, five by 10 colin -- 10 gallons, i paid 35 for all 10 gallons. tom wheeler once to say you can use as much milk as you want and you only have to pay $3.50. that is just wrong. netflix is the biggest user of the internet as people download movies. sometimes as much as 30% of the total value of the internet. obviously they should pay more than someone who uses it once per month. that is the genesis. these companies have spent billions and billions of dollars to set up the systems and provide a fiber optics and make

a speed's that we take for granted on the volumetric basis. at some level they should be allowed to charge on volume. >> tonight on " the communicators" on cspan2. continues. journal" host: looking at the project established in -- establishing manufacturing hubs across the united states. last week president obama announced two new hubs in chicago and detroit and talk about what these and others will do. partnerships that bring together countries and universities to develop cutting edge technology, train workers to use the technology, and then ise sure the research translated into real-world products made by american workers.

here to talkrrell with us more about this. where do we get the idea of manufacturing hubs from? host guest: good morning. manufacturing matters is the starting point for the obama administration. manufacturing innovation is really important. we will continue to see jobs offshore and lose our position in key technology. i think the idea here is can the federal government, with seed funding, stabile eight -- stimulate collaborative innovation projects that can really move all whole series of technologies ahead? the idea is a little bit of federal money, pull in a lot of hard bit and local money, and you can create the kind of partnerships that will drive attack from key

problems to drive forward manufacturing whether it is additive effect shrink, use of new materials and so on. let's try it here is the idea. host: two hubs currently in use. one deals with 3-d printing and youngstown, ohio. raleigh north carolina has energy-efficient electronics. the one in ohio and one in michigan. this does not seem like traditional manufacturing. it is not your parents manufacturing. we are not cranking out millions of the exact same widget. these take knowledges are moving fast. is going to keep up. it is a different world now with constant innovation and technology breakthroughs

critical. i think this is a response by agentited states against and german challengers. host: how do they work? guest: the idea is that .overnment is not stipulating should be how it attacked. a $70 million investment over a few years that must be matched by competitive bids from around the country. you are asking industry to groupings to attack it. you put in feed money. a 50-50 match. you put together a collaborative attack on the issues. usually regionally based. we think regions of a lot of

expertise in them. projectson a series of to attack particular problems. not just 1, 2, 3 of hundreds of things that need to be addressed. how much does the government invested so far?] guest: talking about 70 million on average with the presumption that after that time they become self-supporting. talking about 160 million play now. the idea is that after 5-6 years , they become self standing and self-supporting. in to the game, they will grow and continue. host: this may be anything a

university or a state might contribute yucca what about businesses themselves? million fromery 70 the government, 70 million coming in. youngstown is an extraordinary university,of state community college and big contributions from corporate. meanwhile, four out of five state governors are supporting these. i think there is a way in which this will gain traction. host: manufacturing hubs and spurring manufacturing is the topic. if you have a question, you can call in. ,emocrats (202) 737-0001 independents (202) 628-0205. or sendyour thoughts

us e-mail. isfar as the hub concept concerned, is this a new thing or they have done this in other areas as well? preview in the a department of energies innovation has. somewhat the same model. more dependentre on regional partnerships. the concept is relatively new in the u.s. in the past decade. other countries like germany have been at this for a while. that is part of the challenge here, that germany or asian challengers are biting into the public-private partnership model with a focus on innovation. this is a way for the u.s. to step up its game. how many really need to

happen as far as to make a real impact on developing jobs? host: it is a big country in manufacturing is diverse. think of the huge flow of technologies and products around us. and it is an exciting time with technology. germany as ag country, third of our size, has 60 of these. you can imagine the need for many more. the obama administration has mentioned 15 in the near-term. 45other points, the number mentions. you can make a list of hundreds of technology that really need to be attacked. i think the idea is you can get some of the started, some of them will become self starting

eventually but need the federal seed money to get some of these going. from our first call comes rudy and garland, texas. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. you have a technical degree in mechanical engineering, are there opportunities for entrepreneurial pursuits that -- where you can pursue starting have hadring? i experience with major corporations, mainly in automotive and aerospace industry. i was curious about mechanical engineering. you can pursue these because as you pursue these it is -- as you get older, it is tougher to get into the job market. i wanted to get your comments on that. explosively are

growing areas. one goal is to create education efforts to build the workforce of the future. one of you should hope these institutes opens in texas and it should did involved with programs around it. i think the first goal is not training for the second one is. i think we need to rebuild any fracturing workforce. do we call it 3d printing? guest: you can call it that. think of the savings. you is a process in which do not really fabricate parts in the same way. they require far less machining. you can go directly from an ipad by printing this

out. savings the incredible and process time, design time, iteration, creating new models. 5-6 in a date. in a day. an incredibly time saving technology. much pickingas winners and losers rather than that technology. what is interesting is in thehallenges oinked general direction, but the actual projects, the actual approach to innovation are required for the industry. so the flavor on the topics comes bottom of out of industry.

i think that is an extremely important aspect. i think the administration is trying to gesture toward general areas but not over specify, and i think that is incredibly important. host: john from pennsylvania. caller: i wanted to say i am highly skip the call of the program and raced on the track record for things like the green energy projects. not even taxpayer money, but our grandchildren's taxpayer money. to the people who are headed by campaign fund dollars. naturally they go belly up and will never pay the money back in. they are riding high on the money they stole. see this as political payoffs. one in chicago. certainly there have been

areamisfires in the energy . at the same time, i think there is much greater skin in the game from the industry side here. i think that is critical. i think that is a critical difference. we are talking about a few years of investment. bythey are not maintained delivering value to industry, they are over. i think there are real safeguards here. host: when the chicago tribune editors were talking about the announcement. here is what they said -- guest: well, solyndra has become

a factor over basically any in industries.t that was one failure in a program where there are a lot of successes. clearly not all of these will be triumphant. some of them will have breakout successes and will last over the years with increased support. some of them will fall by the wayside. i think we are structured to provide safeguards against political pork at the caller is referring to. i was going to ask which type of political oversight is given to these? specific targets in terms of delivering technology. one of the next ones has

absolute targets for over years reducing the cost of kaiser -- carbon fiber to a certain point. i think it is very well structured in that respect. valuation -- evaulation. obviously management of the money is carefully done. i think the crucial thing here is that you have the fundamental check of industry skin in the game. the bulk of the money in these will be private sector are. from bob next call is in florida. republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for the show. mauro talking about manufacturing. however, it seems to me these projects are more in the area of development.

it and itntee is finally comes to manufacturing that it will be done in the united states? is an important question. the idea is increasingly manufacturing will occur where the technology base is deep. we have been seeing the manufacturing base hollowed out. i think these institutes will be critical in building the keeptise that will manufacturing here. it becomes more of an activity. it will need to be close to its research and development base. i think your question is good, and i think these institutes are kind of the answer to the question.

again, the your money segment as far as weekly we take a look at programs and initiatives by the federal government. we're talking about manufacturing hubs with our guest. this was an issue laid out. if you want to give them a call and ask him about what is going on, (202) 737-0001, republicans (202) 737-0002 and (202) 628-0205 four independence. president strike out on his own to do this? is hardt a time when it to get appropriation on any topic. there is ready good bipartisan based on this. there are four senate sponsors. e-60 in the house. a broadly popular topic. a convergence topic i think. a

you are whatever reason not getting the ability to appropriate and stand up new programs. themnk the idea is start himself. meanwhile, i think if you can there, let'sy out see if industries and states and universities will pick it up. i think there is a decent chance here at getting the beginnings of a real network of these things underway with a minimum of federal investment. anaheim, california is where it is. caller: i call myself ross perotian. facts, andtruth,

results. if you want to find out what is really going on, follow the money. i was watching this tv show a long time ago on discovery .hannel most countries exports, do not want to import. i believe if a company wants to make a product from china, that is fine. they just cannot bring it back here. i believe we should adopt the trade policies of china, japan, korea and mexico to the state. if you do not make it here, you cannot sell it here. we adopted the trade policy, we would not need the enterprise zones. i can create 25 million good wage jobs in as many years by this policy. thank you for taking my call. goal, again, i think gore

your implied goal is an admirable one of boosting manufacturing in the united states. i think that is beginning to happen. energy prices are declining. this is a good base to manufacture in many ways. foreign countries are coming here to manufacture. the idea of the institutes is to build manufacturing expertise. let's be at the forefront of the technologies and bring more manufacturing here. about mandating where manufacturing o cursed the best way, but we should clearly create incentives for manufacturing in the united states. host: ron peterson in an e-mail asks -- the idea i want to ask you, is

the federal government are ready does a lot of investment. why on top of that doing me the absolutely,st: widely recognized. the national governments have to invest in innovation a cut some of it will not occur naturally. not an individual company's interests to invest heavily in some of the technologies that will be shared i other companies. a recognized role for the government. let's say a lot of the investments, i think we have been not so good at making sure .esearch dollars are applied that they are leading to commercialization and near-term improvements in industry and benefits for u.s. taxpayers.

say these institutes thein not at 25-30 year sick science games -- games that .eared-term 5-10 year commercially valuable benefit and solutions to projects defined by industry. i think your question is right, but i think it is a distinctive kind of research that is more on the development side than research side. if you have a lot of partners developing a technology , technology gets developed and eventually gets commercial. who owns the patents and how are they divided and things like those are crucial issues. each one will have protocols and things like that. part of the idea is to make sure they become technologies that are supportive for whole industries. ways to make sure the

technology is available. wyoming. republican line. caller: good morning. a lot of good products are made from alloy steel or aluminum. how do they produce something from deal or outline -- alloy? some of the 3-d printing is beginning to use light weight metals. an example oft is the kind of efficiencies that and potentially could be revolutionary. the other chump is the move directly from digital laptop or computer design directly to fabrication. ed of next.

greenbelt, maryland. democrats line. proud: i am a african-american scientist and phd physicist. i went to school in germany. they have an exchange program over there. [inaudible] germany they chamber work this ise semester and towards a phd in german. i had to take the german exam in order to get my degree there. during the summers, we as students, myself and african friends of mine that went into industry and they train you to do the same job that the germans to when they go on vacation. i love that. that is the best investment i

ever made and myself. we should do something similar in this country. you are a breath of fresh air. if we duplicate the effort in the united states and can do things to make progress in the country, there is no reason why we should not be fully employed and america. you would think since martin luther king we have made progress, but we are going downhill. if we continue on the course we are going right now, allowing industry to leave the country and growing of broad, we will have serious problems. right now the industry goes towards what you're looking at. mechanical engineering. three dimensional stuff can be controlled by computers. we should have an edge on that thing. we touched on this earlier. one of the collateral benefits

of the institutes is there will be forums for the education and trainingand hands-on of the next generation of manufacturing professionals in america. seeing a newe interest in manufacturing across the board, especially in young people in the exciting technologies. but i think your point is right, if we are going to have the manufacturing resurgence, it will require creating a new workforce. i think that will begin to happen. a critic from -- critique from james on the website. he says --

guest: i think that it's happening to. i should note that the industries that have been stood up so far tend to have fortune 500 companies and a strong emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises. i think these are not necessarily entrepreneurship centers. i think we have myriad opportunities for that in the country. exploding start up community right now. focusk he is right that a on the smaller mid-sized entities is important. i think that has been very evident in the winning applicants for the institute. far as who gets chosen, what is the application process like? extensivetty

challenge. these are very competitive rance in each case. they have to put together an expression of technical proposal, but they also have to demonstrate the right kind of partners, the right kind of matching money. these are pretty rigorous. i think for those that have been arrayed -- awarded to date, i think there has been something like 45 applicants. right rigorous. in some cases the losers continue to cooperate and participate with some of the winners. desire to dorly a this. and put a lot of money into it. next from is up texas. republican line. caller: yes, republican leaning ross perot.

i want to tell a story about how government and business work together. there once was a little company logging and monitoring garden tools. the great-grandson wanted to build a designer car. behind this said if we give a nobel prize out, maybe we will get a billion-dollar mountain. what do you know, i own a hatchet at they make. it is called with this card. that is how governments and industry and money work. it is really one of those things where the press is delinquent in bringing this to light where you have to have a carpenter from houston bring it up on tv. , and everyone it said oh, could not be. but it is. thank you. well, i think this

country has a very broad respect of free enterprise and a good tradition of public-caused -- public-profit to drive innovation machine. i think this is an updated version on innovation. the recognizemake research and development activity per dissipation of government even closer to the business of industry. host: our guest. columbia, you missouri. caller: thank you for taking my call. is there a way to go online or research the companies that got the grant? who the principles are in the companies. and because i know the news will never check this out, if there

were campaign funds given by the principles to anyone? could post thean names and the principles that can be checked out, i would appreciate it. host: if you go to .mnmi.cturing.gov it tells about the projects put forward about the administration and the backing of it as well. guest: absolutely. you can read the names of all , andcipant companies nothing wrong with checking of the boards of directors and looking at campaign records on those. process has been strongly insulated against politics. i think the need here is to have for manufacturing

in america. i think that is the goal. i think the administration is looking for wayans here. host: are these hubs open ended in nature? guest: they are not in terms of federal funding. these are one-time infusions of seed money, 70-80,000,000 dollars over five years. after that, i think the assumption is they will be on their own. what gets started with seed money and money to draw out that partnership could become self valuableif they become . if they are proving their valuable to boeing and small sme's in ohio.

small and medium-sized businesses or in each of these places. could become standing. they could become almost like ongoing research hubs. some of them will fade away, and i suppose some of them will be around 20 years. at next from shreveport, louisiana. republican line. they sent my job to singapore. .t was cheaper labor 7000 people unemployed. they all got unemployment but that is just a pacifier for america. time to put manufacturing back on the road. we are lowball now. becauseto do something, we are falling apart. like the treat.

moved the cars overseas. bombed japan and they are bombing us with japanese cars. look at all the japanese cars. time to get a level playing field in this world. i think that we are seeing trends are not immutable. eight years ago we assumed to church was heading to the scrappy in the united states. ,etroit has reinvented itself not just by reinventing how it pays its workers but through innovation. example oft is an how industries can be altered with the right kind of interventions. manufacturingbout in this country. churning out it is a bit more

expensive to pay people in asia than we thought. turns out energy cheaper than we thought. turns out we have the dominant software base in the country. programming is much more important. think we should guard against determinism. the u.s. could be a winner in the advanced into fracturing niche we are talking about this morning. you talked about germany's experience. matt smith says can you comment on the manufacturing base in germany. why does it remains strong? a lot of reasons, but there is a maniacal focus on innovation. we talked about the u.s. hubs program. the bottom half or institute is a network of about 60 of these things.

make sure jim -- germany has the leading edge of industry after industry, technology after technology, i they can germans feel create thousands of good paying jobs by being the innovator in the world manufacturing. i think that is the pathway for the united states. host: are there multi-streams of funding or strictly government? guest: they have the partnership model to but ongoing government funding. bottom-upiever in the nature of the country. i think we can use limited federal seed money to stimulate the partnerships that ultimately will take on a life of their own . i think that keeps everyone

honest. keeps technology development close to what industry means, and i think that is a difference may be in want would be an american model as opposed to the german model. host: george from west virginia. caller: good morning. think on for c-span. i am a believer in free enterprise. i am 83 years old and starting from when the country one -- was first founded and everyone came over to the united states and started the country, everything was free enterprise. the government was not involved in anything. i think the biggest problem we have is the government is involved in too many things. they want to what do and start the businesses and run the businesses. they should have rules and regulation and everything, but that is it. just like the environmental department, they have rooms --

ruined the country. also, this global warming thing. the biggest first there ever was. guest: i think this is a decentralized country. deeplyry that believes in free enterprise. i think it has always been a tradition of limited federal or government interventions to public-private collaboration, especially in technology. complaining that u.s. department of defense effort through the cold war built the technology industry in america. call thaty did not free enterprise or did not call that industrial policy but it had tremendous impact on the future of technology.

i think these are limited intervention to stimulate collaboration that will lead to i think major returns for u.s. manufacturing technology. host: is there an unintended consequence yangon if you develop new technologies, are you developing technology that will take away jobs? guest: that is a very good question. i think that is separate from the technology have. we have a big question about the replacement of labor i machines in this country. i think that is a world challenge. maybe one of the institutes will take on the question of identifying what the human role is in working with machines rather than having them replaced humans. national network of manufacturing innovation is where you can find out more. .here is the from page for you

we have a link on twitter if you would like to check that out for yourself as well. elizabeth, hot springs national park. independent line. caller: i am calling because anytime i see someone on your promoting any program something from obama, i know it is a scam to the american people. it just reeks of redistribution of money. many thatompany among failed with american dollars. funding byu hear , this isivate funding another distribution of american dollars. people have, and bought of the companies from china for pennies on the dollar. it is all american money. in terms of -- i do not

see this as of redistribution. whichthis as a place in you need the government to help stimulate strong investment by the private sector. i think these are temporary efforts to do that. i think they will have huge returns. i certainly hope that is measured. the downstream value in terms of new patents, new processes, new jobs. theve been impressed by focus on relatively near-term of livery -- delivery of value to taxpayers. this is one i think they're basically getting right.

host: martha roby, policy director of brookings institution. thank you. a new edition of the show comes your way of 7:00 tomorrow. see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] http://twitter.com/cspanwj [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the washington, d.c. area is in the middle of a major snowstorm, as you can see all stop the snow was coming down -- as you can see, with snow coming down an icy roads. the house announced it would not be in session. the senate is in session, but

they will be postponing a vote on the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the justice department. many of the event we were planning on covering has been canceled as well as of the weather. secretary of state john kerry is scheduled to speak at the american israel public affairs committee, or aipac, conference. live coverage of that begins at 5 p.m. with the israeli prime minister speaking at 6:15 p.m. meets with president obama at the white house. the associated press reporting that russia's foreign minister says his troops have been streaming into neighboring ukraine to protect russian citizens there. ukraine is accusing russia of a military invasion and is calling on the kremlin to pull its troops out of crimea. you and secretary-general ban ki-moon will meet with the russian foreign minister today discuss the situation. secretary of state john kerry will be traveling to ukraine tomorrow.