anz has the pomer latest on the situation the ukraine. "washington journal" is next. ♪ ♪ everyone,morning, 2014.unday, march 9, rand paul topped this year's political conservative action conference straw poll for --ential 2013 candidates 2016 candidates. the second-place finisher, ted cruz, took 11% of the votes. we will begin there this morning with republicans only and your choice for 2016. if you live in the eastern central part of the country, three 880. seven --

if you live in the mountain pacific area, 202-585-3881. you can also e-mail us or join us on facebook or twitter. rand paul addressed the sea crowd on friday. here is a little bit of his beach. [video clip] the sons of liberty who fought against british soldiers would today make a bonfire of secret orders issued by federal police. the sons of liberty risked everything to guarantee your right to a trial by jury. today they would call out to the president. they would say -- we will not be detained, spied upon, nor have our rights abridged. we will not submit and we will not trade our liberty for security. not now, not ever. [applause]

yet as our voices rise in protest, the nsa monitors every phone call. if you have a cell phone, you're under surveillance. i believe that what you do on your cell phone is none of their dam business. senator rand paul, addressing the seatac crowd. this is what he tweeted yesterday after the straw poll results -- did -- together we will stand up for the constitution. onwards to victory. nancy callow has more on the sunday lineup. >> today the topics will include

the situation in ukraine, the federal budget, and politics. you can hear rebroadcast of the programs on c-span radio beginning at noon eastern with guestshe press dear co today include tony lincoln and cardinal timothy dolan. at 1 p.m. eastern it is "this week," with rand paul and ted , as well as mike rogers, chairman of the intelligence committee. at 2 p.m., "fox news sunday." and bobnclude rand paul gates. "state of the union" follows at 3:00. another appear he and by the lithuanian ambassador and the estonian ambassador. we will also hear from charlie crist, former governor of florida. with00, "face the nation,"

dick cheney, james baker, and paul ryan. talk showsnetwork tv are on c-span radio and brought to you as a public service i the networks and c-span. again, those rebroadcast begin at noon eastern with "meet the press," 1:00, "this week," 2:00 "face"fox news sunday," the nation," at 4:00. xmoss the country on satellite radio, find us on channel 120. you can download the free app for your smartphone -- smartphone or listen online at c-span.org. callow, c-span radio, giving you a rundown of the sunday talk shows. a few potential 2016 presidential contenders showing up. senator rand paul was able to

top the list for the sea pack strong pull -- straw poll. here is the story in "politico." "rand paul route in sea pack -- cpac straw poll. we want to get your thoughts on .ho your choice is we have divided the lines. shannon is up first from fort benning, georgia. who is your choice? caller: it would be rick perry. host: why is that? caller: i am originally a texan. and everyoneserved is so focused on this, that, and the other about obama. obama has cut back so much on the military to the point where

my husband has not had a raise since he has taken office. he has actually lost money. he supports us every year and we suffer along with middle-class, more hours than anybody. the part of america that has been forgotten about. host: how would you describe your philosophy or your husband's philosophy about getting involved in conflicts overseas? we have pretty much always been the world's strongest armed force, always been the country with that much curry age. kind of a rebel country, almost. we are there to stand up against anything that is going to affect anybody that is pretty much innocent of this whole theme of aggression. it is ridiculous, and

embarrassment. our country,rves but now he looks like a coward? you know? host: thank you. matt, peachtree, georgia, republican caller. your choice? caller: rand paul, all the way. host: why is that? caller: we need to get back the constitution. host: what about it? we haveall the things been violated. the nsa spying. [indiscernible] --host: we are listening, go ahead. nsaer: i do not like the listening to my phone calls. we need to get back the constitution and protect ourselves. right, greg, indianapolis, talking to republicans only this morning, your pick for 2016? caller: in las vegas we are

having a convention that is the opposite of cpac, for black conservatives. believe that dr. ben carson would be a great representative of conservative values, but looking at the hostility that the republican party has towards black people, they would waste away his talents by trying to put him on the ticket as vice president. our party is not really ready to follow a black man at this time, believes in all the things that we say. did you see that he was third on the straw poll? he got nine percent of the vote. caller: absolutely. i do not believe that we will be used as long jet. -- as a lawn

jockey to show diversity. the mainstream republican party will not follow a black man. as a black republican, i hate to say that, but some of the talking points they give me on the radio as a lack man, i could not respectfully say them. you said hostility towards african-americans. from the republican party. give us an example. caller: shoot me, what did you say now? of thatve us an example hostility towards african-americans. caller: a lot of the subtle ways that they try to play the race card by inferencing food stamps. eggs of that nature. as a republican i get offended when they give me talking points where they try to get me to talk about jesse jackson and louis farrakhan altogether as some serve cancer for america just because we might not i agree -- might not agree with them

ideologically or theologically. until we clear ourselves of that element in the republican party, it will be hard for us to convert people to ideological ways of being conservative in a and compassionate way. host: all right. ben carson spoke at the sea pack cop -- cpac conference. you can catch that on our website. ted cruz also spoke of the conference. here is what he had to save from his speech on thursday. [video clip] >> a lot of consultants say that there is a choice for republicans to make. we can choose to keep our head down, not rock the boat, not stand for anything. or we can stand for principles. they say that if you stand for principle, you lose elections. the way to do it, the stop -- the smart way, the washington way, is not to stand against nothing. i want to tell you something,

that is a false dichotomy. [applause] want to lose elections? stand for nothing. the last for congressional four, we, three of the follow that strategy. 6, 8, 12, we stood for nothing and we got walloped. the one election that was a tremendous election was 2010, when republicans juror lied in the sand. we said that we stood unequivocally against obamacare and we won by a historic tidal wave. senator ted cruz at cpac this week with his comments. you can see all the speeches on c-span.org. senator ted cruz, coming in second in the straw poll taken

at the cpac conference here in washington of potential 2016 contenders. morning,publicans this who is your pick for the next campaign cycle? karel, republican caller, hello. carl, republican caller. a lot of republicans are wasting time on this program. host: why was he not a real republican? caller: do you, really? he saidhe was --host: he was. caller: [laughter] long as democrats controlled the white house and the irs, they will dry up all the money for the republican party because they will be afraid to donate money because they know the irs will come after them.

this, you know, that is just the way it is. your pickcarl, who is for 2016? caller: tell the guy from indiana that i like ben carson, he is a smart guy. but please, don't let these democrats call in on the republican line and take up all the host: time, ok? all right -- all the time, ok? ant: all right, it is honesty policy here. we are saying republicans only today. dylan, virginia, good morning. comment,egarding that i hope that is a registered republican he does not hate my libertarian ideology. tell everyone in 2012 what were ron paul started, that you will not pull in the independent vote, the people -- i cannot tell you how many people voted for obama over ron paul because he did not endorse

anybody and they went for the lesser of two evils. rand paul one for a reason yesterday. we are trying to tell everyone that this is pretty much our last chance. i think it or health is not up to date. the people choosing, then carson, herman cain, i have a feeling that the next black president would be a republican black president, but i think that today regarding the constitution, the diversity that we see in the united states, the main way to bring everyone together will be through a constitutional conservative candidate. i think we will find that with rand paul. on 50% of thegree government? host: can i jump in and ask you something? let me show you the des moines register, they have this story this morning about the latest poll from iowa democrats and iowa republicans. the poll, iowa

republicans are favoring paul ryan, mike huckabee, rick perry, rick santorum. topping the list for iowa republicans. your guy is rand paul. do you think this makes it difficult for him to get through a primary, hypothetically, out of iowa? caller: not one bit. if you think about it, back in 2012 the people leading up to the straw poll and people were paul wound upon winning it after looking at the delegates. there was so much fraud going on. i was down there in tampa. what they understand did. you are saying that because rick mike huckabee and shotgun santorum are leading according to some neoconservative article, i cannot believe that. i think that time will tell and the fact that the people of iowa woke up the last time and listen

to what we were trying to say was a shock. look at what happened in maine. we got on by the republican establishment and we will not let that happen again. want that to happen again? fine, keep them in power. don't know what to tell you guys. host: how do you beale -- how do you view the republican leadership in washington? caller: this whole tea party notion, my sister married a britt. i cannot even say anything. he does not think that there are black people in the tea party. i have to show him pictures. butare going to get him, you have to start making some libertarian comments. the serious issue? i cannot express to you how much that really divides us, that foreign-policy issue. thank god the syrian invasion was shot down. that was really close to world war iii, if you ask me. the notion of a gunshot and

russia? leave them alone. we will not kisses but when he expects us to do what he tells us to do. host: there is a piece this morning in "the new york times," leading republicans move to stamp out challenges from the right.

that is reporting from "the new york times" this morning about that tension. al, massachusetts, your pick for 2016? go ahead. caller: sorry, it is a bit early for me to to decide on who i iuld really want. the person would really like, the person who can articulate the message, we have had six years of people going clueless to the far left. a couple of trillion dollars that have not moved to this economy or gone anywhere? we need to go back to the

1980's. it is like 17%, 18%. federal revenue one out. tipper o'neill and those spent money. we have to goat around the liberal news media, like reagan did, setting an agenda to educate this country about what conservative values mean, about profit participation and how having a strong military wards off people like prudent. i think it is a teachable moment for the president. that he could listen to a potential candidate and realize he is taking this country down the wrong road, america. host: we will keep taking your phone calls about 2016 and who republicans out there would like to see as their candidate for the upcoming election cycle, but it in other news this story is

in many of the papers this morning, the flight from malaysia to beijing the disappeared. authorities are saying that passport theft adds to the mystery of this missing plane. here is a map together i jessica, who does graphics for " the wall street journal." this is the flight map, updated with detailed flight paths and locations of the oil slick's. some people are pointing to the oil slicks as a clue that perhaps this was some sort of terrorist act. so, the authorities are looking into that. including the united states. most of the pentagon has been surveillanceta and video from that area. folks from the transportation agency here in washington have flown to malaysia. that is on the front pages of many of the papers this morning.

on the front page of "the new york times" they have the story, "automakers dismiss complaints leading to deaths." the front pagen of "the new york times" this morning. on the ukraine, condoleezza rice, former secretary of state and national security advisor to president bush, writes in the opinion section of "the

washington post," "ukrainian wakeup call."

we will talk about that coming up later here on "the washington journal." dig into the details a little bit, the tensions in the ukraine -- in the ukraine and what is going on in the crimea region this morning. but first this morning, republicans early -- republicans only, your pick for 2016. rand paul topped the list at the cpac poll. but they heard from many throughout the week. paul ryan, the house budget chairman and vice presidential candidate from 2012 also spoke. there is a little bit on what he had to say. [video clip]

>> the way that the democrats talk about it, there is infighting, backbiting, discord. look, i am irish. that is my idea of a family reunion. [laughter] [applause] see this great divide in our party. what i see is a vibrant debate. we are figuring out the best way to apply our principles to the challenges of the day. sure, we have our disagreements. yes, they can get a little passionate. i like to think of it as creative tension. for the most part? these disagreements have not been over principles or even policies. they have been over tactics. so, i think we should give each other the benefit of the doubt. host: paul ryan, republican of wisconsin, vice presidential candidate in 2012, talking

week. cpac this we cover that on c-span.org, if you miss that speech and others. derek, your pick for 2016? c-span andppreciate your coverage of the seed of the -- of the cpac conference this weekend. it was are a comprehensive. i am a big fan of senator paul and governor walker. think the governor walker is one of our best our course candidates of 2016. but the person who surprised me the most was rick perry. he was sharp, eloquent, and one panel in particular that he was on, the criminal justice reform panel on saturday morning? he was on with bernie kerrick, of new york, and grover

norquist. surprised at some of your democratic listeners. they were talking about getting rid of mandatory minimums, reducing recidivism rates. these are things they were doing in texas. rick perry was a great master of that. i would encourage anyone, especially democratic listeners, to go on the c-span website and check that out. i was surprised by what i heard. host: did you listen to his speech as well? caller: i did. i thought that was great. he got the crowd going. he seemed kind of sedate, but we learned afterwards that he had just had back surgery. but i think he is back. he might surprise us in the coming years. host: all right. let's show our viewers a little but of what the former texas governor had to say. rather, stepping down as governor. governor rick very, from texas.

[video clip] electt is why we need to the right leaders to washington. leaders who believe in free market. not in a bigger federal government. leaders who respect the freedom of the individual instead of depriving them of the power to realize a dream. it is time for washington to thes on the few things constitution establishes as the federal government's role. defend our country. a cogent foreign policy. what the heck, deliver the mail, roughly on time and on saturdays. [applause] get out of the health care business. of the education business. stop hammering industry.

let the sleeping giant of american enterprise tree a prosperity again. att: governor rick perry, cpac with his speech. we are getting republican only thoughts this morning on 2016 into your pick is. on twitter robert says that his choice would be ted cruz for president, ben carson for vice president. banca -- bob, what do you think? muchr: it would not make difference which one was president. they would both be superior to what we have now. i think that rick perry deserves another look. i like rand paul, but i am leery of all this isolationism. i am old enough to remember what we had in world war ii. we were isolationist before, while hitler was trying to take over.

in fact our military was in such poor shape, my father had to train with a broomstick. i don't want that to happen to us again. so, you're worried about that? caller: yes. anytime -- host: what about marco rubio? he talks a lot about foreign policy. he writes articles in politico about eight things that president obama could do on the ukraine, trying to establish himself as the port -- foreign policy candidate. what do you make of him? he has hurt himself quite a bit with the immigration thing. i am not anti-immigrant, but we need an orderly process. amnesty is not an orderly process. it just isn't right. laws, wele break our

should not give them bonuses. ok, all right. this is from "national journal" magazine. simplistic, according to

one member of the reagan administration." "four other experts, it was evidence of a more worrisome issue, one that no one is talking about now, but one that was brought into relief by the ongoing crisis in ukraine, with its cold war overtones. whether it included chris christie in the group or not, the leading republican party names possessed precious little foreign-policy experience. as in virtually none. they may be going up against a whose lastopponent job was the secretary of state and who has been traveling the world and being given speeches on foreign policy for the last 20 years." republicans only this morning. joe, rockville center, new york. what do you think? oh, boy, that last one,

saying that he didn't want to be isolationist? we are presently killing people in seven countries. we are the bullies of the world. i don't want my country to be the bully of the world. to get back to your question, i like rand paul. anyone that has to -- the gets my vote for president has to believe in the constitution of the united states, not just say that they do. i like chris christie from new jersey, but i will be listening closely. i want to find out if they are going to bring back jobs to america. not $10 per hour jobs. not minimum wage. i want them to say what is expected to be a livable wage in this country, where a person can buy a house and raise a family, bring those jobs back to america with their policies. host: so, foreign-policy -- caller: foreign policy is

important to me. being a bully is not important to me. the article that you read from "the post? about not stabilizing the country? we are the ones who de-stabilized afghanistan. i do not want our kids going around the world dying to destabilize other governments. that one was condoleezza rice writing in "the washington post." caller: she won't get my vote. you are asking me who i like. i want people who are going to respect other nations. treat the world as human beings, mind our business, build our economy. look at what china is doing over there. they have over one billion people making sure that everyone of their people has a job. our government has used the last couple of decades to send our jobs to china. people like that?

i don't need. we have to vote for people who want our jobs here. our economy strong. less power on wall street and the believe in the constitution. all right. marco rubio, another potential contender in 2016, using the podium this week to talk about the president's leadership around the world. [video clip] that our country be united in moments like this, but we cannot ignore the flawed foreign-policy of the last couple of years that brought us to the stage. we have a president that believes that by the sheer force of his risen now the he would be able to shape global events. we have a president who believes that by going around the world and giving key speeches, he can shape the behavior of other nations and other people. we do not have the luxury of seeing the world the way we hope it would be, we have to see it

the way it is and we must address these issues before they grow unmanageable and threaten not just our freedoms, but our economy. that is the true challenges that we have in the 21st-century. we must confront them with a seriousness of purpose that requires an american foreign-policy deeply rooted in values and principles. senator marco rubio, talking about foreign-policy issues at cpac. he talks a lot about it, has written a lot of articles about the president's leadership and conflicts around the world. john, martins ferry, hello. caller: hi. host: who is your pick for 2016? caller: it is too early to tell. i would like to make a comment, at the risk of sounding politically incorrect. earlierleman who called

made a comment about dr. ben carson. it was a slap in the face of dr. carson. what the man basically said was that dr. carson is being used as upon, which he is not. there is many a black man and woman that i would vote for if they ran for president, including dr. carson. allen west is a syndicated, the -- colonist. thomas wolfe, walter williams. i would like to say this, the people that use the race card, president obama is not black. he's biracial. he's a half read. a lot of people use the race card to their advantage and it is not right. let's call it like it is. he is not a black president, he is biracial. his mom is white, but you never hear people comment on that. host: why do you think that

matters? caller: because it causes division. it causes division. if you noticed, it is always used that way. we are against him because he is black. no, i am against him because of his character and policies. anyone in the republican party, anybody in any party that believes in the constitution no matter what color they are, i would vote for them because the constitution is what matters. host: ok. larry, ohio, your pick for 2016? caller: dr. carson. dr. carson. we need a non-establishment candidate. i am not a tea party type worsen. not part of cpac. i believe in their goals, but i will not be voting for an established republican in 2016. i will be sitting it out. i would go with ted cruz if he

gets it, but any of these others, like christie? i voted for romney. heaven knows. i will not take what they are throwing at us. we have to close the borders. the republican senate and congress could stop a lot of these executive orders that obama is issuing through his czars concerning the epa, the oil industry, things like this, but they are not doing it. the democratic party is no longer the american party of the establishment. they will not stand up and say that. host: before we show viewers what governor christie had to , what specifically do you not like about him as a candidate? caller: here's the thing, you have someone who supposedly has

this record is a conservative. you have to go back and look at what they have been doing for five years, six years. john boehner throughout michele bachmann, even going back to sarah palin. they are not just coming out of the woodwork talking conservative and suddenly going back to their rino republican views. i want someone who has been for years speaking conservatively. host: all right, here is what the governor had to say about what it means to be prone -- what it means to be pro life for him. [video clip] aret does not just mean we pro-life when the human being is in the womb. we need to be pro life when they leave the womb as well. for every step of their lives. [applause] it means we need to be in favor of an educational system that is accountable for that child as they grow so that they can have a world-class education.

it means that we have to be in favor of a society that creates opportunity and jobs for them, not one that has the government control what they think is good or fair in society. and it means that when those children fall victims to disease, disease like drug rehabilitation, we need to rehabilitate those kids. every life is precious, no matter where they are in society. we need to make that difference. we have to be pro life throughout their entire lives, not just in parts. new jersey governor, chris christie, at cpac, addressing the crowd there. jim, republican caller. what do you think of the potential contenders that we have right now? right now ron paul is my

guy, but i think that sarah palin is also an excellent candidate. could beat hillary. host: beat what? hillary? caller: hillary, who i believe will be the candidate. host: for the democrats? caller: yes. host: sarah palin did address the crowd and was at the event yesterday. she talked about senator ted cruz and the awakening of americans. here is the "politico" headline of the speech. sarah palin mocks obama's "yes you can." we can show you the end of her speech from yesterday. here is what she had to say. [video clip] this message has resonated since a band of brothers dumped tea in the boston harbor. [applause]

have got to be that band of brothers and sisters again. not to fundamentally transform america, but to save it. to fundamentally restore the promise of america. it is because of you. it is we, the people, because of you, that i have never been war optimistic about the future of our one nation, under god. so, stand up, stiffen your spine. you have got to fight for it, the best is yet to come. , god blesspac conservatives, god bless america. host: sarah palin, yesterday at conference. the christian science monitor, the headline is this. "sarah palin wows the crowd, seems poised on 2016. she was on fox, saying it was a possibility she could run in

2016." go to pat, next, in texas, the public and caller. hello, pat. good morning. who is your pick for the 16? be,er: probably my cut to but i like sarah palin and then carson. we should not look at race, he is an excellent candidate. what i want to say is that of the established republicans out there, we have to quit fighting among ourselves. it was the established republicans, if they had gotten behind mike huckabee in the south, we would have had a good chance of winning 2008. the majority of christians stayed home because they did not like mccain. they loved sarah palin, a lot of republicans did. that is the other thing.

of the 50% in america, only 10% were polled to vote because they did not like to was there. we have got to put someone in there who is well-known who can be elected. i think that mike huckabee, because of his tv show now, has shown the world that he is a christian who is fair to everyone and is novel enough to put in the white house. we cannot put an unknown up there. i do not know if sarah palin would consider running again. between them i think that the personality would just be overwhelming and draw the people in. not only christians, but all people who want to be treated fairly. the other thing i would like to say is that to all the people out there, no matter what your parents were, democrats, republicans, independents, you are not born one of them. god created human beings and gave us all minds to use them. do not get so full of things

because her parents were. find out the candidates stance and vote your values. be a person that really cares about america. host: got your point, pat. laura says, referring to the callers from indiana -- from "the washington post" today, "rethinking the gop nomination contest."

that comes from "the washington post" today, if you're interested in that. vernon, republican caller. caller: yes, i am right here. host: go ahead, -- you are on the air. caller: oh, hi, how are you doing? hi, how are you doing? host: go ahead. caller: yes, i would like to talk about the seventh amendment. host: we are listening. caller: the seventh amendment. the bill of rights. also, veterans. you have got to get your point, vernon. caller: would you like to comment, please? can give us your thoughts? caller: [no audio]

all right, moving on. those are some of the speakers last night at the annual gridiron dinner. the final speaker was john kerry, who joked about the government spying on people, saying it was nice to put faces to the metadata. every president since grover plant -- grover cleveland has attended the gridiron dinner. obamas attended it in 2011 and 2013, but not last night.

this is on the abc news website. up next we will turn our attention to the efforts of the white house to expand the in dash expand the earned income tax credit. later, william pomerantz joins us to discuss the latest on the situation in the ukraine. we will be right back. ♪

[video clip] do not have a criminal investigation role. one of the most important things the agency does it enforce the federal securities laws. we also write the rules for wall street, by the way. but we do not have the criminal authority. we have the power to bring, with the approval of the commission, civil fraud and negligence actions against those who violate federal securities laws. we cannot send anyone to jail, but we can assess civil penalties. frankly, the level of penalties is not the size we would like it to be and there is a motion in congress to set higher penalties . we can require those who commit wrongdoing to discord there is -- their ill-gotten gains. we have the power in appropriate

cases to bar someone from the securities industry so that basically they cannot live another day to do you fraud again. mary jo white, securities and exchange commission chairman, tonight on c-span's "q&a." elements of the triple package our first, a sense of exceptionality. you can get it from lots of different sources, but it is that feeling that you are special, destined for special things. the second element is seemingly the opposite, a dash of insecurity to offset that exceptionality. that is a feeling that you have not quite done enough yet, are not quite good enough yet. the third element is impulse control. self-discipline and the ability to persevere and resist temptation. >> individuals who have these qualities in america, predictably second-generation

they have an interesting creative and destructive relationship between their cultures, such that second-generation kids in immigrant communities typically look back and say -- you know, we don't want to do success the way you told us to. we don't want those jobs that you said were the only ones, and they make their own decisions about being a standup comic or an artist, other things. we found, aspirational he, is that these qualities can help them to achieve very different goals. superiority, inferiority, impulse control, the triple package, tonight on c-span two. from the march booktv bookclub, we will be discussing the biography of stokely carmichael. join the chat room on booktv.org. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: president obama would like to expand the earned income tax credit. we will speak about that with two economists. we have a senior research fellow from the george mason university. mr. sterling, if i could begin with you, what is the earned income tax credit? what does president obama want to do? >> it is a wage subsidy for most individuals. it is a certain percentage of income earned in a job that the government will refund to people . it is actually a cash payment, and for others it can be a tax reduction. the president's proposal tries to expand a part of the earned that goes toedit single workers. those with the largest number of earned income tax credits have

wage subsidies. >> this is what the president would like to do according to whitehouse.gov, increase the credit to 1000. talk about that little bit. guest: the married person, the single head of household, it is up to $7,000 -- several thousand dollars. host: for childless adults? guest: there are issues of low income, males and females, some who do not have access to these special systems and often live with the families who do have access. host: a bit more detail -- increased income level making credit available to those as young as 21, raising the credit upper age limit to 67. jason, what do you make of this? guest: what jean got to is that it is a wage subsidy that

promotes work. republicans like the earned income tax he does a requires that you have earned income. for republicans there is incentive for people to get off welfare, especially single mothers. democrats like it because it is still a welfare cash payment helping the bottom line regarding poverty. minimum wage is actually a poorly targeted vehicle to help a lot of people. it helps part-time to people, teenagers part-time, but the earned income tax does really go towards a more targeted community. president obama saying that we are leaving out people who are working. these childless adults who right now do not get the credit until you're 25. minimum wage? that would be a $22 credit. the president's plan defeats it. know that it has a positive impact on the economy? think the positive

impact comes on people's abilities to go back to work and improve their lives. -- of the benefit of that this is that from both sides, for republicans it helps to put people back to work in the short-term and long-term. for democrats it is income support. host: do you agree with that analysis? about then you talk earned income tax credit, you have to think about it relative. as jasone reasons, mentioned, republicans and democrats go to the earned income tax credit is they consider it superior to welfare or, in some cases, him the minimum wage as another alternative. in its terms of helping people get back to work are considered to be relative to something else you are doing. in that case i think it is less ambiguous.

the white house also put this out -- the projected impact of expanding the earned income tax credit, 7.7 million workers would be at eligible or newly eligible. 3.3 million between the ages of 21 and 24, talking about 300,000 66, i'veges 55 to hundred thousand workers listed above the poverty line. do you agree with that? sometimes getting listed above the poverty line means that you went from two dollars below to two dollars above. i don't want to exaggerate the size of the credit. on average for year it probably costs less than one dollar -- $ one-- one dollar trillion. $1

other groups have been left out. host: absolutely. this is lost revenue, how do we pay for it? the question is, how does this come out? the question posed in the paper rather than the tax code is too high income corporations. i like that he is having a payment principle. that whatever he wants to spend, he pays for. i could question whether he talks about that later or not. i would point out that this is a six billion dollar proposal over 10 years to increase the child tax credit. whether it has done good or bad, the impact does take some people off the tax roll. the original idea was also to help fund this portion of payroll taxes.

do not pay federal income taxes? this is designed to offset the income taxes that people pay at lower income. this may be good or bad but we should consider this discussion. host: it would go up? dost: also the people that not pay payroll taxes at 20% going up a little bit. about jason is talking the total income earned tax credit, not the extension that is a tiny piece of this, to be clear. the proposal was a modest expansion of what we already have. host: what is the history of the earned income tax credit? it is aan.org --guest: very interesting history. russell long viewed it as an alternative to a program for

families with a that is now called self targeted assistance to needy families. initially it came in there and it got i was economic coordinator of the tax reform study that was put out in 1996. we got expanded tax reform in 1986. then-president george h.w. bush approved expansion mainly as an alternative to a -- increase the minimum wage. families with one child, or two to work withdren, them. host: republicans have supported it over the years?

guest: they have. they see it as a pro work incentive. nothing about the normative values that the parleys -- parties hold onto, they want to take the eitc, say they are getting able back to work have ended their giving a tax cut. and for the democrats it is getting government support. it is a win on both sides. host: the topic is the earned rolle tax credit, and the call magazine has the summary of what the president is proposing. as we said, 10-year cost, about $60 billion. paul, columbia, south carolina. independent color. go ahead. caller: good morning.

the one gentleman answered one of my question, who proposed this thing to begin with? senator long, from louisiana. my question is, when did the federal government get into the welfare system, and why don't they call this welfare and said of earned income tax credit? host: you want to take this? guest: in the traditional welfare system, i have mentioned , welfare was provided to families with children. you got the maximum amount of that event if your income -- a benefit if your income was zero. at the time the thought was women, and i do not want to stereotype, but it was a steroid abuse of the time, when they couldn't and shouldn't work, they should stay home with their kids. targeted people the lowest wage.

this has created a married in of -- a negative percentage because you lost $.33 for every dollar that you earned. recognition in society that we should allow our women and encourage them to work . encouraging people not to work because they had children without a good idea. -- an attempt to move beyond if you're welfare roach tv the maximum benefit when you had th lowest amount of income. guest: i grew that. the idea that if you stop working you lose it, and if you work you get higher and higher have loweras you wages. is there agreement among

all of the factions of the republican party on the eitc? guest: i do not think there is any agreement on anyone's side of the political party. ofple think about any sort government program, with tax expenditures in the tax code, whether it be the eitc or the mortgage interest reduction. one person's welfare can be one person's tax break. if you start comparing this to the other alternatives, the eitc has a wider support among republicans and regrets. host: what are you checking we see other alternatives? guest: the question is, if you're going to do something as a government, what are you going to do? this is part of a much bigger debate. encourage -- you hear it a lot in terms of trying to provo mobility, trying to promote

opportunity. this is a different agenda since -- and then historic ones. defense, highways, those that we all share. and then minimum consumption rate of we have a lot about social security and health care. the third agenda is the one that i see both parties trying to call it so i'm going to the opportunity agenda cover the mobility agenda of the urgent work, encouraging saving. it is a little bit different, a third agenda. i think that both parties are more sympathetic with that third agenda than the second agenda, which is just providing people low levels of consumption. host: do you have to create opportunity because as the government you cannot create jobs? guest: this is where you get interesting point about opportunity. the government is involved in

every thing we do from private regulation, what courts that close we were little caps on frack, the government is involved in everything through taxation and spending -- and regulation. when it comes to the opportunity agenda, it is a great way of looking at it. right now we are starting to see patient rights for labor decline, we seeing a lot people -- a lot of younger people picking up student loan to wonder how they will pay them off. how we train a changing workforce and the economy. how we save for retirement, and what does that mean? we start grading tax opportunities in the tax code, weise -- we create incentives. , marion, me go to john massachusetts. hello. caller: good morning. bending the to income tax credit

is a wonderful thing, i'm all for it. middle income full use that joe. folks could use that dough. but is not going to encourage people to get a job, because democrats rely on keeping people down to work their social work programs. it is a shame how we horrify the welfare here in massachusetts. we have people coming in from we over the u.s. because keep people on the dole zero. it intensifies work in massachusetts. thank you. thet: i do not fully know messages and situation -- the

massachusetts situation. government is actually a lot more limited that you might think. with programs dealing health care, retirement, and that is where most of the big dollars go. you have an interesting perspective, and i would like to expand upon it, because i think --'re concerned i going you're concerned directly some of the ones of the republican party. it is a much more rule holistic issue. that are these things meant to have noble ideals of taking people that may somehow turn around and have the this incentive of going back to work. get the eitc if you have earned income. someone on welfare even gets a minimum wage job, and the get

a boost from the government, it will incentivize them to go back to work. with to give them the whole package, i think a lot of us are worried about little bits of the whole piece of pie. ib gtealler, you are n the line. caller: the thing we have to do is addition, we must art having good education, good jobs. goodyou have education, jobs, and create an environment that is free of all of the toxins that are in our environment, where people can be healthy, then we will have a better society, and have a society that wants to work. and it is so horrible that you can go to work

and you can see how many sick people are affected by our talks and -- toxic environment. as,iving here in tex it is so toxic here. host: let's take the first part of her comments. getting people back to working and giving them the training they want. from a capital standpoint, we have a government of politicians are always worried about the next election. their view of the long-term is two years out. we're not looking at another 20 or 30 years, for those people getting into the real workforce, and we become hirers in our 40's. this could be a 30 year clan out, and i could be all for it, but we realize that the changes

we're making education are not going to affect this tomorrow morning, they're going to affect this 10, 20 years out, we need to have that horizon. guest: i think she is exactly on target. there is and that the in both parties come and i think center curb your indicating this by what we call the opportunity agenda, largely centered on education and jobs. saving,so centered on which is more complicated part of the story. you're right on target for warren not only there is more consistent voters in both parties. guest: we're talking about expanded invitation -- education and infrastructure. these are small dollars compared to the big pie. social security is an $800 billion program. one -- $1.5 trillion

combined right now. expanded crowds out our ability to fund education and infrastructure. the little things we want to do we cannot pay because they are being crowded out by medicaid. host: where do you see the two sides being able to agree? ande come to an agreement pass something in congress? guest: i think jason really hit on it. there is agreement, if we are going to do something, i think there is agreement that education and jobs are where we move. the problem is government spends more and taxes more. it is a taxes other people more, or in these well for -- welfare programs, you quickly start losing benefits because it operates like a tax on the worker as well. once they get to that income level.

we subsidize them at first, but then we put all these negative things. alternative,e jason also alluded to the major issue that was actually facing us which his government is getting a lot bigger on the retirement and health side. huge amount of dollars going in there. it is not just the dollars that we are spending now, it is the stuff we are absorbing. i've a book coming out that talks about there has been so much growth in these retirement nograms that there is opportunity agenda unless you start to increase taxes quite significant way. the even then you can do not quite get that because the grown movies the other program go large. -- growth of these other programs gets quite large. --t: a tweet

guest: think about the public city of the tax code. estimatingthe irs is that only 80% of those eligible for the eitc claimant. that is a point legal aren't -- means that 20% do not know about it or do not claim it. of impropert payments, almost one quarter of the payments is improper. it may be a honest the state, because it gives income level, or may follow in and out of the delivery but do not realize that. -- eligibility but do not realize it. that is 12 or $13 billion a year. host: a year. a waste? guest: it is not just waste and

fraud, it is just because they do not realize what happened, but it is improper. >> a tweet -- william, in tennessee, democratic caller. my son is using affordable care act, and he is under the president when he files his taxes they will take the earned income tax credit as a subsidy to pay for his health insurance. i keep saying that i do not think that is true. i'm just wondering if it is. host: do either of you know? guest: i'm not sure the -- sure, there act actable ai affordable care expanded in two ways.

the general rule with the exchanges that you should not have to pay more than nine percent or 10% of your income for your health insurance. making $50,000 you should not have to pay more than $5,000 for a policy. totally separate from a subsidy like income and tax credit. if your income towards getting high enough you lose the subsidies. you can use some of that subsidy for the health insurance if you go on the exchange. guest: there is also a penalty for those who do not get health coverage. it is a $95 penalty, and how is that collected? someepublicans have put things in there to prevent the irs from coming to your door in collecting it.

if the are worried about not having coverage, it will be deducted for the penalty. et -- another twea there is two parts there. we want to look at the programs we have out that are trying to do income support and combine them. i think there is a lot of support and ideas for looking at that and went to reduce complexity. itther you want have of going to a school district half have of it interested in the court -- half of it in a savings account, that is a different policy thing. guest: it is not just the earned theme that credit, it is independent exception that people get a variety of proposals to simplify. what often happens when you do this about we try to combine

them in any way, you always create an amount of winners and losers. for kids under 16, different age groups, you might cut off lower -- higher ages and bring in the lower ages. host: this is another tweaet -- are you familiar with this? guest: foreign a while -- for a while is called the advanced eitc payment. they repealed that five years ago. guest: i have been involved in this from almost the beginning. the complication with trying to paint out during the -- trying

to pay out the eitc on a regular basis, it is because you do not know what the family structure is going to be throughout the year. it became very hard to know throughout the year to know how much to pay out monthly that would reflect reliability and benefit. and then if you got wrong of you might have to come back and collect money, which is what they do not do very well. it is very hard thing to do. there's been a lot of sympathy for doing it is a lot of liberal group centroid promoted over the years, but that it is very hard to know during the year with income is going to be at the end of the year. don, in new mexico, independent caller. caller: [video clip] [inaudible] morning. i see it as a very global social control -- clever social control.

ofget to go to the head apollo global management taking hold millions of dollars. we are the carlyle group taking home millions of dollars. and the blackstone group taking home $455 million in one year. people are talking about who work at the donald, and who work at walmart, of which there are three in my community. benefit to thea walmarts, and a benefit to the mcdonald's. it is of no benefit to the working people. host: are these numbers correct? guest: don is raising an interesting point, which is what you want to do but in firm -- ado about income earned at the top? what you're learning

to is the tax changes. the day, there are things that competitive education, and issues like that that are part of the family structure and income division in the economy. your but what is called about the undertake all economy, where -- you aree complaining about the winner take all economy, where a few people are not going to be solved by the eitc. the answer that most people go have ae really have to very well-trained and educated population to deal with these issues. the interesting thing about who pays. someone has to pay for it one way or another. s is that consumers pay more, or that we will see it in a lack of employment.

the eitc is distributive. you get a tax credit, and people paying the tax credit is the higher income groups. to the from a tax payers lower and taxpayers. ,he walmarts, and mcdonald's who is paying for that wage increase, the higher middle income people. tweet that ties the reason percent to the bush administration -- guest: he is exactly correct. the republicans have been their own worst enemy. they are trying to expand the number of people who pay,

broadening the base and lowering the rates is more efficient, but the various of of can initiatives that republican initiative to people off the rolls. pays zeromebody raising theyour wages by 1000 reset, even though the math does not work that way. we start expanding this it is going to make it harder and harder to get more people back on, which reads from a government standpoint that we need a smaller group to pay for all of our government. guest: the 47% of actually number that the tax policy center that helped to cofound the bill came up with. we do not like the use made of our numbers, but it was a number at the height of the great that led to a lot of

unemployed people that led to that number. also includes people who would pay positive tax where it not for things like the eitc. the -- funny because that is not considered a negative tax, because it is administered that way. we have to be careful with this number. more benefits that they pay taxes, there is a lot of people that are dependent on social security and medicare, and they would get more benefits. we do not count them in the 47%. went to be really careful with that number, we have a government is large doing this many things. there are a lot of us out there giving one benefit or another, and a lot of us were paying taxes. guest: this goes to a question

of simplification. with the sensible plan from a few years ago, if you get down to 10% rates to get rid of all of these deductions for baha'i am from workers and low that high income workers and low income workers. from theink about this 47% number. i own a home, which means that i deduct mortgage interest. does this mean that i am on welfare? tax this?ant to we're doing in the wrong way. this is a complication -- count taxess over here, and then we cut spending over here. and when tax rates that are like spending.

we treat them separately and not a combined waipahu public, offering consumers results -- and not in a combined way, coming up with confused results. host: republicans say they do not want to increase taxes, but they want to increase cuts, so they are actually spending. guest: exactly. they can say i give you a tax cut, but they're also spending inside the government at the same time. guest: think about subsidies in the tax code as negative taxes. olympic the government is smaller. point of fact, you've to raise rates to be able to pay for them. host: the former mayor of new york city that with the president about his budget and the expansion of the eitc. saysstatement he made he

-- what do you make of the pilot program, and wasn't as successful as the former mayor is saying? guest: it is important to point 26 states including the district of columbia have a state-level i -- eitc to expand the federal portion. they should be looking to collaborate and partner, and when they look at targeting. host: are these new initiatives? guest: no, these are just under the states programs. guest: sometimes when the federal law expand the state automatically expands.

state credit would go up by certain about as well. as the credits are fairly modest in size, compared to the federal. host: independent caller from minnesota. onler: you briefly touched the amount of funds that is in the earned income tax credit. year, andion last i've been about 30% of the eitc is fraud. you have the repairs that go out and get -- preparers that go out and create tax returns, that -- bogus w-2s,2s what about all that fraud? right, but ixactly want to be careful with the term fraud.

sometimes there are honest mistakes. but sometimes there is fraud, socialople stealing security numbers and filing for you. we should put, at the president has already with us and this budget, do more cracking down on fraud rates and abuse in both the social security and disability program, and the eitc . we should do that regardless of if we expand the eitc or not. error,a lot of this is but there is fraud out there. one of the major sources of error who actually have the child. of the child care for most of the year. were you of families when the child is bouncing her on, it is hard to determine who actually have the child.

jason would declare a child as his support, but in fact his wife would be the one who is paying it, it would be a loss to the government, the wrong person giving the benefit. the irs does a really good job of separating out all of these different causes. there've been attempts to study this over time. this is an initiative that deserves more attention. guest: do you also don't know how much of it is broad versus improper payment, the fact that we have brought out there goes to an idea governance. the american people look at this program and say there's way too much wrought, i do not want to support an expansion. if we do not spend our money wisely in any program of the people are not going to support expansion for any cause. host: infinite caller from florida. -- independent caller from florida. caller: my head is spinning.

the tax code is so convoluted. one of the nonresident alien forms, what in the world? thanitc is nothing more wealth transfer. program.elfare the bottom line is a lot of illegal aliens are giving this credits, and have been getting it for many years. i work for the postal service, i have cash those checks. we stopped bashing treasury checks about four years ago, but now we're doing it again. in any event, most of these checks were going to people who could not sign their name or speak english. they would have a mexican consular card, or a honduras consular card. , do not mind paying my taxes

and all of these convoluted methods of the government uses to steal from one person and give to another has to stop. another large number of illegal aliens in this country. we have 10 million or so bouncing around this country, employed by employers of one type or another. i think we have to figure out a way to make them legal. the credit unless your child is a citizen of the united states. a lot of them do pay social security tax, and they do not it. any benefit from host: we're talking about the earned income tax credit, president obama would like to expand it to childless adults, $1000, limit to will --

and a credit to those under 21. democratic caller, you're on the air. caller: what i would like to say is that i feel we should increase the minimum wage, and we should review about weight the value of jobs that are available that are service jobs. nursing, because if you're going to be a service , then we need to invest more in those individuals who work in those areas. i am opposederal, allhese one size fits mandates on the entire country. in wage bargaining

washington dc is much different than omaha, nebraska. two ways should ♪ -- to raise the minimum wage and transfer work, we did a short piece a while back on raising the wage for walmart workers. they now have to pay higher wages on the products they buy, so they will lose out in the end. the total transfer system we have with the eitc minimum-wage well for support. tweeet --her he has a point. we have joke for a while we could fix this in one

day if we had it. comes toissues when it tax reformer well though, -- reform or welfare, there is a lot of overlap. if we could govern from the middle, it is amazing how much we could get done. guest: i was a governor for about 15 years, and in treasury and budget management, we would had 80% tols that 90% the same from both sides. there's a huge number of reforms that we could do along those lines. the publication is that that is not the deal politics. that is to go for the controversy. misled by where the argument is. we're just trying to fix things and make them work at her.

isst: people now leave it the broken state of our government. everyone looks at the president's budget is having a big plan. over endt we not just up with marketing plans for the next election? we just need to budget to and the government for the next year or two. i would like to see a president and congress vocus on budgeting for your to and fix little things. do all economists, or most, agree with you, or those disagree? guest: somebody has to pay. so to the extent you're worried about that aspect of the size of government influences the economy, you care. if all you do is about a miss

for whatever you want, education, which i favor, income credit, which i favor, but there are some things i do not favor, i would like to not have so much health-care spending because it is ticking over everything. you to collect from someone else, and that creates distortion in the economy. economists are talking about the cost side of every benefit the government provides. not be an might economist from end to end, but you will not get to the conclusion. host: independent caller. caller: good morning. i just have a simple question for these two gentlemen sitting at your table. they must have graduated out of a private school, instead of the public school system. why in the world would the federal government take the tax money from a american citizen so they could give it back to them at the end of the year?

that does not make sense to be at whatsoever. university of michigan grad. i have degrees from michigan, virginia tech, i'm a big fan of the public school system. to your question about why the government of the back, it is to go after you to get money, it is easy for them to give it a good -- to give it back. caller: good morning. i have a question. , and i a chart on the tv got to catch the last part that said read hundred k for seniors seniors.00 for

-- $300,000 for seniors. could you explain that? host: sure. here's the graphic you were referring to. that is what the references for? guest: you cannot get in until old, and5 years president obama wants to work to move it to those who are younger like 21. host: what about trying to get more elderly the benefit from this? we actually have a major employment problem in this country. here's where the social where fold programs -- welfare

programs are not favoring and employment. the adulta third of innocentn on welfare -- in a few years. we are counting on, in many ways, people who are elderly start working again. 65-60 nine have doubled their limit in the past few years. his is a tiny tweak in that direction. host: an incentive to prevent people -- is this a way of raising the age for retirement without raising the age for benefits? you can get benefits as

early as 62. for someone who might be on the margin of taking a lower social security benefits, and staying there for work. another tweet -- there are a lot of advocacy work that try to eareach out to people who are eligible. well, buttry to as there's a lot of confusion about when you get a new job,, child, or get divorced. guest: this would be an opportunity talk about a group that the president leaves out. in the current system, the eitc goes to families who raise children. we have a lot of low-wage people out there who do not have

children. a lot of these low-wage individuals actually are not married to individuals who do get the benefit. so the jobless worker does not get a subsidy, but the workgroup it's a low-wage mary's into a low income family. they do not get the eitc, but they are adding a huge loss in welfare,cause of because the low-wage rs mary, they will bump up over the limit to lose food stamps or medicaid. eligible fort be the childless worker credit, and be in the situation of cutting back on the other credits. that is a major defect in the

president's plan. he does not do anything for people who might want to marry or they in a married relationship who get penalized. caller.r last caller: good morning. i was listening this morning, i rarely get on, this is about the second time in 13 years -- 15 years. howomment is, i do not see you can have a meaningful discussion about taxes until you factor in the corporate tax expenditures. too, regarding people going work, i understand that there is about three people for every job. what do you do with the other two people. ? guest: let's take the tax part first. that of economists agree one person's welfare is another person's tax break.

there's a lot of money saved by the people's tax advantages. bullresident obama and the camp would like to lower the tax rate and get a broader base out of these loopholes. it is either higher prices or lower rages and -- wages. corporations want to keep their special tax breaks, so you need to take out those for tax reform. host: a tweet -- turn to you for a final thought. said, we are in the midst of a much bigger and

broader debate. an do we move toward opportunity and mobility agenda? this is a tiny piece of the puzzle, we are essentially ruled by dead men. we do not collect enough taxes to pay our bills, so it is squeezing everything out. this is a tiny movement toward that opportunity agenda. it is more than symbolic, but it is very marginal in comparison to what we're doing is -- as a whole. that we do not he penalizing those who want to marry, and work on that agenda. from eugenew book

steuerle -- check it out. guest: we do have issues when it comes to employment. we have a combo gated tax code. it is a very hard code to govern , and small changes, our government rosses is broken. getting a budget resolution, and appropriate bills passed. what is your book on medicaid about? guest: what is causing us job have highg us to cost and low care. thank you very much. thank you both.

we appreciate your time. coming up next, william pomerantz from the wilson center will be with us. ♪ >> annie oakley can be considered to be the first american female superstar. she was an entertainer, she was discovered when frank butler of an exhibition shooter was traveling town to town and as an introduction to a show you challenge the best shooters of the town you in due to a

shooting contest. they brought out this 15-year-old girl, and she shot side-by-side, and actually beat him. he came back very year later, married her command from then on they traveled as exhibition shooters. any became the star. shotgunhave a beautiful with an inlaid plaque that says to annie oakley, little missy, from colonel william s cody, buffalo bill. can guess with the occasion of this presentation made have been. she was touring with the wild west show in london and europe of and she was out of gunpowder for her shot shells and buffalo bill enter some of his gunpowder , and it blew up for shotgun. am sorryve been the i

i blew up your shotgun gift. tv,art of american history this weekend on c-span three. c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you. putting you in the room but congressional hearings, rethinking conferences, and offering a brilliant gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house. we are created 33 yields ago and funded by her local cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. host: we are joined i william pomerantz. here to talk about the situation in ukraine. let's begin with the news that came out on thursday that lawmakers in the crimean region of the grand have decided to

hold this referendum vote. what are they holding a vote on exactly? guest: it is unclear the questions that are going to be asked. i have seen sample ballots, because no one is given the opportunity to vote no. there could be asked if they would to be independent or a part of the russian federation. it depends how the question is actually phrase. essentially it is going to be an attempt to leave ukraine and to rush -- join the russian federation. host: who will be voting? guest: the citizens in crimea. russian speaking population, and have ties to russia. %.re than 12% to 30% -- 13 host: why was this seen as a big delta the united states and to russia? guest: they have held to the

principle of territorial integrity and national sovereignty. ukraine is an integral part of ukraine. vote of self-determination is the defiance of territorial sovereignty and the constitution. in russia, they have also been a great believer in national sovereignty, and has largely protected the rights of people to assert self-determination because it is a multiethnic population. they would not want the principle floating around the russian federation. they have historical ties, and the results of what has happened in ukraine of the past few weeks has forced russia's hand. it has decided it was to support crimean sovereignty. host: you are the president sake of and the secretary of state they that this vote was illegal.

that if they were to break away from the ukraine that is a violation of international law. what is the law? guest: the various treaties, and charter.arter -- un it is also a violation of the memorandum of understanding that was signed in 1994 whereby in order to have ukraine remove its nuclear weapons, they recognize the sovereignty of ukraine. that included sovereignty over crimea. and as an autonomous republic and has some independence, but it is a part of ukraine and no one has recognized the right for it to secede. host: the front page of journal@c-span.org -- "the new york times."

washington supported cause of those bid for independence. guest: the circumstances are different from what occurred in cozumel in 1990's. it was a mass violation of human rights by serbia. was the event that preceded the decision to ultimately recognize kosovo as an independent country. the united states asserted that this was not a precedent.

many other countries chose not to recognize it as an independent country, including russia. the question of self determination and national sovereignty is one of those great gray areas of international law. it depends on the circumstances usually. both sides can assert either side in terms of rights under international law. what is glaring in this case is obviously what has happened in crimea is not an immediate kind of reaction to human rights violations or a structured vote on referendum. but a very juried operation by this -- hurried operation to be conducted while the occupied militarily. host: we talked about the steps necessary to resolve it. proposed referendum on the future crimea would violate

the degrading constitution, and violate international law. any discussion about the future of ukraine must include the legitimate government of ukraine. beyond we are very much the time when borders can be redrawn over the head of democratic leaders. while we take these steps, i want to be clear that there is a way to resolve this crisis that respects the interest of the russian federation, as well as the grading people. -- ukrainian people. let international monitors into all of ukraine, including granite to make sure that all of them are being respected. russia would maintain its raises aggregate, provided that it abides by's agreements and respects ukraine's, terry -- sovereignty and territorial agreements.

they should support them as they move to elections in may. that is the path of de-escalation and secretary kerry is engaged in discussions with all of the relevant parties to pursue that path. but, if this violation of international law continues, it is the resolve of our allies that we will remain firm. secure in our commitment to our allies in eastern europe. idea, butt is a great mr. putin does not share that path. he believes that there is no legitimate government in ukraine. in the russian press have released stories about the oppression of russians and

fascist governments. he has a very different picture of the president -- then the president has a forward. they approach this from different perspective. although president obama has forward a reasonable the ground -- middle ground, it is not good enough for mr. putin. this the front page morning -- what are they talking about here? guest: the traditional inspections that occurred with the international treaties at regular intervals of nuclear weapons. russia is trying to scare the west and the united states from introducing any sort of sanctions. -- keept increasing

increasing the rate are a couple at the sanctions would mean. they are trying to get in front of this issue, and compel the united states and the eu not to impose sanctions and to keep ratcheting up the rhetoric beforehand. host: larry, a republican caller. caller: i have a statement to make. is a dictator. the is going to take all of ukraine and he is trying to go towards germany. that triggered the civil war, and now germany has control over yugoslavia that no longer exists. we are running toward the anniversary world war i, and it is the edge of world war iii.

atshould not be working russia, which ability at germany. putin is a dictator, he is doing what dictators do. president obama is doing nothing -- nothing,rlain and chamberlain is doing nothing. guest: we should do our best to prevent thermonuclear world war iii. you raise the question of world war i, and that is an important lesson. though history of world war i indicates how on intended event and small events can spiral into major world wars. this event does not need to do that. getprocess will continue to more dangerous as crimea pursues this referendum. but at the present time we should not read trying to -- we

should still be trying to find some diplomatic answer even if the options are dwindling. caller: you're guest cannot be unaware that last week there were reports in the european press of a telephone the euation between foreign minister and the estonian ambassador. . people slaughtered in a the square were done by -- we are not hearing about it in the united states newspapers. i am wondering why that is. few could give me an answer i would appreciate it. guest: my understanding is that a lot of the information -- a lot of people who have been quoted in the story have openly

denied what has been quoted in the press. there is this a rumor about the role of snipers and weapons support of snipers. there has been no hard evidence provided. i think until the story is confirmed it remains very much in the area of speculation. host: howard in california, republican caller. caller: good morning. you are incredible. since been following you the first days. [indiscernible] now, i found an idea in the wall street journal.

i will put it out there. very knowledgeable people. russiago after and eliminate their ability to do business in the west. we will say to boot and we are not healing with this -- to vladimir putin that we are not healing with this. host: on that point condoleezza writes in the opinion pages of today's "washington post" --

guest: no doubt russian oligarchs have been able to get their wealth outside of russia. they exist in western banks and offshore accounts and so forth. a lot of that monday -- a lot of that money happens to be located in western europe. if you want to punish the strongest supporters of putin, the best way would go after the wealth of the oligarchs and somehow limited their access to it. isis a very old step that it -- it results in the greatest cries from russia. if you listen to what the russian ministries have been saying, they have been crying foul. these are sanctions against oligarchs and wealthy people abroad. this touches a very sensitive point in russia. pat is next from keyport,

new jersey. a republican caller. caller: i would like to know if you could tell me what we offered ukraine in the budapest memorandum. did we offer them guarantees he echoed to we have any -- anyions to them guarantees? do we have any obligations to them? memorandumbudapest guarantees the sovereignty of the ukraine. we are not under any military obligation to come to the defense of ukraine. nato.e is not a member of youmemorandum recognizes train's sovereignty. -- recognizes ukraine's sovereignty. host: joining us on the phone is

a court finalist -- courtroom the list with the financial times. what is the situation like there now in the ukraine? it is tense. uc convoys of russian troop carriers go through the capital. you also see a lot of demonstrations. a lot of demonstrators coming out to the streets and waving theynian flags, saying opposed the annexation of the region behind russia. on the other hand you have a lot of row russian demonstrators with russian flags as well. by the main government building in crimea.

you have a lot of opposing forces and a lot of tension in the air. they have been vacating certain military bases. there are more and more examples of that. warning shots were fired by armed men and they were forced to turn back. no one really knows who these men are. they are the sort of self-defense forces. certainly we are getting this impression that he russians are , which have grip recruited from the fleets. and from the local russian population. is there violence right

now? there have been some attacks on journalists, which have been causing some ripples. there have been a few nasty incidents. checkpoints have been appearing all over the place. the atmosphere is becoming a little bit fraught. the roads are pretty quiet. city just been going to a which is one of the main crimean population centers. 280,000 of them make a part of percent of the population.

the were in love demonstrations, local women coming out into the streets. host: where exactly are you in the area? caller: i am in the capital. it is the main population center here. there is the big russian base. it is the closest town to russia . aey are now building them good bridge which will tighten

their control for peninsula. more of a russian military presence there than before? guest: not in the capital itself. presence is felt more strongly around the bases. here it is more just local self-defense forces. it is -- there are paramilitary forces that came in from russia, which is close to crimea. host: what is next?

what you waiting for or watching for? the referendum will be next sunday. there is obviously a lot of preparations for that. feels it is being done in a bit of a hurry. normally you would need a lot more preparation. it is all being done on the fly. it was only announced last week. it does not give people much time to prepare. will a lot of tension in the buildup to that. in the streets they feel it is unfair. the people who made the decision to hold the referendum are not even the real leaders of crimea.

with just the sense that this is all done in a hurry by people of questionable authority, who have sort of kabul this thing together and want to rush through the kind of flawed recollection -- flawed referendum will lead to the annexation of russia. it could be that the boats will be split. possibilitye is it there will be a rigged election. host: in the meantime our ukrainian and russian officials talking and is there any indication this referendum vote will go away? caller: at the moment it looks like it is going to happen. there is nothing stopping them from doing it. the diplomacy does not seem to match context between the

ukrainian and crimean authority -- match contact between the ukrainian and crimean authorities. there is very little the west is doing or can do to hold this referendum. it is now hurtling along and picking up speed. i would be surprised if anything can be done in the next few days .o stop the vote from happening russia could be annexing this region quickly. host: thank you for your time. think wast i important to hear was the level of call that seems to exist in crimea. a region where there is unrest. up it is not a region where they are fleeing or suffering major

human rights violations. it does support the rushed nature of this referendum. what was interesting is he said there was nothing that seems -- there doesn't seem to be anything that could stop it. the consequences of this referendum will be felt afterwards. what they will be significant , not just in terms of what happens with u.s. and russian relations, but also in crimea. how much will russia have to spend in order to subsidize crimea and keep it going? upward to $3ts are billion per year. this will come at a time when russia's economy is not doing so well. it is on the cusp of recession. question as to -- russia can go ahead and do this. it doesn't seem to be anything that can stop this actual referendum. but there will be significant consequences, not just in terms

of u.s. russia relations and russian ukrainian relations, but for the people. when itat does it mean comes to resources for europe and their dependents on what is coming out of that region? guest: aside on the dependents for crimea, it is the dependents for energy. this is a major stumbling block in how the united states and eu visits sanctions. the e you and some of its leading countries have major trade relations with russia. they get a lot of their energy from russia. this obviously complicates any sort of unified approach. russia is dependent on the eea. without the hard currency earnings it gets for its energy, russia's economy would simply collapse. it is a two-way street from russia. what you may see out of this

whole incident is the eu may move much faster. that is not something russia really want. "wall street journal" has the figures -- the threeat goes to largest economies. 12% for the u.k., 25% for italy, 40% for your money. norma is our next caller. heard a report i ofut -- being brought out the country into europe. they mentioned britain. said 40% in the square-mile is unaccountable to

-- unaccounted for. is investigated and finds out it is in london or in the virgin islands, which belongs to britain, i hope we can get some money back to the russian people. we can show to the world who the people are. -- people are who accepted the money and used it. guest: capital flight is a huge problem for russia. there were $60 billion left in the country. there were up $20 billion this year. it is kind of the deal that putin has accepted. oligarchs can make their money and get out of the country, but they cannot challenge them politically. this is the political deal putin has arranged with his older guards that with his oligarchs -- with his oligarchs.

if they crack down on russian money and so forth -- capital flight is a that the stating problem. putin has made it one of his priorities to fight it. if russia wants to die first fight the economy and grow, it needs the money that is seeping out of the country at a rapid rate. finding some way to convince russia to keep their money in russia on a voluntary basis is really a crucial part of putin's agenda. this will not help matters. host: here's a question for you on twitter. guest: we should care because this is important for international law. really, our security is dependent on recognition of territorial sovereignty and the notion that you deal with nations and that you don't recognize individual peoples within nations as independent republics because it would undermine our ability -- the international stability and political sentiment.

it is also important to defend a country we have supported in the past, that wants to be a part of there is a therefore strong motivation for the united states to continue to support ukraine as it seeks to integrate more towards the west. host: here is jodi on twitter -- that.'t dispute the question is finding alternative sources of energy. in this part of the world russia is the dominant player. it faces very as challenges in remaining a dominant player. in the short term it will have to rely on western technology, going to the arctic and help find these energy sources. energy does make the world go round. it is the great benefit russia has, the constant stream of earnings from energy. to compete in the

marketplace as well. host: former secretary of state condoleezza rice writing in "the washington post" -- guy in washington, democratic caller. caller: excuse my voice. i've been watching this from the very beginning. i would like to clear up a few things. one, the police officers that were at the beginning of these riots were unharmed and non-lethal weapons. there were molotov cocktails

thrown at them. shot.ice officers were this was not a non-violent takeover of the ukrainian government. the people in southern ukraine theirt tearing flags up because they want russia out of there. they don't want a takeover of their government. by the way, the oligarchs sitting in the seat -- is addressing he the legitimacy of the government in ukraine. no doubt there were peaceful demonstrations that did not lead to violence.

the question is how that violence involved. it is quite clear at some point somebody decided to arm the security services with live act -- with live ammunition. there is a question of legitimacy. thetimacy only addresses government that would shoot a peaceful protesters. the demonstrations in the ukraine were peaceful for the most part. yanukovych's decision not to reach out to them but try to retain power on his own, that ultimately undermined his legitimacy. it is an interim government in ukraine. it will have to move quickly to establish greater legitimacy. that is why it is important to have the presidential elections as soon as possible. host: a you are on twitter says this -- -- a viewer on twitter says this --

unfortunately ukraine is going to have to deal with international bankers whether it wants to or not. ukraine is broke. there really is no money to sustain them. they want to be independent but they are going to need immediate financial assistance. the great irony that happened over the last few months is du and the united states were reluctant to invest funding into the ukraine. shown up at the table with significant money, both with the eu and imf. it will involve bankers but it is the only path ukraine has towards independence and stability. host: another call from england, john. hello. caller: i have been watching

your program. be credible, i am wonder if you could see the opposite point. your eloquent guest makes comments that are anti-russian, pro-u.s., pro-ukrainian. with your permission i will play the devil's advocate. i would like to make a general statement between the relation -- statement on the relation between u.s. and russia. with the disintegration of the old soviet empire -- when that happened the united states had a great opportunity. vacuum and a great opportunity for the united states to be a true martyr of war. last 20 odd years, it has really failed international policy. you are losing more and more credibility. happened now, the

other great powers say, now there is a new vaccuum. lot of. has created a enemies. this is an opportunity for us to reestablish. -- reestablish ourselves. i think we are going to see the go cold war take two. i hope not. that would betray difficult time between the russia -- between russia and the united states. one problem is putin has brought a imperial view. we are in a postcolonial world.

russia, in fact, has always been a grateful leader in international law. it gives great benefits to the state. there are obviously exceptions that are relevant to in the post-cold war era, russia has been open to international law. i study isthings russian law. russian law is far more open to international law that the united states. law under thenal russian constitution flows into russian law, which is different from the united states. beena, i think, has responding to events. anticipatedk it what has happened in the ukraine. it has responded, unfortunately, in a heavy-handed manner.

there will be other ways to open dialogue. in this case those avenues are closed. host: that was talked about in the news conference on tuesday. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> are you concerned the war may break out? >> this does not concern me because we are not going to war with the ukrainian people. but there is the ukrainian army. >> listen to me closely. i want you to understand what i think will make this decision. we will make it in order to protect the people of ukraine. shoot at theiry own people? our soldiers will be standing in fron tot of them. asked about tensions between russia and the ukraine. guest: he says he will take the

people of ukraine but the people of ukraine are not asking for it. clearly ukraine is not asking for russian help in this particular incident. host: what you make of his actions all along? have been various interpretations of putin playing chess while we were playing checkers. i think he has been very reactive. he did not really pay attention to what was going on. he was obviously distracted i so cheap and the world coming to the olympics. sochi and theby world coming to the olympics. he arrived rather late in terms of negotiations. fell apart he acted as we have seen. i think he has been reactive.

i think to a certain extent he is overplaying his hand. the people of ukraine are not asking for this. i want to go back to condoleezza rice's piece in "the washington post." she says -- she goes on to write -- it is very interesting

how putin displayed young dakota jazz his man. kovacic as hisna man. putin, in his press conference, --is finished. yana kov i don't think that is going to play very well today. the affront to russia suggests that russia has some sort of interferinght in with the sovereign affairs with a country. it is not simply how the postcolonial war works. he is expressing imperial thoughts, he has some sort of national right to represent the russian speakers in ukraine. russianause they are speakers does not mean they

aren't ukrainian. just because he seems to think he represents russian speakers does not give him the right to interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. you said mr. putin was distracted, do not see this coming. did the united states see it coming yet go -- see it coming? guest: i don't think we saw it either. the debate begins three months ago in the run-up to the signing of the eu association agreement. believed the advantage of that would be ukraine would get agreement free trade with the eu. that was a great combo should for political reforms in the ukraine. i think that is what we were pushing. president was wavering but he did not say no. what was interesting is that the presidents told him three years the russians told him

three years ago not do this. there is not a majority of people who want to join a it -- who want to join nato. the eu are presented something different. hooton allowed those negotiations to proceed. when they got a crisis point, he only intervened then. host: let's get one last phone call in from london. i just wanted to make a quick point and maybe also bring , we have seenact the media and political analysts bring to the front -- we never try to gauge how people think. hooton has anhow imperial right to take over crimea. we need to address the thinking between the two nations, russia,

and the rest of the world. differences in opinions will always exist. somehow we cannot understand or we do not allow the opinions of other countries. this in anaddress impartial dialogue manner. that is the way you are thinking. there is this ideology of the americans invading here and there. it is very important to try to adjust this across the media. in order to bring this piece to

people's minds entrance and that to the politicians at the table, if there is any validity in that i would like to hear your comments. i agree with you and as president obama put forth there are ways we can discuss this. russia is the issue. there is a short-term crisis that is dominating the news and will dominate the discussions. one hopes there could be a dialogue. what looks like is going to happen is russia will have to present the annexation of crimea after the fact as the starting point of negotiations. the u.s. is still try to keep that and play. host: thank you very much for your time. we appreciated. coming up we are going to open up the phone lines, give us your thoughts and comments. first an update on the sunday

shows. >> ukraine will be one of the front and center topics on the sunday talk shows today, as well as the federal budget and politics. the broadcasts of all the programs on c-span radio beginning with "meet the press." guests include the deputy national security advisor and mitzi dolan. at 1 p.m. it is abc's "this week ," with rand paul and ted cruz and might rogers -- and mike rogers. we will hear from texas democratic congressman joaquin castro. sunday," withews bob gates and senator rand paul. " follows ate union 3 p.m. with tony lincoln.

we will also hear from charlie crist, former governor of florida. nation,"t is "face the with former vice president dick cheney, baker, and republican representative paul ryan. the sunday network tv talk shows are on tv and radio. showsbroadcast of the begin at noon eastern with "meet the press," 1:00 is abc's "this by "fox newsed sunday," then "state of the union," and debt for :00 it is "face the nation." at 4:00 it is "face the nation." you can download for smartphone app or listen online at c-span.org. will finish today's

washington journal with open phones. you can weigh in on anything you heard on the program. democrats -- you can also send us tweets or e-mail, journal@c-span.org. here are a few tweets on our viewers weighing in on the discussion on ukraine -- here is one from danny, who -- condoleezza rice, before secretary of state, wrote the "washingtonay's

post." coming up on c-span, on our newsmakers program that will air at 10 a.m. eastern time and , wen at 6 p.m. eastern time sit down with kevin brady, the chairman of the joint economic committee. here is that he had to say on developments in crimea, ukraine, and with russian president vladimir putin. [video clip] >> i think we got the wrong question. the question is not how do we understand mercy and benefits. the question is how soon do we get people into good paying jobs? i think the focus is wrong. i think it has been a drag on the economy in the long term. speaker boehner has made that clayson very -- has made that case very clearly. i want to turn to the jobs agenda. that is what we can do to help. host: that was kevin brady, the republican from texas and chairman of the joint economic committee. he was talking about

unemployment benefits and whether or not the coverage should be extended. he also touched upon the job figures that can out on friday and the developments in crimea, ukraine, and russia. a lot there. newsmakers at 10 a.m. eastern time, six p.m. eastern time here on c-span. that is coming up after "washington journal." democraticland, caller, you're up first. i hear republican whators and congressman -- kind of citizenship is this? brace -- canan praise the russian president but criticize our own? host: do you think there should be a united front, even if you disagree with the president's strategy? you think you should be standing behind the president. caller: of course we should.

we should always have a united front when talking about anything going on elsewhere in the world and we are involved with it. look at bush. there was no disrespect like there was with this president. aboutridiculous to talk -- charles is next from alexandria virginia. we are very upset about the situation in crimea and ukraine. in the sovietn union. she's convinced the information coming down from the talking heads is inaccurate. putin is her president. host: why is that? the righttin is on

side in this crimea situation. host: when did your wife leave ukraine and why? i was born in ukraine because my father was in military. we are pure russians but we lived in ukraine for a few years. we moved to moscow, russia. theirthat time of leaving , we never defied it ourselves -- never divided ourselves as he craniums and russians. we were all one nation and living under the soviet union. as a little girl i would go to crimea with my parents every year. we never thought we were going to a different country at that time.

thatdn't mean for us ukraine became a part of a different country at that time. when the soviet union collapsed in 1990 one and crimea became a part of ukraine, that is when the problems started. they aren't even speaking russian anymore. they are being persecuted for speaking their own language. i never liked clinton, he was never my favorite. in this case i absolutely support him because i know about the situation in crimea. they want to be part of russia. peopleut what about the in ukraine who did not want to be a part of russia?

that as those people wanting to be part of the west, part of europe, and not part of russia? is it an either or situation? caller: it goes deep into the history. east and west always had their differences, even eating in the soviet union. wantedt part of ukraine to be european. the east never wanted to be europe. host: so it's either you are europe or russia? the country itself is divided. it was part of the soviet union it was divided into different opinions. of the country always wanted to -- the west of the country always wanted to be part of the west. the east of the country always wanted to be a part of the

soviet union. even at that time. i am not a politician, i am just a regular politically knowledgeable person. this is not the end. it will not and in just crimea. i am watching a lot of people talking about the situation in their country. east of the country wants want to be part of russia. they will go back to russia. not just crimea. that in thewill see regions of ukraine. the eastern regions will go back to russia. we will say welcome back home. host: we will next go to marvin

in cambridge. was a couple of points where you asked the question why should americans care. there are several points. one is that america is part of nato. to -- two, the u.s. have already dissed that fighter planes to poland, which is on russia's border. it's only 20 minutes flying time from their current upset is going on. there was aing is headline recently in the financial times, which says we have been here before. sees, 1938. that is basically the comment. host: do you agree with hillary comparison with

vladimir putin's strategies and actions as comparable to hitler's actions? caller: i do. -- aszzzzzzzzzzzzz as people have said, there are a great many of people who speak russian all along the balkans. concerned, it are is a straight run through because it is flat territory. zzzzzx -- condoleezza rice frights that this is a message to the other countries, to those other countries in the baltic states. zz the american public will soon find themselves involved. --host: john in d.c.. we have problems of constitutionality in russia. russian politician the

said if california has limited seceding from the union, would you bomb san francisco? i would suggest to you that our current long-standing of that matter -- interventionist policy all over the world, is doing nothing but an danger in our country. disagree very strongly. anthony from staten island, new york. caller: i am from the ukraine myself. two calls ago somebody mentioned russia against the baltics. thee of the reasons

russians were against the baltics was because in the world war the baltics were fighting on the side of the nazis. i would like to say that independent reporters are selling news. by doing that they are doing a lot of the services to the actual reality of the situation. they are being anti-russian because it sells for people like cnn. is therety of things are many nationalities who live in ukraine. there are ukrainians, there are russians, there are polish people. are part of the 15 countries of the soviet union. limit break this down for you very clearly. ukraine is basically divided into the west and the east. the bond there basically call

the nationalists who used a five -- used to fight on the side of the not sees during world war ii. a these are the people who have prohibited any other languages other than the ukrainian language. to school to learn history and russian. history and ukrainian. now you can only learn and ukrainian. that is what costs -- what caused a lot of controversy. the eastern side is predominantly russian. it is basically industrial cities. these industrial cities are very productive cities. it is basically what makes east and the west very different. tourism --t is more the bottom line is the yanukovych question.

i'm not going to argue and say he is a great president. nevertheless he was to mechanically elected. imagine if 40% of people do not vote for obama and decided they were going to start the riot. the riots and the people supporting him are the western. veryarted out as a protest peacefully. what turned out to be was what -- when soccer season is over in ukraine you don't have much to do. opportunity to get paid. that is what happens.

stadium started eating -- started beating militia with pipes and rocks. would american police officers respond when you pick thinkeapon -- what do you the police officer would do? that was anthony from --host: that was anthony from staten island, new york. it is his second straight win in a row. he tweeted this out about the situation in russia, saying -- you can call in about the situation in the ukraine. a couple of issues on

the table. front page of "the new york times" has this story about passport theft in the mystery of that missing plane. investigators are trying to find out what happened to an airline jet.

it also said inside "the washington times" that -- front page of "the new york times close quote is a story about auto regulators. general motors vehicles suddenly turned off when being driven. they declined to investigate the problem. a new york times analysis of consumer complaints admitted to the national highway traffic administration -- since february 2003 it received an average of two complaints of a potentially dangerous shutdown but repeatedly responded there was not enough evidence of a problem to warrant a safety investigation. joe in virginia, independent color.

caller: i appreciate the last several callers played the devil's advocate. these are people from the area. you hear very clearly signs of ethnic concerns, self-determination. we will be on the other side. i understand the concern people have. at the same time it is very clear that there is a divide in the ukraine to begin with. it is a policy that is saving face for everyone. shaheennator jeanne

tweets this out -- mary in bridgeport, pennsylvania, democratic caller. of agree with the last caller. we also have to get out the fake ukrainians that are coming over with those fake passports. i believe that isolationism would be the best policy to avoid war. take out everything economically americanan, all the businesses, no visitors know tourism. i believe it would be hard on the families who have people still in russia. putin has planned this for a long time. of history from

catherine the great. she is using the same words -- he is using the same words she did. if we repeat history, we are being very stupid. hitler used the same words. putin used the same words against afghanistan. you're giving folks a little history lesson. talk more about catherine the great. catherine the great transported russian people into conquered countries as an excuse to keep those countries. she would say she was protecting ethnic russians and had a right to protect her people. hitler sort of did the same thing. , -- were taken out of their homeland and transported to siberia. russians were taken out of russia and transported to crimea.

the russians there are not native crimea and. crimeans.ive host: nathan is up next, democratic caller. caller: we are now trying to pursue policies that will try to cripple our oligarchy. the eu is loaning 35 minutes ellis from the international monetary fund. it is becoming a fight between our oligarchs and their oligarchs. the interests of either people are not being served. in 1840's on the zachary taylor the american army into mexican territory. when the mexican territory followed back into the state of texas, they claimed they were fighting on american soil and we

california, arizona, and part of texas. kind of what is going on here. i'm not saying the overthrow of jacob which was a bad thing, he was a terrible president. a badyanukovych was thing, he was a turtle president. it is foolish to think -- a terrible president. it is foolish to think they are just going to sit by. i would like to make one last point. this conflict in the ukraine between the western ukrainians and eastern ukrainians shows a decentralized government with more state and local control would defuse a lot of these tensions more effectively. host: here are a couple of tweets for you --

john in london, if you can make it real quick, you are our last pre-and -- you are our last. caller: people are talking about the historical and cultural issues. the main point people forget is that it is quite simple -- the russians sent the soldiers in, roll the tanks and, and then they annex the territory of crimea. it is bit like scotland asking for independents. host: i think we got your point there but we have to end it there and let you know what is coming up tomorrow. nancy cook will be joining us to

talk about jobs and the economy. she covers those issues for the national journal. then we will talk with alex wayne about the obama administration's latest delays under the affordable care act. to the will talk executive director for the national center of learning disabilities about the president's budget, which includes $12 billion for special education. thank you for watching on this sunday. you'll be back tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. eastern time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> today on c-span, "newsmakers" with congressman kevin brady. followed by a look at last

week's release of the white house 2015 budget request with remarks by president obama and then minority leader mitch mcconnell from the senate floor. testifyinga burwell on the president's request. mr.newsmakers" > welcomes kevin brady. he is joining us on its own. i want to start this morning. new economic numbers for february have just come out. the number is unemployment at , the economy adding 175,000 jobs here at i would like you to act to the desk jobs. --s.ld like you to act