mortgage forgiveness act which expired in december of last year. we will be listening for your calls. washington journal is next. host: good morning, it is monday, april 7. the house and senate are in today, the senate is set to resume consideration of a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits this afternoon. meanwhile we have a three-hour washington journal in which we carediscuss the affordable act, in mortgage debt forgiveness program, and efforts to create a new centrist party in the united states. we'll talk about last week's deadly shooting in fort hood, texas. in the wake of the latest congress are

calling for restrictions to be eased on the ability for military personnel to carry weapons while on base. we are opening up our phone lines to you as we ask whether you think soldier should be allowed to carry guns on military facilities. you can call -- we have a special line set up this morning for active and retired military personnel. you can also catch up with us on your favorite social media pages . on twitter, facebook, or e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. the headline in "the washington times" this morning -- from thelittle bit "christian science

monitor," -- historytory is -- courtesy of the "christian science monitor."

that is "the christian science today'sclose quote in issue. the national review online notes that three times in the last four years military bases have been the scenes of horrific rampages. on each occasion than men have managed to riot wall servicemen have been ordered to shelter in place. the national review says walk into any church in texas and opened fire and there's a good chance you'll find fire back your way. that is from "the national review online."

this topic is also the subject of plenty of debate on the sunday shows yesterday. i want to play you a bit of congressman mike mccall, republican from texas, from his appearance on fox news sunday. [video clip] , right texan hits home in my backyard. my heart goes out to the victims and their families. the community has responded very we are, resilient, and thinking about them at this critical point in time. can we stop this in the future? i don't think we ever can secure a military base from something like this happening. athink it does require review, an analysis of the force protection policies that we have in our military installations. we also need to look at the possibility of whether we can hire more military police at these installations.

years we have seen an uptick in violence and installations. we have the navy yard example recently. fort hood, this is the second time by ae first terrorist and the second time by a mentally ill patient. we know he was applying for leave. i think his mother passed away and he was looking for a leave of absence. that's not a rational response to go ahead and shoot 16 and killed three others, including himself. this requires us to look at whether or not we should be looking at the idea of scenery leadership at these aces the ability to carry weapons. they defend this overseas and abroad and defend our freedom abroad.

the idea that they are defenseless when they come our bases, i think the congress should be looking at that and should be having a discussion about what should be the best policy. host: this debate playing out on our facebook page. further up the page -- plenty of comments coming in on our twitter page -- it is the question we are asking our soldiers -- our viewers.

it played out on the sunday shows yesterday. republicans can call in -- a special line for retired and active military personnel. waiting in georgia, a retired member of the military. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. absolutely not. as a 22 army veteran -- 22 year army veteran and current employee who works as a security guard at an installation that is the last thing the military tods, to allow soldiers have weapons on base. you have soldiers who are havensible, but you

soldiers with ptsd and all these other disorders on all these strokes that army is giving them for depression. the last thing you need is these soldiers walking around the base with weapons. host: can i get your thoughts on liz's comment on our facebook page? she says -- your take? caller: she is absolutely right. right now the law enforcement installation -- if the situation arises and everyone has a gun, who will we know who to engage and who not to engage? the active shooter scenario -- we have distinguished shooter and who is not the shooter.

the casualties will be much higher. elliott from georgia on our line for active and retired military members. james is calling in as well. he is a retired military member. year and am also a 22 a half veteran of the united states army. cases when i was stationed in georgia they used to have a security person that to secure the payroll for the units. this particular soldier was given a 45 automatic and eight rounds of ammunition only.

i do feel the armed services is great as far as the random am everyng of weapons and ismanding officer responsible for the ammunition that is used by his company. whenever we went to the firing ranges every cartridge was accounted for and the weapons were cleared before they put them back into the arms rule. the only people that i knew then that would carry an open letter and would be the military police. another comment i would like to make is remember, when soldiers in most areas where an army facility is there

would be gun shops outside of the base. a soldier would only have to produce his identification card to get a weapon. so i do feel soldiers are not running around at random with weapons unless it is known that that soldier -- >> on our twitter page, craig writes -- caller: the thing about it is this young man who purchased a weapon, he purchased it to legally. the thing about it is how

would a gun shop owner no that when this soldier comes in and says i would like to buy this 38 , whether this man has a little deficiency or not. the thing about it is if that the-- you could say all of veterans are suffering from some kind of trauma. who cannot dealers ascertain whether a soldier, whether he comes in to purchase a weapon is suffering from this mental illness. knew thatw, no one the soldier had a weapon in the first place. usually if information is passed on to a company commander on the base that a particular soldier,

even if he is not mentally thate, has a weapon in barracks. he would be arrested for carrying an illegal weapon because he is only carrying a weapon that is issued to him. host: that was james from baltimore, maryland. we have a special line for those retired and active military members. we talk about this question in "the washington journal." a bit more from the sunday shows yesterday. former chairman and joint chiefs of staff michael mullen was asked about which -- at about these restrictions that allow soldiers to carry weapons on military bases. here's a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> we need to review the security procedures. i have not been one that would argue for arming anyone that is on base.

that actually invites much more difficult challenges. i think we have to get at the issues that are singled out in this particular incident with respect to the individuals. certainly we have to do everything we can to protect everybody that is on base. i'm sure this incident will cause secretary hegel to review those procedures. i would be much more in the camp of fixing it that way and focusing on the individuals then routinely allowing arms on any military base in the country. former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff michael mullen. hegel andup secretary the department of defense. here's a statement that addresses this. his was released after the

shooting happened. the defense department is not allow it personnel to carry weapons in military installations. steve lawrence said last week that the department took a close look after the 2009 shooting in fort hood and again after last year's washington navy yard shooting. such a move would create a number of complications, not the least of which is safety. another reason is the prohibitive cost and training and the requirements and recertification that would happen. defense secretary chuck hagel has been clear that if something did go wrong -- "the focus is on caring for the wounded and the family members of the wounded and proceeding with the investigation. that was a statement from the defense department last week. we are talking with our viewers this morning.

we will go to our line for independents. is waiting in jackson, mississippi. good morning. i was stationed in fort hood, texas from 1954 to 1956. weapons withwe had live ammo is when we went out to qualify with weapons yearly. weaponse they had their and you were not allowed to have a personal weapon in your possession. any reason to change that now. this is something that happened. this is not going to be an everyday occurrence -- everyday occurrence. >> thank you for the call this morning.

a note on the president's schedule this week. president obama will attend a memorial service at fort hood. the president and first lady are scheduled to attend that on wednesday to pay their respect to the victims of last week's tragedy. today andding to usa several papers. obama is scheduled to begin a two-day trip to texas on wednesday. the story notes obama visited fort hood in november 2009 under similar circumstances after a shooting rampage by muslim army officer that left 13 dead and injured 30 three of we'll stay on this topic for the next half hour or so on the washington journal. we want to bring you up-to-date on what is happening on capitol hill this week what is on tap in the house and senate specifically on the budget battles that are taking place on capitol hill. i want to bring in perl cars that of cq roll call. thank you for joining us.

get your sense of the ryan budget first. the house republican budget. what is happening this week with the ryan budget now that it has been introduced. guest: the ryan budget will be and voted on the street probably once a or thursday. orprobably wednesday thursday. they will be releasing a budget today. budget ito the ryan will -- the spending cuts will it will have ad lot of revenue increases. mainly through closing various tax breaks. host: is the democratic budget going to get any time on the it willis week? guest: probably be considered along with a ryan budget. there will probably be some

other budgets considered. the congressional black caucus and progressive caucus to the great introduced budgets. those will probably all be debated. at a time when there has been negotiated budget caps, is there any supplies that any surprises in these? -- is there any surprises in these? guest: there are surprises but not related to the coming year. was partt cap for 2015 of the budget deal negotiated by paul ryan and patty murray. there is no proposal in the ryan budget to change that. the ryan budget does reduce the government operating spending are there in the, -- in the 10 years. host: how much are we going to

see come campaign season in a congressional election year? certainlyocrats are planning to use the spending cuts and ryan budget in campaigns against republicans. republicans will be pointing to various proposals in the budget. spending cuts, not raising taxes, in their campaigns. fewer people vote. it is very important for both parties to get their bases out. be advertisingl this conservative budget with their base. before we let you go, the unemployment insurance extension votes in the senate -- is that

that happened? that certainly should pass. a majority of democrats voted for that last week. they voted to allow the bill to be considered. that should get a majority easily. how much pressure is on the house to move this bill and what did house speaker john boehner say about it? guest: some republicans in the house would like to consider this bill. boehner is pretty skeptical about it. they want to go back and pay these extend unemployment backs -- unemployment benefits retroactively. they are initiating other initiatives that they believe

will get people back to work. it's very doubtful the house will consider the bill this week. it in futureider weeks. it may not be considered at all. thank you for getting up with us this morning on "washington journal." we are asking our viewers in the wake of that debt is -- that's a deadly shooting, should soldiers be allowed to carry more guns on military bases? the healing process continues for those caught up in the tragedy last week. here's a story from "the wall street journal." it talks about the slain soldiers, remembered as heroes.

the three slain by the alleged shooter in that case before he took his own life. get your thoughts and comments as we go through the stories this morning. we also want to play you one more clip from the sunday shows. facefeiffer was on cbs's the nation. here is what he had to say. [video clip] fort hood we from have to do a lot more to make sure our men and women feel safe when they come home. this is a trier -- this is a terrible tragedy. they are actually going to travel down on wednesday. >> the president is going to the service? >> yes, sir. >> and going to be on wednesday. waiting inis district heights. he is a retired member of the militant terry -- of the

military. good morning. caller: good morning. like to say that i don't think many politicians care too much about the troops. if they cared about the troops they would not care only when something like this happens. ony would not send them over these unnecessary missions to look for some nameless and faceless people that our government just decides to call terrorist. i think that is just foul. that is what happened on base here. i would like to say something else about it, it is strange to me that if you are not a muslim and you shoot somebody on base is not a terrorist attack. if you are a muslim serving this country, in the service, and you shoot somebody on base you are a terrorist. terrorism is killing our troops.

it is something i believe doesn't exist as much as they say. to hear these politicians talk as though they care about the troops. bringing up members of congress and some of their response to what happened last week. here's is a story in "the new york times" -- alan is in maryland, an independent and retired member of the military.

caller: i am a retired veteran. when i was in iraq everyone on base had a weapon and everyone had access to ammunition. there is a strict discipline freedom -- discipline. these rules can be implement it stateside. i don't see why it is such a big deal. we are trained to use these weapons anyway. >> what about the concern that was brought up by one of our viewers on facebook earlier today that an active shouldn't -- it would be much harder to tell friend from foe in the sort of circumstance. caller: i basically -- leverage the foe that is firing at you. they don't always have uniforms. it is not much different here.

what prevents a military uniform? it is the same thing. host: this question is on our facebook page and a poll format. yes, soldiersng should be allowed to carry weapons on military bases. 13 people saying no. participate in the conversation on twitter or call us this morning for the next 20 minutes or so as we talk about this. some recommendations from the navy yard shooting that the pentagon released after that incident. the department of defense released that report after examining security in the wake of the navy yard shooting. the department concluded it it's doing a poor job of securing those facilities.

jerry is in south carolina. good morning. thank you for calling. mice justin would be to restrict the use of military personnel carrying sidearms to captives. -- two captains. a specially a person -- -- we are a person

pretty square away. e-4's,nd the most of the people making captain are looking at a military career and they will not do anything to jeopardize that. jerry in south carolina. our lines for retired and active military members is -- on that line is michael from pennsylvania. thank you for calling "the washington journal." a great show you have here. i did 10 years in the military, to two wars overseas.

you have your weapon and all when terrorism was really starting to life. on the issue of carrying weapons, i would be appalled of artier military has -- has in place an initial psychiatric violation or psychological abnormalities. it should be on the tour. one that needs further assistance to be evaluated. one gentleman said once you're making 10, you cannot put on the blankets. sorting and of points -- who's going to say he is not going to flip off?

it has to be an individual in valuation. other words the -- individual evaluation. otherwise -- from "thelumnist washington times" wrote a piece on the front sai page. caller: i definitely think --ebody undergoing treatment myself, diagnose ptsd, sometimes you do things that you normally wouldn't do. there are side effects. we don't know how to place the

blame in long-term usage of medication. that is just one point. we have a metal detector at their. at the gate at the post. that because an open post, anybody can drive in. post ort have an open at least limited. there should be serious penalties for that. on our twitter page -- we will stay on this topic for the next 15 minutes or so.

i want to point out some news in other papers around the country on the subject of politics. the lead story in today's wall street journal, clinton freezes the rest of the 2016 field. you can read more about that story in "the wall street journal." on the republican side, on the potential 2016 white house contender question, jeb bush says he will decide by the end of the year. he is the second oldest son of george h the few bush -- each w -- george h. w. bush.

he ultimately would base his decision on whether or not a candidate can run with an optimistic message, hopefully with enough detail to give people a sense it is not just idle words and not get back into the for text. bush's extended comments came as many of the republican party's and powerful insiders become the behind the scenes campaign -- back to the phones, we will go to john who is an active form of -- active member of the military. caller: good morning. i want to weigh in for just a moment. of ave this mentality perimeter-based security.

matter if he is operating a -- as long as you have a full base and don't have people within that permit or with the capability to respond, you will always have these types of problems. we need to transition to the idea that responsible, trained people are capable of responding to a threat within the perimeter. do not allowtions soldiers to carry weapons in certain facilities. placess one of the first they would go to shoot out. we need that same mentality stateside. -- :

caller: world war ii we were afraid of an asymmetric threat. we were worried the japanese would sabotage our airfields we put our planes as close together as possible. instead of an asymmetric threat we saw a conventional military threat, allowing our plans to be more targeted easily from the sky. when we secure our bases, when we have outdated policies based on a cold war mentality we open ourselves up, we create soft targets by not adapting to the current problems we have. installations on who are trained and able to carry weapons all-time. post and you on are a getting us -- you are a sitting duck -- i do not understand that. a few comments from

members of congress, asked whether soldiers should be allowed to carry guns -- let's go to nancy from hamilton ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. aat i would recommend is that responsible person, probably two or three, at the weapons medical food and records facilities on be allowed to carry a weapon.

i don't believe all the soldiers should have weapons. i believe two or three responsible soldiers at these facilities i just named be toowed to carry a weapon defend themselves and others in those particular facilities. besides the police personnel and security personnel on base who are already armed? caller: yes. you aren't that many of them. this particular base, i understand, is humongous, so they would not be able to respond quickly. that is why so many were shot. him think god they weren't -- thank god they weren't killed. i think there was one e-mail that one female entity that

responded. after he shot those people he was confronted by one female nt and that is when he shot himself. and that was only one military police that was able to respond quickly. i believe if they had two or three responsible soldiers at medical -- the facilities on these basis, especially if big basic fort hood, i think that would cut down because soldiers on these bases with no that certain people in those facilities have guns and they would not know which ones. they would think twice before going and shooting up the place. host: thanks for the call. nancy talked about what is being reported about the incidents and

the final moments of that shooting spree that happened. the christian science monitor noting that it wasn't until a military police officer raised her gun toward the shooter that he ended up taking his own life. details have been released since the incident last week. a few other stories i want to -- for you this morning, an that is an interview on state of the union. we will be talking about the affordable care act later today, specifically some of those comments by both kids and pelosi.

also work place you'd expect that if order continue a white house tradition and other stories from "the washington post."

we have a few more minutes to talk about this question, should soldiers be allowed to carry guns on military bases and should those restrictions be loosened. but go to kara waiting on our line for republicans. good morning, thank you for watching "the washington journal." officer, think the whoever it was, should be the ones to carry weapons. if you have everybody carrying a 350on, i am in a room with guys and one crazy shooter all 350 of us

plotter weapons we don't know who to shoot. host: sorry we dropped your call there. i think the line -- we will try to get your line back. we have a call for michigan discussing this topic. morningre minutes this for the first segment of our show. to point out a few other stories for you. one story in today's financial times, talking about democrats here, the chance to mold of the supreme court is slipping away. democrats fear that president obama postulates is to mold one of the most powerful institutions, the supreme court, are slipping away --

that is going to do it in this first segment of "the washington journal" this morning. charles wejoined by lend to talk about his efforts to start a -- charles wheelan about his efforts to create a centrist party. we will be right back. ♪ >> the dsr nation is founded on law and not on the whim of man.

there is no divine right of presence. an ordinaryis citizens vested with the power to govern and sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states. of inherent in that oath is the responsibility to live within its laws with no higher or lower expectations than the average citizen. when the president appeared at the deposition of ms. jones and before the federal grand jury, he was born to a second to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. witnesses tog to the judiciary committee before the special counsel. it did not do. for this i will vote to impeach the president of the united states. of i ask this case to be considered by the united states senate.

-- of the united states senate -- the other body to uphold uphold the injustice of the serious charges. president you the have done great damage to this nation over the past year. while we contend that impeachment proceedings would only exacerbate the damage done to this country, i say you have the power to terminate the damage and heal the wounds you have created. you sir, may resign your post. >> no. >> no. click the house will be in order. -- >> the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

flex and i can only challenge you in such fashion if i am willing to heed my own words. colleagues, my friends, and most especially my wife and family, i have heard you all deeply and i figure forgiveness. lead ourpared to narrow majority a speaker and i had it in me to do a fine job. or be theo that job kind of leader i would like to be under current circumstances. that ist set the example hope president clinton will i will not stand for speaker of the house on january 6 but i shall remain as a backbencher in this congress that i so dearly love for approximately six months in the 106th congress, or upon i shall

vacate my seat and ask for the governor to call a special election to take my place. i think my constituents for the opportunity to serve them. i hope they will not think badly of me for leaving. alan martin, my chief of staff, and all of my staff for their tireless work on my behalf. and i thank my wife especially for head standing by me. god bless america. from 35 yearsghts of house floor coverage on our facebook page. created by cable companies 35 years ago and brought to today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> washington journal continues. charles are joined by wheelan, author of "the centrist manifesto." why do you think america is

ready for a centrist political party. aret: look around, people disaffected with the current policy. there is not progress and i would never argue there is a right solution on these things. but i would argue there is a range of answers, all of which are better than what we are doing now. people look atf the two parties and don't feel completely at home in either. they would like something new or better or more pragmatic. how is this party going to be different from other third-party efforts? you can pick your failed third party of choice. the key is they all focused on the presidency. a the presidency in the u.s. is a total fool's errand because of

the electoral college. it is nearly impossible to win as a third-party candidate. our strategy for now is focus entirely around the u.s. senate and the idea is there are a handful with a senator from one party and a senator from another. those are places where the centrists will swing one or the other. if we can win a senate seat in three or four of those races, then you get to a place where the u.s. senate can be 48-4-48. then the centrists lead the ship. host: you said there are parts of both parties you like. what would you keep from the democratic party? caller: somebody -- democratic party? best: somebody has to thinking about the americans. i would target the policies -- i would make sure we had human capital programs in place all the way up through drop of

retraining for people in their 40's and 50's. we have to think about giving everybody an economic opportunity. the the democrats have been -- the democrats have been tepid in some senses. we cannot simply redistribute our way out of our problem. republicans are pro-tree, which ultimately makes the pie bigger. even if at present the party is too dogmatically thai government, the fact is we ought to be skeptical always about what the government can accomplish. what is most harmful to situation? itical thet: i think a lot of views on social issues are not small government. we can disagree on gay marriage but i'm not going to concede that trying to pass a constitutional amendment to ban consenting adults from getting married is small government.

the democratic side i think the democrats, for the most car -- most part, are in denial when it comes to entitlement reform. about those programs then you have to fix them. much when we hear about so polarization, is there room in the middle for the centrist party? guest: there should be. 60lup did a poll that found -- found most americans think we need a third date american party. somemeans there are republicans and democrats who are looking for an alternative. is also true the biggest trending group is independent. p --endent means a lot of a lot of things to a lot of people. we want viewers to ask the

questions for charles. and hisabout that book vision for centrist party in the united states. republicans can call -- democrats -- if you are outside the u.s. -- i was reading through your book, the strategy you used is occupying the center wall both political parties were talking to their paces during the primary process. the question i have is how do you get folks to pay attention to what you are doing during that primary process when most of the people who are talking about this in the general election did not pay attention. you alluded to the strategy to run a third-party candidate while the primaries

are still going on. it works better as a single moderate centrist candidate. you do have to get people who say they are centrist and pragmatic to pay attention then and take advantage of the fact that youth you have -- that if you have an open seat, the primary forces are two extremes. if you can get that third-party candidates speaking to the middle of those ultimately going to decide the election from the -- theng, then the true two traditional candidates cannot to the etch-a-sketch. case there is a candidate already holding the center. there are no runoffs in the senate races. also ran for congress yourself. tell us about your political campaign. in my mind the republican party moved away and i no longer

felt comfortable there for environmental and social issue reasons. i went to chicago -- iran in ranago as a fiscally -- i in chicago as a fiscally conservative democrat. i couldn't get out of the primary. a lott point i felt like of americans in that i was a man without a party. we're seeing a lot of blue dog democrats become more of a rare species in capitol hill. it is kind of like an extinction save your program. we are creating a centric path and the m o is to get centrist voters from around the country to focus on a handful of races, particularly in the senate. if you get people from 50 states paying attention to key races you can use the club for growth

model, funnel contributions and channel them to key races. moderates feel empowered even if there is not a race in their district it's the bill. -- their district that fits the bill. host: a quote -- we will get into the ideology here on "washington journal." we will do it with the help of our viewers. on twitter -- guest: you have to be fiscally conservative.

bowles is asimpson centrist effort in the sense it raised revenue rose -- raised revenues, clues to that closely polls. -- raised revenues,". being fiscally responsible is about not spending today money that belongs to tomorrow. i would argue being environmentally responsible is exactly the same thing. just those two things. forwards would rule out primary contestants in both parties. -- four words would rule out primary contestants in both parties. host: john is waiting on our live for independents. caller: i am a centrist, a middle-of-the-road or. i don't believe in right-wing or left-wing.

the i believe that is where our biggest problem lies, political parties. elected, hegets does something for three months, the rest of the time is spent collecting money for his party. every party member goes into congress, they do little to collect money. that is what i don't particularly care about and that is why i am a centrist. you claim to be a moderates and i don't particularly care for moderates. i believe it should be strictly down the middle of the road. no left, no right, no compromises. i think what we are looking for is problem solvers.

there's an interesting feature we take for granted, two sides each trying to defeat the other. if you are on a church board or any other governing organization and eachfactions separately say we can come out and the the other, you'd think this is completely this -- completely dysfunctional. these things mean different things to different people. they need a problem solvers. if you were trying to figure out whether you are trying to fix the screen windows, there are 20 folks on each side yelling not listening to what has been said. the people left in the room, even if they didn't agree on anything, would ultimately solve the problem. we are looking for pragmatism. a lot of independents calling and. richard is an independent from

pennsylvania. elan.re on with charles whele go ahead. caller: you know the republicans and the republicansd democrats have a stranglehold on each other. it is ridiculous. it is, you know, who has the most money? citizens united? all the things that go with it. it is ridiculous. i think that young people coming will have as world centrist government. there is no doubt about it. young people, once they get to the age where they are willing to participate completely with it, they are not going to want what we have got now. what we have now is a broken system.

that is my comment. host: are centrists inevitable? caller: the young people today have no time for either traditional political party. it does not fit in with their view of the world. they consider the republicans to be mean and out of touch on the environment, young people have radically different social views, particularly with regards to gay marriage and things like that, but they are far more environmentally sensitive than their parents and grandparents. at the same time they look at as old, musty, and out of touch, incapable of getting stuff done. kind of like your granduncle's democratic arty. not capable of doing what needs to be done. i would agree completely that the next generation is going to look at this oligopoly of parties and say it is not really for us.

host: charles wheelan, here to talk with us this morning about his book. that last caller expressed some from ouron from folks independent callers. how do you go from frustration with the two parties to getting what you are saying in your book, five or six senators elected? for usgreatest challenge is to persuade people that they can make a difference. a lot of folks have the same view as the last caller. what can they possibly do? i make a pitch for a movement where they nod and agree, but it is only when we get to the senate strategy, this point where few senators will make a difference where they sit up and pay attention. you go one step further, what if we were to organize 50 states around a few races?

the light goes off, they say it is a leverage point whereby they can make a difference. then they roll it up. in some ways it is better if you do not. it changes the mentality in the senate. people say that that is a road whereby we, the disaffected senators, can inject ourselves in the system. anyone right now who you would consider a centrist? guest: genghis king. i would love to see people making a caucus together. but i think he is a very important first step. host: we have this on twitter -- aest: in the book there is whole chapter called sex and guns. i had to take the hardest issues

and provide a pragmatic view. not a view that will please the two bases, but it will please the middle. let's take abortion. no one is pro-abortion. there has been no concerted political effort in this country to say let's keep abortion legal and minimize the number. let's focus on what we don't like. fighting battles over supreme court justices and symbolic measures at the supreme court level, let's get the abortion rate down to western europe. they have far fewer abortions and far more liberal abortion laws. in part because they are more generous in supporting single mothers, more access to birth control. pragmatist could rally around the idea of trying to minimize what we really don't like, abortion, moving away from the symbolic battles that characterize both sides. host: back to the phones, independent line, david is

waiting from burtonsville, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your work. i am sure that you put a lot of work in that was thankless for a while. thank you very much. host: let's go to the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i am talking. ok. i have been watching c-span since i was a young boy and i am now 54 years old. it ise a big problem and the two-party system. i was a democrat for a long time. i work for them still too certain degree. i am an african american. i am a negro. you do not change my name after a few years. -- a problemoblem

with the way the police are structured in virginia. it is more of a police state now. i know i am changing the subject a little bit, but they are not aggressive against illegals. this is a black neighborhood, it is all turning latino. i have nothing against latinos, but it is all latino. in all the businesses, in all the stores. my question is this -- is there a problem with the police? they have merged with the military in virginia. surveillance is big in virginia. homeland security, some policing issues and their. is there a centrist path that you would take on some of these? issue that hest raises is immigration. not directly, but there have been compromises on the table. this is one where you think the senate did a decent job where

they were not able to get it to the house, but immigration is an issue where the pragmatist in the center could be the glue that hold together what everyone knows we have to do, recognize the number of illegal folks in the country, give them some path to legality, whether it is to bring folks out of the shadows -- we have to ramp up the number of legal immigrants. silicon valley businesses are pleading for more skilled workers. and national security, i have to admit that because at present times are changing, there is not an obvious centrist policy. everything is in a state of flux. it is not like the cold war where you have clearly defined views. on that front we will just have to see how things unfold. it will involve a balance between things like personal security, privacy, and security. the pragmatists are the ones who always have to sort out the trade-offs. host: we are speaking with

.harles wheelan some of your other books, "10.5 things no commencement speaker has ever said," "the centrist manifesto," and what is one of the other books you're working on? >> i am working on a book on monetary policy. host: he is here to talk about his efforts to start a centrist policy in the united states. he will be here for the next 25 minutes or so. phone lines are open. host: we will go to the line for democrats. frank? like to askuld about how he would rate barack obama compared to harry truman, isther he he -- whether he

left of harry truman? i lived in the d c area for a while and i went to book events. i asked different guests there, newt gingrich, he gave one of the better answers, as an academic historian, he put obama to the left of george mcgovern. it seemed like a pretty straightforward answer. i wanted to know how you feel about that and, as far as foreign policy goes, what do you see in the future after obama? part of myst: problem with this answer will be that i don't know much about harry truman. but i want to reject the left right scales. even though that is the way that we now measure politicians, it is a multidimensional scale, to be real. bepassing health care he may perceived as to the left, but i believe that harry truman was the first democrat to try to do that. it just so happens that obama happened to do it. my knock on president obama

would be that in places where he can lead, he has not been as effective as many folks might have hope. let's take health care as the example. theuld argue that health-care care system is broken and was broken but that the democrats and republicans did not have a dialogue about why the system needs to get better, how it is so inefficient relative to the rest of the world, and that that package was kind of jammed through congress. no result is that there was durable majority. it is not right to change 18% of the economy without any votes from the opposition party. it is never pragmatic and it means you will probably not get a good health care policy. my knock on obama is not that he does not fall on this spectrum we like to trot out, it is that he has not brought people along in the way that we would have hoped given his communications abilities. host: roger green writes --

host: i know that you said it was easier to start a movement like this in the house or presidency. would you agree? >> i would agree. a centrist presidency could take is very far. this was the impetus for me to finish the book. in my mind as an economist, that was a very good package of compromises that included a lot of things that we had to do that had a political price attached to it. the leadership on the two sides left it there. paul ryan is clearly the republican go-to guy, he voted against it. on the left when talking about obama, he never really got behind it. there was no leadership. that point was a good one, a centrist president could go a long way to bringing the parties together and selling pragmatic solutions to the public, which

is where everything has to start . without a groundswell of support, politicians will never fear -- never feel covered to do what they have to do. it the current primary system, i don't see how you are going to get a centrist president. you might get someone who is elected and moves to the center, but the forces to be will not generate that person. in your book you make suggestions for correcting the system. changing the primary system. you talk about constraining the thect of money and changing rules of congress, including filibuster reform. i want to talk about the effect of money in congress. especially in the wake of the supreme court decision from last week. >> that is the most fanciful suggestion. for all the people that think the financial system is broken, i would say it is worse than you think it is.

it a corrupting influence, it just takes a lot of time. you say -- why are there not more good people running for office? because raising money is the most onerous piece of the job. i think that that gets lost. the supreme court has made it harder and harder. i just don't see it happening in the near future, as much as i think the system would be better if we were able to get the big money out of politics. >> the open primary system that you discussed, what would be the best sort of primary process? thealifornia is leading way, both with gerrymandering reforms and getting independent electoral commissions. but the way that this works is everybody runs in a single primary. there are variations on it, but the idea is the top two advance to the general. they could be democrats, republicans, but because of that dynamic, you are no longer competing in a primary with just

your ideological base. as you know, that system puts up folks that placate the far right and far left. with independent primaries it will spit out folks for closer to the center, so the runoff will not be between the extremes, but between the folks who managed to please the widest swath of voters. i am optimistic that it would start to change if you could get voters to do that. you would start to spit out candidates that were far more pragmatic and consistent with voter preferences of everyone in a particular district. host: this is from irish eyes on twitter -- twitter -- host: paul, good morning. you are on with charles wheelan. caller: good morning. i was calling in to express my opinion that i think that pragmatism in general in is really destructive.

that we have seen a series of candidates who have the exact same opinion on the key issues of progressive taxation, changing the tax policy on the nsa and just the surveillance of americans, the spying policy. not only that, but the federal reserve and really, the most important socialism of our time, tied into economic issues. just like to know if you think the parties are substantially different. do you feel that we need more difference between the candidates? guest: you kept referring to candidates and parties, which is important, but i want to bring it back to government. to get stuff done, you need to

be pragmatic. that is where we need to keep focusing. thee is this argument that parties are clones of each other, but i don't think that is true at all. i think the parties have drawn lines in the sand that are incompatible with the governing i have this -- that i have described. as long as they cling to this believe that they cannot raise revenue under any circumstances, that is incompatible with a government that has promised things that are getting more expensive. and they are not willing to identify the cuts the need to be realistically made. as long as the democrats cling to this notion that they will not change the retirement age of social security or restrain health-care spending, that is incompatible with making those programs work. there are stark differences between the parties. by itself that is not a problem, we should have differences of opinion. but when they are hard, fast, and incompatible with government ,ecisions that have to be made we have a whole series of

problems on autopilot. host: you can write us an e-mail this morning as well, journal at c-span.org. we have this -- right, so trade is a really good thing for centrist to be. as an economist, trade is what makes the pot bigger. it not only creates wealth in this country, but around the country. i was in india, a country that has benefited enormously from trade. if you care about people, you should care about the people of other countries as well. much raid also creates losers. you could probably take the best example from both parties, republicans are right in that we should make a pot your, but they seem to forget that if you make furniture in south carolina and there is cheaper stuff coming from rhea, your factory and your

whole town might seriously suffer. the best approach on trade is to do it and take care of the folks find themselves on the losing end. they have a smaller piece of this growing pie. the best article on trade was written by an economist from the george w. bush administration, the new heel for globalization. the idea was not to turn off the trade that has the potential to make people wealthier, but don't ignore the fact that not everyone is a winner, which i think is the most logical approach going forward. you talkyour book about tough issues. it is called the centrist manifesto. talking about guns after fort hood, texas, what would be the centrist and a festival plan? same chapter with sex. putting all the tough things in a tough place. do, from a need to

pragmatic standpoint, is keep hands.s out of the wrong it still allows people to hunt in wisconsin or have them in their homes and washington, d.c.. i would propose a process in which guns are treated like fine even have as many as you want, but they are registered to you. if you sell them, or lose it, you have to report that they were stolen or lost. a registry, if you will. to the folks in the middle i think it is part of responsible gun ownership. just like responsible car ownership. then if a bunch of guns start showing up in washington neighborhoods and are being used in gang murders and the like, we can focus on where they have come from. is there someone who seems to be losing 35 guns per week and they are finding their way to the wrong place? combines strategy that the libertarian right, have as many guns as you want, but with

a responsibility overlay that characterizes pragmatism on the host of issues. you don't get to have guns about taking care of them. host: what about where you can carry them? guest: that is a harder one. once you step out of your house, it is all of our business. that is probably something best left to the states. one of the themes of the book is that in a federal system there is a role to allow states to disagree and i would say that concealed carry laws are probably better left to the states, with the caveat that whatever gun you have is registered so that we know where it turns up if it is in the wrong hands. mike is calling in on the independent mind this morning from an sylvania. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span, first of all. in pennsylvania it is virtually to get on a ballot in

a statewide election. for example, if you are running for governor -- i don't know the exact numbers, this is a rough estimate, you only need like 1000 signatures. if you are independent or third-party of some kind, you need like 60,000. -- howyou -- how do you do you handle that? guest: this is a good point. i used the word oligopoly earlier. the two parties have a stranglehold on the system. changing the rules as part of the way they do it. there is no logical reason why you would need more signatures as an independent. you should need the same numbers and if that is a hurdle, fair enough. here is where the 50 state strategy makes a difference. what we bring our people who are pragmatic and centrist in 50 state to are willing to help elect one or two people wherever it is most likely to happen.

to ballotct signatures, and absolutely huge hurdle, the idea is that when you identify the promising candidate, you interact with folks from 50 states to show up. college students. you say that for the next 10 days we need to raise 23,500 signatures. that is part of the immigrant -- that is part of the innovation here. if you can harness that effort, you can absolutely get on the ballot anywhere. there is no signature hurdle that is impenetrable if you draw from the whole country. eddie identified any promising candidates going into the next election? anyave you identified promising candidates going into the next election? guest: we have different markers, like fiscal responsibility, environmental responsibility, acknowledge the climate change is real and needs to be addressed, and so on.

for candidates willing to abide by centrist principles, saying that these are consistent with 2014 we are all working on it. we are not quite there yet, but on the senate side there are opportunities. the house side will be less active, but given the number of races they will likely have candidates willing to sign on to those principles. host: the website? .org.: centristproject host: andrew, good morning. you are on with charles wheelan. caller: good morning. i have a couple points. , just 28. i only recently moved into the area recently. it is very impressive, the whole washington thing. well-established, but my mind has been thinking that

the capital has all been moved before. aboute all talking shifting power changes and why things can't move into a different direction. i have never thought of things as in the centrist system, but more like moving to a one-party now we are moving towards a multiparty system. as a kid when they taught history it was -- the one-party system gave it up to the two-party system, easily. like that is what made this country great. they realize the need to move forward, but now that is not happening when there is a need for it. in my mind a solution could be moving the capital again, shifting the power structure into a different location, shifting the party schematics and all of that. id -- i do not think i

will embrace blu-ray capital, but the thing that did make this country great was the onetitutional convention, giant series of compromises. it is ironic to my mind that the tea party is named after the tea party, the easy part. you go on to a bunch of ships and throw things in the ocean, but that does not accomplish a lot when people iron out the differences to make things stronger out of this agreement. areink that there historical lessons, but i don't think that moving the capital is one i will seize on. host: romney, independent line, good morning. caller: [indiscernible] morning. i agree with your project [indiscernible] white shuttime the they ought to think they .on't say

what do you think that permanent? career out ofke so extreme on their ideas before they can get elected. of takingo scared their jobs. power-hungry, i think. i don't understand on both sides why they won't do a scared word about their own. oberoi.ut under speech thank you. host: thank you for the call this morning. guest: term limits aren't attractive solution, but i fear they would not deliver what people hope. i have the same frustration, people come to congress and make a career out of it. self-preservation tends to trump

the natural -- natural limits. the fear is a term limits would just trump the problem. you have to leave and make sure that you will get a plum lobbying job. one of the problems we have is the revolving door. people serving congress without going far in washington, they just aren't lobbying on the interests they used to preside over in congress. i fear that the kind of people we were electing, if the parties lock hold on the system, term limits are superficially attractive. if i were persuaded that state term limits were doing a much changejob, maybe i would my view, but right now i think it is a simple fix for a much more complicated problem. host: dana, california, thanks for getting up with "washington journal" this morning. caller: hello. i kind of like and am attracted to the idea of the centrist and pragmatic hearty.

to take the best of both sides. young people of this country would probably move in that direction. i am agreeing with what your guest is saying. my question, though, about how that would work, i like the idea that, starting with the senate is the best place to start. my question is, though, when it comes down to votes in the house, eventually in the if people are ideally looking to get three policies, say that you have like 33, 33, 33, you know, members of the senate. how would you change the rules in terms of how a bill would pass?

if you don't like the idea of possibly narrowing that down to 34%, 35% of the senate , wouldng on a question you push that number up to like 61? would that make majority for something to pass? so, that is my question in terms howetting three parties -- would you decide who wins the vote? this is a really important point. you have given me 33 centrist members of the senate. the point is, and i think this is a key mindset change, 3, 4, 10, you cannot pass a bill alone . you are like the smallest kid on the playground. you have to find friends, which is totally different from the mindset now.

you can look to the republicans and say -- look, we share your views on a number of things. are you serious about corporate tax reform? rather than being permanent it if youed and save want to put a price on carbon, we have 10 votes for you. of breaking the broken mindset of washington, there is an enormous benefit of being a minority in the middle. you have got to be the peacemaker on both sides. if the republicans and democrats don't want to play in the sandbox you are creating and don't want to compromise with you, is there the possibility of creating more gridlock? therethere could --guest: could be. if either party comes and is purely obstructionist, the system is designed to accommodate the obstructionist. this is a system designed not to be king george and we succeeded

wildly. the house, if they are committed to doing nothing, there is little that we can do to overturn that. but if there are members of each party for there for the right reason, and i firmly believe that there are, you can be a catalyst to reach out to them and get things moving. all that we can do is promote the best interests that currently exist. we cannot overcome a party committed to doing nothing. host: harry, rougher glen, virginia, good morning. wanted to make the comment that you had on the noshing -- national gun registry. upon therly based notion of the separation of powers. so, we created the senate, the congress, rejected by us.

, a lot ofng father's them are in -- were english. oliver cromwell. our founding fathers were fine with absolute power. that's why we created divided government. this in terms of guns, if we create a national , you know, ourns founding fathers thought there is the possibility of our government being corrupted one day. that is why we divided the powers. it is already bad enough with the things we have going on with nsa, tracking this very phone call. i am not sure that many people , especially those who believe in the right to bear arms, they see a corrupt government coming in and taking your guns.

taking a right to protect yourself. host: charles wheelan? guest: you are right. that is not something that is going to fly with the extreme right and it is not designed to. it is designed to appeal to folks who want to get the best of what we can offer. if we can still guarantee that hunters can have what they want, use guns for sport, use them in your home, it just adds a modicum of responsibility. yes, there is this prospect that the government is going to know where the guns are and come get them, but you have to weigh the risk against the danger that we face every day, which is tens of thousands of people being killed on the streets of america. that --e routine gang gang violence. unlike drugs, guns are manufactured legally. people can't make a guns in the basement, with some exceptions.

somehow they fall out of the legal system into the wrong hands and the restaurant is are you willing to trade off a bit of your privacy, just registering the gun. there would still be a lot of effort involved in coming to get it. ensures -- is that ensures less slaughter on the streets. is that is the trade-off you are willing to do, don't be part of the centrist project. host: two are your inspirations? guest: -- who are your inspirations? put theeorge tsongas price of deficit on the political radar. he brought up a lot of the things we would have to do to deal with our budget situation back then. bill clinton eviscerated him in the primaries, but his gift was that he made it easier later for clinton to balance the budget and do the things that had to be

done. he kind of softened up america. there is a role for truth tellers to speak about what has to be done. they may not win the election, but they move the electorate in a way that makes it easier to solve problems. host: last question from twitter -- guest: well, i think that if we cannot change that mindset -- and i agree completely, you turn it on, you check the sports scores, you watch the presidential race to see the scandals that come out. we think of policies with winners and losers. if you had a scoreboard, a church board, any other inspiration -- any other institution the ran that way? that question makes no sense. if we cannot change the mindset by providing a forum where reasonable people come up with pragmatic solutions? then there is no hope. but i think that that was the

crux of the problem. the book is "the centrist manifesto." the author was charles wheelan. thank you for joining us this morning on "washington journal." guest: great to be with you, thanks. host: "the hill" newspaper joins up with us to talk about what is next for the affordable care act. later on in the your money segment, we will be discovering the mortgage forgiveness debt relief act. first, a news update from c-span radio. that defenseports secretary, chuck hagel, has aircrafthina's sole carrier today, calling it an unprecedented opening by beijing and a potent symbol of its military buildup. the secretaries the first official visitor from outside china to be allowed on board. on december 5, earlier in the trial run, one of the chinese ships accompanying it was involved in a near collision

with a navy cruiser in international waters. the navy officials said cruiser maneuvered to avoid the collision but it marked the most serious sea confrontation between the nations in years. at the time a chinese media report said that a u.s. ship was the ship that got too close. ukraine, pro-russian separatists who sees the provincial minute -- provincial administration building today reclaimed the region an moveendent republic in the running up to crimea. the news agency says that the activists are demanding that a referendum be held no later than may 11 when breaking away from the next region bordering russia. this from the gallup healthways well-being index, a report released today finds that the share of adults without health insurance dropped from 17.1% at the end of last year to 15.6%

for the first three months of 2014. that translates to roughly more than 3.5 million uninsured people gaining coverage. the trend accelerated in march deadlinerollment loomed. gallup surveyed more than 43,500 alts on january 2 to march 31. we will talk about health insurance more in our next segment on "washington journal." those are some of our latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] joint and shared service agreement, we are active and involved in our myrtle beach station, the news, which is where you make your money in the local market. that operation cost us almost $800,000, peter. it is not cheap. but because this is what people wanted, what they needed to get them back to our station, my general manager, we put that back in place.

financial support, i alone could not afford these figures. about one month ago in south carolina there was an ice storm and ice just destroy the generator. almost 16f the air hours. these are the kinds of expenses you cannot calculate. i don't care what kind of wealth i was blessed with. there is no way that i could survive this without these joint and shared service agreements. >> this past monday, the fcc ruled that owners cannot control more than one station in the same local market. using joint shared agreements and shared services agreements. i doubt more, tonight, on "the communicators." -- find out more, tonight, on "the communicators emco on c-span 2 -- two indicators," on c-span two.

>> c-span, offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house. by thec-span, created cable tv industry 35 years ago, but to you by your local cable and satellite provider. follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now that the enrollment sign-up deadline has come and gone, we will take a look at what is ahead. to do that, we are joined by, -- we are joined by elise viebeck, of "the hill news -- "the hill" newspaper. insuranceen's health program under the affordable care act, is that a new front for the affordable care act? guest: that is right.

the white house is very excited to encourage this, which became optional because of the supreme court's decision to uphold the act in 2012. before that states were going to be required to expand programs up to 133% of the federal poverty level. were going to have to offer health care coverage from the states, paid for by the governments, several gop sites were very upset about this. the supreme court vindicated them, making it optional. now the white house says that this figure, which no one ever thought they would get to, having just gone on the website and seen the problems that political observers across the city did not think that they would even reach, 4 million or 5 million, let alone their original goal, they are very excited and want to apply political pressure to expand that program for the low income

we got new numbers at the end of last week about medicaid. what were those numbers? guest: what the administration found is that people who signed up for medicaid and chip relative to the months before -- exchange exchanges opened insurance exchanges opened, that continues because medicaid enrollment continues by state. what the administration is trying to do, they did not even say that these additional people are precisely because of the affordable care act, but we can assume that that is because of the expansion, people are joining the health insurance rolls. what the administration is trying to do is empower local advocates in red states to pressure governors alongside members of the health system, like hospitals, to call was good for the health care system for

people to have medicaid coverage. that medicaid expansion that we talked about, here is a map of the state to have expanded their medicaid to date. the darker red, brownish states, the ones who have not currently expanded. what are the states to watch here as this push comes from the white house to continue this expansion? there are a lot of swing states that we would watch, places like arkansas, new hampshire, pursuing alternatives , trying to take money from the federal government to provide more health insurance without doing it in a way that the affordable care act exactly outlined. i think that what the white house is going to do is continue to update that map. they put a version of it on social media from time to time in order to pressure their base to take it to the governors. they feel that this is the next

battleground and they hope to use it to political advantage. sowhat has been the response far from governors targeted the most? guest: a mixed bag, frankly. mike pence, who as we remember from his time on capitol hill, was no friend to the affordable care act, he is now encouraging the health and human services onartment to work with him an alternative expansion. it is interesting to watch these red state governors, very vocal opponents of obamacare, as they would call it, adapt versions under fresher from the local business community. if you watch some of those governors trying to work with hhs, there is an intriguing story there. one other intriguing story that has come out in a week since that deadline, comments from former obama administration official, robert gibbs. what were his comments when talking about the employer

mandate? the part that has been delayed twice by the administration. what robert gibbs said was that he was speaking to a health care gathering in colorado springs and said that this will be the first thing to go about the law, that it was not very important, and he was not mounting a great defense of the policy. everyone was surprised. it was picked up by a small health care public. -- such ation, to have high-ranking former obama official call out a part of the law that hasn't been implemented yet cast all kinds of doubt. we wondered if he had inside information or if he thought it was even important. and then yesterday, with nancy on cnn, saying that this is an important part of the law, it was clear that there was a vacuum for democrats there. someone needed to step in to

mount a defense. someone like even hillary , another high-ranking official we expect to run for president, it was important for someone for the left to come in if the mandate is still alive. host: numeral show the viewers now the defense that you are talking about from nancy pelosi yesterday. [video clip] the clientsnow who of robert gibbs are or what his perspective are -- is, but we are celebrating the fact that 7 million have signed up. not counting the 3.1 million on the policies of their parents until they are 26. not including over 3 million, probably closer to $5 million on medicaid, bringing close to 15 who now have quality, affordable health care. for those of us

who made this individual mandate an integral part of giving people -- >> you think it is integral? and it has to stay? >> this is an initiative that strong pillars in it that relate to each other. >> you cannot see anything removing the business mandate? >> i don't know why we are focusing on this. one person says one thing. 7 million people sign up. the congress of the united states is trying to show that they are proud of what they have one away from what we have done. -- run away from what we have done. host: what was the response throughout the day, yesterday? guest: everyone expected a leader like nancy pelosi to come

out instead of the mandate, but people are still skeptical about whether the administration will ultimately carry it out. the administration has given us no indication that they will do it again. delays have been called over. whether that has -- whether that is true or not, that will be difficult to say, but it will be difficult -- important to keep on top of the mandates on k street. groups like retail and restaurant groups that feel they would be the most affected by it. affecting up only their bottom line, but employee hours and the ability to hire. the comments from robert gibbs alternately energized that movement to repeal the mandate or pressure the administration to delay it again. the left's campaign was in defense of it. host: if you have questions or comments for elise viebeck, of

"the hill" newspaper as we talk about the future of the affordable health care act, phone lines are open -- as the folks are calling in, we showed a picture of kathleen sebelius. she will be in the senate on thursday. what are we expecting to hear from her? talking aboutl be the proposed budget from the president for 2015. these are typical hearings to see a cabinet secretary at. know, given the seven point one million figure and all of the delays and different changes we have seen to the affordable care act, lawmakers are certainly always interested in talking about this. interestingly, they don't spend much time on the budgetary issues.

we are likely to see her on the hot seat again. she has interesting, and secondhand on what is to come, so we will be watching her closely. host: opening the phones, russ, you are on with elise viebeck. high, isy comment, along the lines of the things that i see so much from the beginning. it is all about money and investment made by the republicans in trying to defeat this thing, trying to turn the american people against it. if they had taken all of that energy and brain power and turned it into working with the if they were this big, this massive, of course it would have problems. if the republicans had worked with democrats on the problems, i feel like we could have had a very workable bill right now.

i am hoping that the republicans realize that there is nothing more to be gained by fighting it and actually work with the democrats to really overcome the remaining problems in the bill. the bill seems sound and i hope that we can really make this work in the future. , what dide viebeck you hear in that call? guest: the caller reflects many people, he wants to see the law fixed. that vulnerable lawmakers would do well to propose fixes to the law. poll after poll shows that the american public does not want health care reform repealed, just improved. there is a lot of pressure in the senate for vulnerable democrats. some people were worried about elections where republicans take the chamber.

what these democrats are trying to do, maybe not to the agreement of their leaders, is proposed changes to the law. we will have to watch the senate theseticular to see if vulnerable democrats are allowed to vote on these. nancy, democratic line, good morning. caller: i would like to say that i am a democrat, but i don't agree with the affordable care act. i was against it and am still against it. i think that what needs to be done is a needs to be totally republicansbut the were not given a chance to put into it. democrats and president obama did not want any input. president obama is still saying that it is done, there is no way we will change it. makes have to change to

this affordable to everyone, otherwise our country is going majore major deficits and financial problems. that is my comment. thank you. of thelise viebeck, some same comments happening on capitol hill amongst republicans on capitol hill? guest: absolutely. it republicans are concerned that this is a law that will affect the deficit and extend it dramatically. the congressional budget office have -- has not found that to be true. but there are parts that rely on , a law to remain in place board that is not there and lacks imminence cuts, that board has bipartisan legislation to reveal. a lot of people were concerned about the cost of these provisions.

we will have to wait to get the data to see how many people were subsidized on the exchanges. on the subsidy question, dd wrightson on twitter -- host: do we know any of those numbers, yet? guest: we do not know that yet. many are receiving the subsidies. administration are in rome and activists who were on the ground trying to enroll people and saying that things really changed when they emphasize the idea that people could get a discount from the government for their health care coverage. we knew that these subsidies were popular and drew many people to the exchanges might not otherwise have been interested. but the administration has not released data on the amount of people receiving subsidies. it varies, person by person. there is a sliding scale, based on income. we will have to wait to see more. roberta, republican line,

san diego. you are on with elise viebeck. caller: first of all, i do believe your prejudice for the health-care law. i don't believe that people in this country have to be bribed or that we should be involved in buying of votes. or that we have done the things that we have done to prevent obamacare. i am also very concerned about we had more people purchase pet rocks a few years back then have shown interest in purchasing obamacare. we've never had states, ever, pay 10%, which they say is what they are going to pay after the government leaves, for the states to pay out. none of them ever gain that kind of income. i have many questions. i would like to know about the subsidy issue in the courts

today. what happens if they vote against that? will they send everyone a bill for the subsidy? and it is here in the long-time covering of this. but the subsidy issue is raised crucial. i don't know anyone who purchased pet rocks in the last year. maybe it was more than seven million people. interesting. my understanding that the part of the law that has been decided in the supreme court as legal, we are likely to see it going forward unless republicans are ine to take the white house, which they would be able to alternately repeal coverage provisions that they disagree with. i think it would really take the republicans who continue to talk about repeal.

, for example, reiterated his commitment to repeal. certainly there are a lot of base republican voters out there who want to hear that message. the other side of the coin is the fact that 7.3 million people have signed up for private coverage and democrats will be able to use that as a political constituency in the future. people will be called upon to defend their coverage. now, whether that is a successful strategy, that is hard to say, but democrats will try to use it to keep the law in place. host: we are always interested in new numbers coming out. what other numbers are coming out that we should be looking for? guest: a good question. the obama administration is expected to finalize its proposed cuts in 2016, part of the affordable care act. >> for folks that may not use the advantage? guest: that is the private alternative to medicare. you can sign up for this or the

plan carried by a private health insurance offer. it is interesting. today we are expecting the obama administration to finalize this as it was composed under the affordable care act. the reason the cuts became a part of the law and have been so , he often accused that it is over pulled relative to traditional medicare. programs receive more money on average per beneficiary than they do on traditional medicare. democrats would argue that that is not fair and that the affordable care act is to rectify it. the reason this is interesting they is whether administration bows from pressure on the right and democrats on capitol hill to either reduce cuts or detract them, which they can do with broad regulatory discretion.

certainly, democrats don't want to be running in districts where insurance companies can accuse them of having medicare for seniors. so, there are a lot of democrats on capitol hill who have said to the administration -- please, do not implement drastic cuts here. we will see an answer from the administration today. the: before we go to numbers question, there was so much focus on a 7 million enrollment number for private health lands. what is the next enrollment number to look for, looking ahead to 2015, now that the 2014 enrollment. is closed. is closed.nt period ort: guest: in the next week two weeks we will see a final report breaking down the numbers from march, when they saw the massive sweep of people enter. we are also watching premiums

over insurers right now having to file their rates for next year with state regulators. and with state regulators over will accept them or challenge them. perhaps under pressure from the administration, challenge them. those premiums are going to matter to how many people enroll in these marketplaces over time. it is not necessarily great for getting customers, but at the same time, the mandate penalty will be ramping up next year. that will entice more people to come in. end of marchat the spills over into april. theinistrations --guest: administration has a special period to enroll in these changes. it will last for about one more week. insurers were worried this would be open-ended to continue to boost enrollment numbers, but it looks like that is going to and.

-- to end. host: stand, good morning. my comment is -- i am not on the affordable care act. i am on medicare. my son, who had insurance that everybody is talking about that he had to get rid of because it was not up to par, he got rid of it and got a much better coverage on the affordable care act. now, january his wife was rushed to the hospital and the bill was paid 100%. my next-door neighbor who had a pre-existing condition was in the hospital many times. was once a republican. i believe the republican party is only for the rich and the wealthy. that is all they do. we can give money to all of these countries, why can we not give money to our citizens.

why can't they pay more taxes to help the poor and innocent. i do not need the help, but i see people that do. i am willing to pay a little bit more so my son and other people's sons can have health insurance. my daughter's two kids will stay on her plan until they're 26. one of them has very bad problems and will probably never be able to get health insurance he has a bone deficiency. now he will be able to get health insurance. story from theve affordable care act. the scholar sounds like his family has experienced the benefits of this law, even though there was a plan cancellation, which has been an issue for the obama administration. the associated press estimates about 5000 people solve their health plans canceled.

what this caller is saying is that in spite of plan florida, that is a federally run exchange, towns like his son was able to log on and find a plan that was cheaper than his previous option. that is exactly the kind of story the white house likes to hear. brings up a question -- are there more people insured than there were before obamacare? there are. we will have to wait until the census bureau data comes out to see exactly how many people gained and lost insurance in the last six months. there were about 5 million plan cancellations. that is a pretty neutral number. signedere 7.1 people who

up on the exchanges in addition to about 3 million that stayed ' health parents insurance plan. when you add those numbers and the aggregate, it is likely that people did gain insurance, particularly because those who plans were canceled, they thought they only have the option of going to the exchanges and those 5 million were perhaps the bulk of the people that the 7.1 million figure. people that had their plans canceled generally received a cancellation notice from their insurance company offering plans. off onwere able to sign plans off the exchange. up next on the line for republicans. and caller: thank you for taking my call.

i deliver the rubber on the road when it comes down to this bill. talk about whyto did nate read it and the regulations should have been made that people in the insurance business should have helped with the regulations, but the website itself, let's talk about that a little bit. whoever designed this website, and i have done over 400 policies through the website, they do not realize that a two-year-old or a five-year-old or a seven-year-old cannot have a job in this country. they do not collect alimony and so on and so forth. there is stuff on this website that makes the question who designed it? . that is one thing i am surprised about on a website. number four, i wonder when --

the lady on the show said the independent payment advisory board is put in place to make cuts to medicare. i want to make sure everyone heard that. i also want to talk about my stories because there is no doubt that i have people that i ensure that i have gotten plenty it issidy for that think the best thing since sliced bread. i get the other side, two retired police officers and of their wives and they have lost their health in michigan because they plan for the retirement, they make a little bit too much money so they can i get subsidy and their insurance is 1100 and $1200. happening as we have not addressed anything about health care because we have not addressed y and m ir -- m.r.i. is a grand. lease -- elise

jump in. he is from michigan, which is a federally facilitated exchange, which means he would be using healthcare.gov to enroll these clients. it is difficult. there will be books written about all of the problems at hhs that allowed this website to move forward. we know they're going to continue overhauling it before the next enrollment season begins. the problems were so deep, they feel they can do well by making significant changes. theydministration hopes can fix it. we will see if that is true. on the idea of health care costs, this bill is the law now. it was passed in order to address access problems. what they desired was to make health care coverage accessible to as many people as possible at as low a cost as possible.

values -- i think the idea of cost is something that lawmakers will have to continue in the future. the health care system is expensive. there are certain parts of the toordable care act that seek begin to address the cost question. we are likely to see federal health officials published at a about doctors who receive reimbursements from medicare, the specifics they bill, and how much money they receive. we receive data about how much hospitals charge for procedures. this is part of an effort to increase chance -- transparency. it will also give data to researchers who can see where

waste, fraud, and abuse is occurring a little bit better than the government does. host: we stock about the state headlinesthat a few generated from meetings with members of congress, state officials say technology problems on health insurance sites. the wall street journal states grappling with the health care exchange. not great headlines coming out of that headline. -- that meeting last week. know, there were not. many of the states that trouble most were democratic led states. consumers were struggling as recently as the last month to enroll. it shows government has not

attempted to create systems like the ones the affordable care act asked to create. states may appeal to the federal government to use their software. that is an interesting idea. what supporters would say is this is a long -- this law will be on the books for a long time. say theators would system will not work for the public. government should not be attempting it. host: linda, mississippi, democratics line. caller: good morning. i agree with affordable health care act. when i was young and raising my children, i did not have insurance. working and could not

afford health insurance. always talk about the cost of health care. they did not worry about what it cost when they put us in a war, they did not worry about that. democrats worked with them to fix what problems they had. if they spend more time trying to fix the problems instead of trying to knock it down, because it is here to stay. the democrats afraid to run on they need care law, not be afraid. republicans always against everything. just like they was against voting during the last election. they were criticizing the act during the time when president obama was running. linda brings up some of

the republican efforts when it comes to the affordable care act. the save american workers act that passed in the house, 236-186. employer addresses the mandate we were discussing. it is a requirement that most businesses offer health insurance to workers if there are 50 workers or above. this bill would redefine full-time work. is 30 hours a week rather than the traditional 40 hours a week. republicans argue that it ought to be 40 hours. that is the traditional definition and 30 hours is actually prompting employers to order toyees in avoid offering them health insurance. 18 democrats supported this

bill. they sided with republicans in order to pass the bill to raise the threshold to 40 hours. it is unlikely to see a vote in the democratic led senate and the white house is set to veto it. it will not go very far. if republicans are able to claim the senate, which people believe they have a good chance of doing, it could have traction there. mellon, fort lauderdale florida. caller: good morning. to address wanted was the issue with respect to the democratic call-in complaining that obama had no input into the law. i wish you would tell her that republicans had over 140 members in the law when it was written.

secondly, in respect to medicare advantage, why will be cut. people do not realize that medicare advantage cost more than regular medicare. when that program was put into effect, it was supposed to be cheaper than regular medicare, as a result, it is more expensive. why should people with advantage get more medicare payments for individual than those in regular medicare? people wanted, they can paid the extra money out of their pocket. guest: medicare advantage is is whymore and that democrats argue it ought to be cut. the additional payments are subsidizing benefits that are very attractive, like glasses and jim memberships that make these plans popular. those are not essential health care benefits to equalize the government's contributions.

launched arers have lobbying campaign against these. and humana,hcare whose profit margins depend on medicare advantage rates staying stable. they have a huge investment in keeping them equal to what they are now. insurers argue that these benefits will go away for seniors if the government cuts its payments to medicare advantage. they are encouraging seniors to vote on this issue. medicare advantage is very popular. there are many people that say the benefits should not be cut. can you talk about the first part of the question where he was talking about the republican amendments in the original health care law? guest: the affordable care act passed without a single republican vote in this remains a thorn in their side. a lot of people believe a health-care reform law was going

part ofaul such a large the economy, it required bipartisan support. the heritage foundation was excited about marketplaces. there are a couple of different sides of the debate, but i think you will remain an issue for republicans, who are energized by the opposition to the law. they have made great use of that . a few minutes left. a few folks left waiting to talk to you. zach, good morning. caller: good morning. you are refreshing, to hear this conversation done in an , itlligent, factual manner

feels good. i am one of those beneficiaries. self-employed, my wife a government employee. both of my kids have sickle cell. one is graduating this year and the other one goes to another major d one school. it is a blessing for them to stay on her plan because they're 26 and make their way through college is -- i cannot describe how elated i am about this. , taking the side people out of it -- how much we subsidize farms, other nations, i would like people to know that when you compare subsidies, there is a lot of money that goes to reach institutions that

actot serve us the way this is going to service nationwide. people need to know that. i am so glad you brought up the point -- and i tell my friends that this is from the new green grinch era. grinch -- newtn gringich era. guest: a lot of families in the country are benefiting from this. it is not necessarily a change for everybody. the idea that someone with sickle cell, which is a terrible disease can remain on health insurance is a key benefit of this law. republicans are going to have to answer for its. there are a couple of different

replacement plans to obamacare. none of them have been brought to the floor of the house. are concerned about bringing a replacement plan to the floor because any replacement plan that involves repealing obamacare, they will have to answer for the idea that some of these plans are going to go away. that is unavoidable. the white house has taken a lot of its own political heat for that. it will be interesting to see if republicans move forward. jindal replaced his own replacement land. guest: he did. i believe it is part of his abovet to place himself 2016. he wants to make the republican right believe he is a policy thinker, that he is committed to repealing the law.

the way he would cover people with pre-existing conditions would get away of the protections now, but incentivizing states to create a grant -- grant program. states can have a part of that money if they choose to allow kids to stay on their parent's health insurance plan until their mid-20's or cover people with existing conditions. it is another position gentle got criticized for. we always appreciate you coming on. taking awe will be look at the congressional efforts to revise the mortgage forgiveness debt relief act with

timiraos. bypresident obama begins visiting a maryland high school to announce $107 million in grants. the president will travel to bladensburgeim -- high school. it gives students access to real-world career skills and college-level courses. bedensburg high school will awarded a prize of $7 million. c-span will cover the event. the guardian newspaper resorts -- reports that were want has come together to mourn. dans gatheredrwan to mark the beginning of the 100 day genocide.

flame at the memorial center. it estimates one million rwandans perished in those attacks. ted kennedy junior will run for the 12th district seat in connecticut's state senate. he will make the announcement today at blackstone library. those are some of the latest headlines. >> we are involved. our station, that did not have news, and that is where you make your money in the local market. us almost-- that cost $800,000. because this is what people wanted to get them back to our channel 21 in myrtle

beach, we put that back in place. without financial support. there was an ice storm in south carolina. i stood destroyed our generator. the air for almost 16 hours. the generator was $400,000. these are the expenses you cannot calculate. i could survive this. fcc ruled that owners cannot control more than one station in the same local market. shares -- sales agreement. find out more tonight at 8:00 p.m. >> washington journal continues.

>> in this segment, we take a look at how your money is at work in a different government program. this week, we will talk about a tax exemption for mortgage debt forgiveness that may be revised by congress. we are joined by nick timiraos. guest: the issue here is that if the lender forgives a debt that you owe them, that is treated by the irs as income. when we saw007, more foreclosures and banks were being encouraged to offer relief to homeowners, it turned out that if the banks offered you relief, if they forgave some of your mortgage principal, that would be treated as income. that help you are getting from your bank, you would have to pay taxes on. congress passed a series of measures that said you would not

have to do that, but you would not have to treat any forgiven mortgage debt as in some. that was 2000 seven and expired in 2010. it expired in 2012 and they passed a one-year extension last year. yearber 31 of this past came around and it expired with no extension. now, what the senate finance committee is looking at doing -- they have passed a two-year extension of this provision so that homeowners who are getting help on their mortgage, or you're getting a short sale, that is were you own more than your home is worth and you sell the house at a loss in the bank agrees to take the loss area -- take the loss. the difference on your amount of mortgage is $200,000 to $300,000, the bank is forgiving $100,000. the irs would say that is income and you would have to pay taxes on it.

homeowners going through a short sale, this is probably someone that is cash poor. how are they going to come up with money to pay more on taxes? the concern is that you may be in sending the wrong kind of behavior. if we are encouraging people not to do that because they're going to face a big tax bill, there is a perversity there. that is the reason this is up for renewal again. correspondent. why was this allowed to expire at the end of last year? one members of congress who were voicing concerns? just bang i don't think it was the particular mortgage provision. when it expired, some people were saying we did so much for housing, do we need to provide more for housing?

saying,re some people we have already done so much, maybe it is time to rip the band-aid off. on the whole, this was lost in the broader issue of tax reform. there was a hope that you would not have to do the tax extenders this year because you could get a bigger tax reform bill. once it became clear that was not going to happen, people said, we need to do this. there has been a view among the analyst community that this is something that would get extended. if you are a homeowner in florida and you are looking -- say the bank was offering you a danceable reduction. , if you recall over the past year, there has been a number of settlements with banks. jpmorgan had a settlement last fall. the settlements have been structured in a way that the banks are providing principal reductions for hundreds of thousands of homeowners.

if the bank was offering to trim your mortgage by $50,000, but the irs is saying that is nice of them, but you are to have to pay us more in taxes, it is a perversity to hear that some members have heard this is like throwing a life rope and then dropping the end that they are holding in letting you struggle out there after they have gotten banks to give you this release. there is a view this would ultimately get done. if you're a homeowner in florida and you're saying am i going to go ahead and accept this deal from the bank, am i going to do the short sale without knowing what policy is going to be? it is hard to bank on congress doing this and saying i will keep my fingers crossed that congress will retroactively extend this provision. host: let's give folks a visual how this works. this is courtesy of the congressional research service

when they looked into a report they did for congress on this. they gave an example of a possible qualified residential debt of $200,000. the loan is renegotiated or the property is disposed of for on hundred $80,000. that $20,000 difference, the debt is forgiven. the tax liability is 28% on the $20,000. that comes out to the $600. without this -- that comes out to $5,600. without this, you may owe that to the irs. how much did this cost a federal government? how much in taxes were collected because of the mortgage forgiveness debt relief act? almostthe estimate is $5.5 billion. we have had it for seven years and it is probably -- it could have cost the government tens of billions of dollars.

the benefit you receive would be harder to measure. when people do a short sale instead of a foreclosure, that is less harmful to the community because the home doesn't go bank ---- doesn't go bank and vacant. onyou measure the impact communities, you are probably having more short sales, having people not lose their homes to foreclosure if they can afford a reduced payment, would make up a lot of money for the economy down the road. about 6.5 million underwater homes as of december 23 -- as of december 2013. nevada, florida, an arizona has the highest number. we are opening up the phone sines, looking for question and comments as we talk about the mortgage forgiveness debt relief act.

republicans can call at (202) 585-3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. independents, (202) 585-3882. you have received mortgage relief under this act, if it is something you have made use of, we would like to talk to you. that is (202) 585-3883. we will start with john, durham, north carolina. good morning. my question is, if you do a payingale, and you are mortgage protection insurance, how does that work? guest: i am not sure. you are referring to if you were paying mortgage insurance on your monthly payment. you get in's say trouble and you do a short sale, are you still subject to that income tax? mortgage insurance is

a benefit that is provided to the lender on your mortgage. that is the policy that you are paying for and that you or your lender have been required to take out. it is so that if the ball were to fall on your mortgage, mortgage insurance company is going to cover a portion of the loss that the lender could take on the default. if you are no longer living in the house, if you no longer own the residence, and if the mortgage is paid off, the mortgage insurance is not there anymore. to consult a tax professional or a real estate agent. host: how does this fit in with the overall universe of programs that were instituted to help the housing market? one kindthink it was of tool in the arsenal.

since 2007 there has been an alphabet soup of homeowner relief programs. one of theobably first and one of the more bipartisan proposals because everybody agreed that if we could get banks to do things voluntarily, if we can you homeowners to work with lenders, we should provide what encouragement we can to have those things happen. first safetyof the net things. since then, we have had a range of mortgage modification programs. hamp.vernment had they were paying lenders to modify mortgages that met certain parameters in terms of reducing the monthly payment. issues on all sides.

they have thrown a lot of different things at it. there has been a huge debate over whether more should be done. people feel like there should be a principal reduction program. freddie mae and fannie mac -- freddie mac and fannie mae decided not to produce -- in a debt reduction program. now we have seen in the housing market a decent recovery, at least in home prices. prices haveis that gone up a little too fast and are making it harder for people to afford homes.

borrowers are underwater or they owe more than their homes are worth. it was almost double that a couple of years ago. the home price gains have helped, but there is still a long road to go. should more be done? if you're going to do more, you are not going to have favorable tax provisions for those who get help. it makes you wonder if it is worth doing these things. a special line, (202) 585-3883 we would love to hear your story if you have used these program. peggy, you are on. caller:.

thank you for taking my call. we were back east in 2007 and purchased a home. we put 30% down. the house went way down in value. it is valued at less than what the people valued before us in 1990. took a dime from anybody. we took the loss. it is time to take the band-aid off. i know a lot of people that are in bad situations with their homes. some of these people did not put any money down. read modifications and some of them have defaulted twice. this is a convoluted housing market. it will not get better until things start over again. people are flipping homes in santa cruz and san jose. the houses are beyond the reach of anybody. the housing market is in a mess. it is time that

this is all over with. had helpople that have and i am the one taking the brunt of that. we are paying the taxes for those people. it is time for it to be over. thank you. john that goes along with 's comment. i paid too much for a house, why should this be the bank or the taxpayer's loss? guest: they illustrate the reason why there has been frustration with government efforts. rants recall one of the that gets credit for being partymental when the tea got started, this was the day that president obama unveiled his mortgage modification sam turned to the

traders on the floor and said who wants to subsidize a mortgage for somebody that ?ubsidized an extra mortgage you have a number of people, and peggy is a good example. enough is enough, let's let the market sort itself out. or has been no easy answer on this crisis. i think that there have been some important steps taken to get banks to do short sales ahead of foreclosures. that seems like a commonsense sort of step. modifications were the borrower can make the payment or they might have a shot at staying in .he house those are things where there is a decent consensus that those have worked, but this will be an

issue that economists will study for years to come. i would love to see some analysis of that. host: nevada is one of the underwaterbers of homes. let's go to nevada. dave is waiting. you are on. thank you for taking my call. questions.uple of a few years ago, i signed over a quick claim deed. my wife decided to file for divorce and did not see it coming. claimr changed the quick deed back because i never thought i would get divorced. she let the robber to go into foreclosure. the property was sold in 2013

deficit on what was claimed on the property. there is a $50,000 deficit. opinions on this as to whether or not the bank is against issue a 1099 this. got people say that if you a get it by that tax year and you do not get it, they cannot issue a later. if they extend the mortgage debt is issued, and a 1099 in years to come, do you have any idea what the obligation on that is going to be? on a specific financial

issue, you ought to consult a tax professional. i do not know enough about your situation to give you qualified advice. banks,rstanding is that even when this has been in effect, they have been issuing these 1099s to let the irs know the average's principal. even if all of the principal is covered by this provision, the banks are supposed to issue the forms and it is incumbent on the thereler to study whether -- their forgiven debt meets the standards of this particular provision we have been talking about. not every type of forgiven mortgage principal is covered by this provision. even if the provision is extended, there are some types of mortgage debt where you may still, and all along you would

you would have not qualified for this sheltered status under the tax roll. it is important to -- when you are going through the situations , to consult with a tax professional so you do not make a mistake on your taxes. nick is here to talk about these issues in our "your money" segment this week. we have a special line for those who have received federal mortgage relief. on that line, mike is waiting in a north carolina. good morning. you are on. question is, does this apply to second or third mortgages? they can depend on your

personal situation, a state, the type of debt. if this was a loan that you used on a refinancing you took money , so it is verye hard to generalize. different states have different cancel debt.ating california, for example, if the loan is nonrecourse, the lender cannot come after you after a foreclosure to seek the unpaid portion that they did not recover from a foreclosure, if it is a nonrecourse loan, purchase money mortgages in california would be an example, -- itight now, there is is unlikely there is a cancellation of debt income that is triggered for those mortgages. because it varies so much from

the type of loan, the state's loss on whether the loans have recourse or if they are nonrecourse, it is hard for me to give a specific answer. host: do you mind telling us a little more about your situation in which rogue ram you used? i did not use the program. i learned about it from you guys. i am going to go back and check it out. i appreciate the information. go to joann, waiting in north port, florida. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two things to ask you. i went through all of my savings and everything to save our house. mortgage and i was not entitled to anything because i do not have a freddie or a fanny. my loan is secured through credit union.

every time i tried to finance, there was never anything available to me. the second thing, i am in a wonderful area. my neighbors are wonderful. there was a lot of foreclosure and people do not take care of them. the banks do not take care of them. a self, my husband, my neighbors, we mow the lawns, we take care of everything. thatems that people know the house is going to cost more money if it is a short sale then if it is a foreclosure. these people just wait. they wait for the house to go into foreclosure before they buy them. the first point, it is unfortunate that so many people have that hardship. you raise a valid point in respect of who owns your wallet. most people have never paid that

much attention to what happens to their mortgage after they take it out. so many of our mortgages are funded with global capital. these bond markets are set up and away that some mortgages may get delivered into a security that is backed by annie mae or freddie mac. government controls fannie mae and freddie mac, they have been able to provide more assistance to those borrowers. if you have a mortgage underwater and it is backed by fannie or freddie, you can refinance. for somebody like joann, if the credit union has it on their books, you're at the mercy of the credit union to go into that credit union and say i am a good paying customer, let me draw my rate. drop my rate. sales andt

foreclosures, it is hard to tell. it depends on the neighborhood. in many cases, the short sale will go for a little bit more than a foreclosure because the home has been maintained. someone has been living there in the grass is not dead in the front lawn has been taking care of. there may be some places where it is harder, the banks are taking longer to foreclose and people are able to live longer in the house without making payments with the bank now foreclosing. before the last extension wheret, dd asked about most of the relief is recurring -- occurring. guest: i want to double check the provision. my understanding is that this applied substantially to primary residences, not to investment

homes are second homes. majority of this relief would have gone to california and florida. states had the highest share of foreclosures, the highest shares of underwater borrowers. california and arizona have done better. they have had the foreclosure crisis faster because it is easier for banks to process foreclosures in the states. there are more problems in florida, but also in new york and new jersey, where the courts have higher standards to process foreclosures. banks have been much slower to move delinquent properties through the foreclosure process. it is not uncommon to hear about foreclosures that have lasted three or four years or longer in new york and new jersey. host: if this comes back in it bemost likely, will

a standalone package or with other bills? year there are a series of tax provisions that expire and the congress has gotten into the habit of extending some or all of them every year. there is a provision this year on mortgage insurance premiums. if you pay insurance premiums in the past years, you have been able to to talk those -- to deduct those. if you have a loan backed by the federal housing in menstruation, you will pay mortgage administration every month. that is something that is in here that will be up for a two-year renewal. who are the champions of

bringing this back on capitol hill? guest: wide and has been leaving me -- leading on this. the national association of associations,e consumer advocates, a number of and civil rights groups that have been campaigning for more principal forgiveness, there has been a crusade in washington to see more banks and more entities provide principle forgiveness. it only makes sense to do those things if you have this tax provision in place. a lot of groups have been in favor of mortgage forgiveness and they are getting behind providing me benefit on the other side.

host: several folks waiting to talk to you. we will go to maria, san diego, california. good morning. i am like everybody else. very worried. very stressed out. i have been like that since 2007. when everything began to break down about the homes. me and my husband bought a home, , in 1983. va loan. it was signed by hud and the va receiptill have the and bill of sale and everything.

now, my house is upside-down. owe $559,000. 74-years-old. my home, according to what everyone says, has been through the hands of the attorney general, according to bank of fraudulentd it is a loan, predatory lending. we bought the house from countrywide, but i know that countrywide was bought or purchased by bank of america and also something about the world savings bank. sure ilet me make understand your you bought the home in 1983 with a va loan.

countrywide came in later. ,t you refinance your mortgage 10 or 12 years ago with countrywide? no.er: we start with countrywide. down.band put $40,000 veteran anddisabled he passed away one year after we purchased the house in 1984. that, my loan went flying all over the place. host: thank you for sharing your story with us. we want to let nick offer any thoughts he has on her situation and are there still federal programs in the works that someone in that situation can turn to? like so many of these

situations, it is hard to hear about. i am sorry for your predicament. va loan, therea ought to be a way to do loss mitigation to do assistance through the va program. they have tried to improve their with thesework loans. sometimes people have their -- 1983, if you had a 30 year mortgage in 1983 and you never refinanced, you have pay that off by now. what i think happened is perhaps , in many situations, people refinance the loans many times grew asr loan balances home prices grew. way ofa very effective financing college education,

health care expenses, or what have you. when the housing market cratered, you ended up with a lot of people who -- it was not that they bought at the wrong as thehey borrowed housing crisis went on and found ,hemselves with a new mortgage with a different mortgage company that was no longer backed by the va or a larger and theyed by the v.a. may not have had as much flexibility to help. karen expresses some of the concern that some other folks have expressed in this segment. why should someone with an overpriced home get relief as opposed to someone who lives more modestly? that is the conversation happening on our twitter page, @cspanwj. we also have a line for those that have received mortgage relief. (202) 585-3883. john is calling in on that line

from iowa. good morning. are you with us? caller: is there a difference between a foreclosure and a short sale? guest: i am not sure because it younds on the type of loan have and it can depend on the purpose -- a can depend first on what your state debt policies are. second, a can depend on what you use the loan for. wherecould be situations even in a foreclosure, if the -- afor gives a disk deficiency and you go into foreclosure in the bank takes a , they could pursue a deficiency against you. it depends on your state. i am not familiar with the law in idaho. iowa, i am sorry.

forgive that deficiency, there's a possibility that would be considered forgiven income. florida is an example where it is a recourse state. you can be pursued by the bank, even after a foreclosure, for the deficiency. it is possible. i do not know this 100% and florida. check are in florida, with a tax professional. just because you go through foreclosure, you may still, if the bank decides to forgive or not pursue a deficiency, that could be considered some kind of income benefit to you. forgivenessrtgage debt relief act, what does it do for the short sale market and now that it is off the books, what has happened to that market? guest: i don't think we have

enough data yet. it is april. we have three months where this provision hasn't been in place. a lot of short sales would have close in the first quarter this year. they would have been in the train before that. i do not imagine there will be too many situations to say someone trying to do a short sale in december and january said forget it. it will be interesting to watch. there have been some reports that short sales have dropped, especially in states that would benefit the most from this. it will be interesting to see. has been a steady trend where people have been doing short sales more and more. banks have been better about doing them. they are easier to do. see -- be easier to interesting to see. borrowerchange in behavior because of the tax provisions? nick is a correspondent

with "wall street journal." we appreciate you coming on "washington journal." that is our show for this monday. join us tomorrow morning. we will be back here at 7:00 a.m. eastern. ♪ wille house and senate return for business today. the house gavels in at noon eastern. legislative work gets underway at 2:00 p.m. they want to end the use of automatic -- inflation.

is in today. legislative work starts at 2:00. they will take a vote on extending unemployment benefits at 5:30 eastern. >> is a budget reporter. thank you for joining us. sense ofo get your the ryan a budget. what is happening with the ryan budget? >> it will be debated. it will be voted on this week. probably wednesday and thursday. >> this is happening at the same time that democrats are releasing their own budget. >> they will release a budget today. compared to the ryan budget, the spending cuts wille