take your we will calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning on this monday, april 14, 2014. we will begin with former justice john paul stevens'new book. he is proposing changes to the constitution, specifically the second amendment. he says there are five extra that could fix the second amendment. the phone lines -- join the conversation on social

media. our handle on twitter is @cspan wj. facebook.com/cspan and post there. or you can send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. --e is what justice evens justice stevens says in his book -- those are the five words he is proposing. we want to get your thoughts in that. justice stevens wrote an opinion piece for "the washington post" on friday. he says this --

"the adoption of rules that will lessen those incidents should be a primary concern to both state and legislatures -- to state legislatures. it is those legislatures, rather than federal judges, whos hould make the decisions -- this is the former justice writing in "the washington post ." he goes on to say --

he goes on to argue this --

what are your thoughts on this? five extra words to fix the second amendment. 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3880. and independents and all others, 202-585-3882. they we want to focus on what justice stevens is saying that the second amendment. from louisiana, republican,. a member of the nra secondon't believe the

amendment should be touched. justice stevens should be -- evens must be a liberal. obamas doing enough already. leave it as it is. jim, a republican in delaware. because ifeel safe don't own guns but my neighbors do. there is no crime in my neighborhood. people know if they come in to delaware, every other house is armed. don't see having a militia where guys are running around in uniforms is going to protect us. i always thought the militiamen to the common people. -- militia meant the common people. that's all i have to say. you don't own firearms,

but your neighbors do? we won't know. he is not on the line anymore. we will go to mark next in massachusetts, an independent color. caller: i think they definitely should not change that. army,k militia and the that is the own the time you can have a weapon -- the definition is the same. my understanding if you read the federal papers is that they were concerned with government getting tyrannical. this is a nether check to have the common man be able to stand up to a tyrannical government. we got done fighting against the british, who were tyrannical. it's not that it was a regulated militia controlled by the government.

this was another check one government or power corrupts. he writes in his piece for the washington post that -- "concerned that a national standing army may pose a threat to the security of a separatist eight led to the adoption of the second amendment, which provides that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." here is a conservative website responding to what justice john paul stevens had to say. they writes --

scott in texas, a republican caller. saying itevens should be a collective right. caller: you are totally changing the meaning of the second amendment. it is absolutely not. i would love to see the democrats propose this. amendn't we see if we can the second amendment and see how that goes over on election day. host: you don't think that would play well for democrats, either. caller: i would love to see them try. host: on the conservative

website, they write this -- james is an independent in virginia. caller: callers have been spot on. i just wanted to add justice stevens should check with merriam-webster for the definition of a infringed. he can go back to china where they harvest kidneys.

this is a disease called liberalism. we will go to patty in arizona, and independent. i'm leaning ont h the liberal side. when i listened to justice stevens's comment, that is exactly how the constitution intended it. ofwill never pass because the nra because we don't have a democracy in this country. it is run by organizations like the nra. when corporations became people, the whole thing got kind of ridiculous. i think it is exactly as intended. here is from bloomberg businessweek, the statistic they have --

michael, a democrat in new york. your thoughts? in lieu of what happened in kansas city , people need to realize these white supremacist groups legally owned firearms. this is why these kinds of catastrophes are happening. unless we get groups like that are going to keep getting sporadic killings like this. this is the front page of "usa today." that is the picture there in overland park kansas. says --

tom in north carolina, what do you think of this idea from the former justice to fix the second ammendment by adding those five extra words. caller: i think he needs understand the doctrine that you don't fix what isn't broken. i own guns. i think everyone should have that right. i don't disagree with that gun checks -- with background checks. worryly ones we have to about are the criminals that by these guns illegally. the penalties are not stiff

enough. that is a problem i see. are going to keep taking your thoughts here on justice stevens and what he is proposing to the second amendment, what he said would fix it by adding five extra words. you a little bit in the other news. samantha powers was on abc's this week. she was asked about the situation in ukraine and whether vladimir putin wants to take over eastern ukraine. [video clip] he ishink the actions undertaking gives credence to that idea. i will say in the conversations that we have had they are insisting that is not what they want. >> will they have control of matter what the echo >> their election is coming up, -- no matter what? -- election

is coming up. very time the prime minister was going to the region to talk about how the legitimate interests of russian speakers could be tended too, this kind of action takes place and makes you think the military solution -- we are going to see how events transpired today and in the next few days. abc'ssamantha powers on "this week" yesterday. the headline --

"the wall street journal," their editorial on ukraine, they weigh-in and say -- that is the latest on ukraine. in mideast talks, they are going to resume. "the wall street journal" reporting this --

that is the latest on what is happening in the middle east peace process. as we learned from the wall street journal from president joe biden -- from the wall vice president presiden joe biden will be going there this week.

justice stevens would like to add five extra words to fix the second amendment. he is proposing to this second amendment that this would fix it. a we want to get your thoughts. the phone lines -- also send us a tweet. you can also post your comments on facebook.com/cspan and e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. richard is a republican in pennsylvania. he you are on the air. my son is deathly but he goes tos school every day.

in this world is 100% safe. we don't ban bananas. caps on cars that cannot do more than 65 miles per hour created we can't go around banning angus -- banning things. there was a stabbing in pennsylvania last week but we are not going to ban knives. we should stick with the constitution and realize that everything in our life is not safe. what about the justice's up tont that it should be the state legislatures and the lawmakers, not federal judges, to be ruling on what kind of firearms are made to private citizens and when and how they may be used. i also agree some things

are state rights. some things are constitution rights. if the state says you can't vote because of who you sleep with, that is a federal thing. varyieve certain things between state and federal government. host: nick in texas, a republican caller. if we start tinkering around with the u.s. constitution and second amendment, then maybe we will change other things in the constitution. the u.s.will change declaration of independence and so on and so on. this is what justice stevens is proposing. his five extra words here in italics. it --

ronald in florida, and independent. what do you think? caller: i agree with him but you federal mandates with prosecution for all violators. host: what is the issue with that the echo caller: -- with that the echo -- with that? people andy catch they don't go to jail for years. host: you don't believe there's is enough action on the law enforcement side? preston in blue springs, missouri, hello. good morning. i appreciate taking my call. words, the concerned

would be where are the guns otherwise? who controls the guns and who decides when you are in the militia and when you are serving? .hat is more concerning that bothers me more than anything, who will decide who's the militia, when you are invalid show, and where the guns will be in the meantime. host: this is what justice stevens writes inside "the washington post" --

an in him and him and him we are

having you weigh in on this. gary, a republican, what are your thoughts? where: i can see stevens's words make some sense. that in the years governments --

local governments that have come down on militias. they werelook like have ahe standards to well-regulated militia. youtevens' words -- while milita, well-regulated my concern would be if i was in one. isn't that kind of another way that if the government wanted to if gu ans, they could do so

they wanted to. peopl him and hime have to maintain a militia. we're going to keep getting your thoughts on this topic. secretary outgoing kathleen sebelius was on "meet andpress" and was asked how why she has left the administration. [video clip] decision at the that i could not leave along with a lot of my colleagues that left at the end of the first term. even thenot seem to be topic to consider since there was still one more chapter in this affordable care act that needed to roll out. that had been one of my responsibilities as the

secretary of health and human services. to stay on made good sense to me. oflso thought at the end open enrollment was a logical time to leave. there is never a good time. there are changes down the road. the president and i began to talk after the first of the year. i said i am really optimistic we are going to meet -- the enrollment is going well. we finished this first chapter we really should begin to look for the next secretary who can be here through the end of your term. that really wasn't a commitment i was willing to make. in the papers this morning and in "the washington times," aps on her replacement. piece on her

replacement -- that is on kathleen sebelius is replacement over at hhs and the leadership of the affordable care act. he looked talk about it on "the washington journal" next. the former justice john paul stevens is out with a new book. look, "how andat why we should change the

constitution." thes proposing changes to second amendment. five extra words he says will fix it. gary is a republican from ingle point -- from eagle point. what do you think? thoughts. stevens's it's that concerned that about hisng before five words. it is "when serving in the militia," correct? how itaying earlier seems to me local governments andcoming down harder exposing militias.

i have seen a lot of nationwide news shows that have shown the governments cracking down on them. they are a pretty good size sometimes. that remember offhand one looked to be a well-informed militia. douglas from indiana, a democratic caller. thank you for c-span. as far as justice stevens, i honestly don't think there is a possible chance of ever getting that passed. i would like to see our washington and state legislators work more on background checks. me to gono sense for to a gun shop and a background

check yet i can go to any of these gun shows and buy just whatever my pocket will let me afford with no checks whatsoever. the fact they can get these guns is a problem in the united states today. host: on twitter -- gene in louisiana, democratic caller. i'm not against anyone having a gun to protect your home or hunting. i understand his concern. my take on the second amendment is this law was brought about in

the 1700s when you have a small militia trying to protect everybody. the militia is the military and at that time they couldn't do that. you had people living miles and miles apart so they needed some protection. allowing them to have guns to protect themselves for needed and i understand that now we have police enforcement. have a well-regulated military and too many people are dying. stop being afraid someone is going to try to do something to you. the government is not going to try to kill everybody. to understand that people are losing their lives unnecessarily. your child. maybe you don't care but i care. steve holbrook, the second

amendment attorney at the nra, was on these cameras and was asked about what justice stevens proposed. here is what he had to say. [video clip] going toure there is be a lot of popular support for that. people are just beating the doors down trying to get into a militia. the whole theme is meant to do nothing because justice stevens cares nothing about militias. the militia in america has been basically neglected. --have what we can consist what we can call a reserve militia. this is a theme that will do nothing. when you first start reading his opinion piece that was published today, he quotes justice warren burger's reference to the idea that this is an individual right. he uses the word "fraud."

intemperate for what the court recognizes as the correct interpretation of the second amendment. he goes on to say that she tries to wrap himself in these decisions and says you can ban assault weapons. then he refers to machine guns because heller said machine guns aren't protected by the second amendment. he goes on to say you can ban assault weapons and then he refers to automatic weapons twice. weapons arematic used in virginia, colorado, and arizona in the shooting of those states. two of which involved ordinary handguns and the other involved an ordinary rifle. that is a little bit beyond the

pale to to announce the nra for fraud. that was steve holbrook, the nra's second amendment attorney and scholar. show,as on the nra radio talking to and responding to with the former justice john paul stevens had to say in his new book, specifically on the second amendment. we are having you weigh in on that this morning. here is an e-mail from dan saying -- that is dan on e-mail. you can send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. from maine, and independent caller. gun and idon't own a don't want one. i do believe in the second amendment.

i have ptsd. i know my potential. if they took an inventory on how many people were killed by people,t ways, stabbing theyhe guy who shot up -- are not checking these people out. there are very responsible people, like i believe i am in i don't want to own a gun and that it says. amendment butd they also get into the speech amendment, the first amendment. you have to watch what you say over time. what do they want to do with this constitution? to they want to throw it out the window? thank you very much. this is what former

justice stevens opposes in his books -- we will keep taking your thoughts on that this morning. we have about 10 minutes left. in thee of pieces newspaper this morning on former secretary of state hillary clinton. " has thisngton times headline --

the front page of "the washington post" has a story about hillary clinton's ties to boeing. here is the jump page. they write ash -- they write --

this is a lengthy piece in the washington post if you are interested. of a follow-up to the stories aboutard about last week congressman metallica is -- who wasman mcallister, caught on video kissing a woman who is not his wife. this is "the new york times," and they write --

mr. mcallister is an outsider in his first time -- we go to tom in maryland, a republican caller. your thoughts on what former justice stevens is proposing here. i have a comment on the gentleman several calls back from new york who indicated that

groups such as white supremacists have weapons illegally. experienceng from my , i am a retired law enforcement officer. there is a form or several forms , depending on where you are out -- at. one of the questions simply asks everou now or have you been involved in an organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the united states. if they checked off that they are not, that is a phenyl -- that is a felony. so then what happens? you check that off, it is a lie, and it is a felony. what happens? caller: like any crime, if it is

-- it was ae police very liberal state, like maryland. the government will come down on you. you will do time. host: what are the consequences? with a if you are caught weapon and a backtrack it and saw you lie it on that form, you are going to be arrested. weapons will be confiscated and you will do hard time. you saw examples of that? cite examplest for obvious reasons. if there are any other law enforcement people listening, they will validated. we will go to jake, an independent caller. caller: in pennsylvania, if you

are caught with a gun and you don't have the right to have it, it is a minimum of five years. you can plea-bargain it. but you are going to do time. ,hat amazes me is the people people want more government. a comment about justice stevens is that in title x of the u.s. code, he describes the militia. it is amazing this guy would say this. as anyribes the militia able-bodied person between the ages of 17 and 54 or 64. the state militia here in far strongeris than the second amendment. it also describes the militias

in most of the states as any able-bodied person between these ages. we ought toe saying add these five words, which is statesman would actually have the gall to change what these people did 200 years look at theyou other countries across the world there is no other country to compare. they had something right. the roe versus wade, we have been fighting about this for 45 years now. and the thing about the merry men and women -- i am sure the founding fathers never had any of anything being constitutional in that regard. charleston.

caller: they are trying to take guns out of the country but what we should be talking about is 90% of the guns are in the minority community. you are trying to penalize everyone -- host: i'm going to move on because that sounded racial. up next we're going to take a break and turn our attention to a new pew research poll that finds a rise in state home moms -- stay-at-home moms. aider an update on the affordable care act. that coming up after this short break.

>> i move for consideration. >> mr. speaker. >> the gentleman on the remaining side -- >> i wasn't till the game started. -- i was until the game started. >> the motion to reconsider must be entered by somebody -- >> our lament three inquiry -- our lament three -- parliamentary inquiry. without objection the motion reconsiders is laid upon the table. the objection is heard. >> our lament -- parliamentary

inquiry. >> the gentleman from maryland. going to object. i am not going to put people to the purpose of voting. democraticn say the process is we come to this floor. i will remind you we had 17 minutes to vote. it very clear, you sent us a notice and said, we will give you two more minutes. openvote has now been held longer than any vote that i can remember. years,been here 23 perhaps some of you have been here longer. discussede that was time thanor far less was was coupled role -- culpable on your side.

you ought not be able to do it here, mr. speaker. we have prevailed on this a vote. arms have been twisted and votes changed. house will be in order. highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook page. america --ed by reheated by america's cable companies and brought to you as a service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. cohn is here with a new poll that shows a rise in stay at home mothers. why are we seeing the us arise

and who are these moms? the share of all moms homeare not working out of is a quarter from 2000. who they are is interesting. some people may be surprised to hear that stay at model -- stay-at-home moms are not necessarily the college educated affluent moms we see in journalism stories. i am large they are less educated. they are more than likely to be poverty. there is a variety of moms that stay at home. that is a growing share are single or cohabiting, living with a part -- living with a partner. is a $64,000is question. we think it is probably a mix of factors. certainly we are seeing an increase in mothers who are

saying they cannot find a job. that went up six percent in 2012 to one percent of stay-at-home mothers in 2000. we are also thinking the increasing share of immigrants in the society may play a role. moms versus ant quarter of moms that are born in the u.s.. similarly increasing shares of asian and latina women, who are more likely to be driving this. there are societal factors. we are not sure how they play in. americans continued to be ambivalent about whether it is better to be at home with the child. all of that may be playing in. every decision for every mother is ultimately a personal one. host: what about the money factor? guest: that could certainly play a role.

are moreome moms likely to be in poverty than working moms. it is also true with merry moms with a working husband -- with married moms with a working husband. that it could be that the cost of childcare, which really hits hardest at those with the lowest incomes, could be playing a role. cost of childcare has been going up over the years. it hits pretty hard at lower income people. we looked at it and it could be as much as 40% of income to pay for childcare. be doing anmay economic calculation and saying it may be better if we stay home. >> look at the trend over the years from the pew research center. there is a rising share of stay-at-home mothers.

23% of all mothers were stay-at-home in 1999. tony percent of all mothers. surprising from a historical context? guest: it is the flipside of what has been going on with labor force participation. it really is a steady march upward in the last half of the 20th century, where more and more mothers and younger children begin taking jobs, going into the workplace either full or part-time. until 2000 that we saw that began to turn around and the sheriff mothers in the andforce began flattening perhaps going downward a bit. this does represent a change for the last half of the 20th century. host: what is going on in our

economy that is a factor in this? guest: when we looked at the recession years, what we saw was the share of mothers -- the growth stalled. it resumed after the great recession ended. we think that some married women may have entered the labor force and some husbands lost their jobs because the recession has been called a man-cession. there has been other research showing that when a husband loses his job the wife is more likely to enter the workforce. that may have happened to slow down the rise of stay-at-home moms, along 2000, 2008 in ninth. that resumed afterward. what is the public opinion of stay-at-home moms? people are ambivalent. there is support for working

moms. people do think it may be best for children to have a home. only one question from the poll earlier this year. we asked if a child is better off with a parent at home or is a child just as well off as a working parent he echo 60% said child is better off with a parent at home. we see numbers fluctuate through the years but there does seem to be a strong feeling by many people that a child is better off with a parent or mother at home. what about stay-at-home dads he echo guest: -- stay-at-home dads? guest: stay tuned. we did a number of reports on fathers over the years.

dadsrd contrasted moms and in looking at modern parenthood. today's dads is they are more involved with their children than that in the past. we still think stay-at-home dads are a small slice. orn we look at this a year so ago just for married and partner dads we found about six percent were home with their children. you may be doing more work on this topic. have invited the lines like this this morning, if you are a stay-at-home mom we want you to call in at -- you can also send us a tweet or e-mail us. we will get your questions here

in just a moment. what happens when stay-at-home moms try to return to the workforce? guest: we have certainly done research on women who go in and out of the labor force. a higher share of moms with children aren't home. that makes sense because a young child takes more intensive care. will want to moms go back into the labor force when their children reach school age. we found through our previous polling that a fairly significant share of mothers say they cut back to care for their child or family member. itsome cases they found difficult to come back to the workforce. we know that anecdotally. sayard from some others who they were having that kind of trouble. then we asked if they regret

--ting back or spending time the answer was overwhelmingly no. moms lookinge the for to get back into the workforce? strong preference is for part-time work. when you ask stay at home and working moms what they prefer, the plurality says they would like to work part time. a smaller share it or wants to stay on full time or work full-time outside the home. but that preference has been persistent. catherine is on the air first, a working mother in missouri. caller: i have seen both sides of this issue. my sondren are grown and is a junior in college. my daughter graduated seven years ago. i divorced when they were very young. my son was one and my daughter

was seven. lady in as a green private homes for children got .o stay-at-home my children were home by themselves as soon as they were old enough to stay alone. daughter was in the fifth grade and i had a job where i could run home at noon and pop in and out if i had to. i saw kids who are at home with their mothers. my kids were home alone. it really saddened me because the children who got to be home with their mothers, it was better and that probably makes a lot of women choose to work angry to hear that. i don't want anyone mad at me. if i could go back and change anything with my children, it

would be that i would be home with them. i think they need that for their emotional well-being. no one loves a child like one of their parents. a babysitter cannot do that. but my children did and by the grace of god they turned out great. way are healthy in every and they are smart. my daughter is married now. they decided before they got engaged was that she would stay home one they had children. my son has told me the same thing. you feel those people who have had children and were stay-at-home moms were better off? weren't thechildren prize. they did not go hungry or anything like that. my children were in an empty house.

want to be in an empty house in the daytime. sitters whene were they were -- you are dragging them out in the snow, sleet, and terrain. sometimes they are tired or they want to sleep in. dragging them out and dusting them off and leaving them. i know that sounds horrible but that is what we do now. does that mean it is what's best? d'vera? is ambivalent.ic on one hand they do like the idea that women are going out to work and raising families. theye other hand appreciate raising the children. : --

marriage is declining among american adults, a smaller share of adults are married than 20 or 30 years ago. it is natural that given all that is true, we see a rise in single mothers. five percent of sink -- stay at home -- 20% of stay-at-home moms are single. mary is a stay-at-home mom in woodbridge. caller: thank you for taking my call. i sometimes think that there is a reason why working moms are deciding to consider staying at home. thatis my personal opinion this may be linked to no child

left behind. challenges with children not succeeding to a certain standard. because of that, the teachers are constantly bombarding parents with issues that they are having with the children. there are constant complaints if you will that make apparent feel as though their child cannot be .elped host: what about this factor of education and homeschooled children? guest: that is an interesting

point that she makes. i have certainly read and other literature that there is a lot of discussion about women choosing to be home. someresearchers have said women may feel pushed out of the work place by family conflicts. they feel that they cannot do their job and also be successful bringing up their children. there may be a sense that the workplace is not as friendly as it could be. , it is hear that something worth thinking about or looking at. the cost for children's care is a going up. in andare weighing unionized childcare facilities. another tweet from one of our viewers, isn't that the trend?

one reason we did not look at stay-at-home dads in this report was we wanted to go back many years and the report bring -- begins in 1974 many of our comparisons. it would be not possible to do much of -- with stay-at-home dads in terms of trends. this was a reversal of decades of upward movement into the labor force. ath dads, what we might look an increase in recent years. when we look at this more closely, we will look at that as well. there isn't much to go on with stay-at-home dads in terms of longtime trend. this, whyter poses does this even matter? stay-at-home parents are just as viable to a family as working parents. guest: i want to get involved in

what a mommy war -- is called the mommy war. it is interesting to policy people for a couple of reasons. it has implications about the day to day lives of children. what are the circumstances in which they are being raised and in some cases this is a matter of government policy with programs that are intended to help children. we want to track it for that reason. the other reason is as i mentioned earlier, there is a flipside of women and the labor force. if you are interested in the labor force participation and our economy, the issue of stay-at-home moms by choice or voluntarily is of interest. host: shorter work hours would allow both parents to be involved with child rearing. that i i want to say

think you have to look at different kinds of mothers. enough for me to be home. range from 31 to 21. parentsstay-at-home focus on raising a better child. mother who graduated from columbia university. her life was her work. i would not say that financially we were neglected, but my mother had to work during my school things. i was there for my children. i think that should be the fine primary purpose. i took my kids to the public library. benefit of people

reading to them. they were not stuck in a public school. they would get to travel and do other things that working mothers can't do. key to thet is the person that you are building a home. how valuable they will be in the future, that is important. they get into trouble. they're more likely to use drugs. higher for kids who did not have parents at home. host: you were talking about why this matters. water policy makers looking at as far -- what our policy makers looking at in terms of policy? guest: on the big topic, there is a lot of discussion about labor force participation and

how it has been going down for men and more recently down for women. it is a problem. do we need more workers? how can we encourage more people to be in the workforce? there is discussion about policy such as family leave or making it easier for apparent to combine work and home. this is something that we looked at. it is part of the national conversation. 21% of stay-at-home moms are single. how can that be? are these women living off of us? guest: that is a question we had as well. the small share of them are on welfare. an equally small number are getting alimony or support. themund that about half of have an adult relative living with them.

we did not look at which relative. it might be a parent or sibling. provideht have helped financial stability. go to kenny next in maryland. wanted to stay at home. to provide more financial stability to our family, we decided that she needed to work. it comes down to some reasons. it helped pay down our student loans. we are both college graduates. she is a computer programmer and i am an engineer. costs, through my company they were more expensive than hers. is, we arere she

able to save some money on health care. for financial stability, if one of us loses our job, we can sustain on one income for a while. it is mostly for financial stability. providing in caring for the kids, we have support from grandparents and siblings and uncles and cousins. it balances out in the end. rounded get a well support and love from family and friends. it was interested he was talking about the family care arrangement. that was not something we looked at. we are seeing and arrange of that kind of care. we heard more about what is

called tagteam parenting where one parent works the day shift and one works the night shift so they can cover the children's care. the tweet from bob talks about single moms. here are some characteristics about the single mother from the pew research poll. those are the high school diploma are less. 624% are staying at home. 37%.g in poverty, that is here are some of the characteristics of the single than 35.y are younger guest: that is true. they tend to be younger. have children that are five or younger. host: ashley in ohio as a

working mom. you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a single mom. i'm a working mom. i am young. i am everything you just said. companies moms stay home? -- how can these moms stay home? i would prefer to stay home but i can't afford it. i don't understand how they are getting by and how they are able to provide what they need if they are staying at home? host: what accommodations do you have at work? caller: i did pay for childcare. i was able to get some help from a family as well. i am a college graduate. i have a full-time job. i had to do whatever i could to make sure that she was taken care of when she was under.

i missed out on a lot. spent every second i could with her. she knows she is loved. host: how old you? caller: i am 29. host: thank you for the call. this is kim in minnesota. she is a stay-at-home mom. i am sorry. i have to push the button. you are on the air. momer: i was a stay-at-home for 27 years. we have eight kids. momcame a stay-at-home anause i did not have education beyond high school. i could not make much money. bear having my kids stay with somebody else. i really loved being a stay-at-home mom. wonderful when the

kids right in birthday cards about how i was always there for them. mehink they appreciate always being home. i see them off to school and i am here with megan home. for me -- when they get home. for me, it was the perfect thing. host: did you have to cut back? lived paycheck to paycheck. we always made the bills. if i hadve been easier some income on top of that. the kids, when they go off to college, they have to expect nothing from us. eight children, she deserves an award.

that therch does show more education a woman has, the war likely she is to work. one reason for that is that college graduates are the only group whose earnings have gone up higher than inflation in the last decade. the share of college graduates who are stay-at-home moms is barely budged over the last decade. i can see where she is coming from. from one of a tweet our viewers. one breadwinner for household if minimum wage had been adequately adjusted for inflation since 1971. it should be over $20 an hour. question mark is that a factor. guest: the pew research center is not an advocacy organization. we just put the data out there. we are interested in policy, but we don't comment on it. host: we will go to fred in

virginia. caller: good morning. sums.lenge the analytical families or single mothers or single fathers and they have as many kids as they want. nobody is telling them they get a check continuously for the kids you have plus additional kids. when is somebody going to say that you have to have some kind of responsibility and realize that if you cannot take care of six children, how can you expect to have 12? unless they already know that the taxpayer is going to foot the bill question mark --? host: jeff is in missouri.

--ler: i wanted to say in with all due respect, i don't appreciate the way educated people who should know what they're talking about seem to have this tendency to minimize the affect of stay-at-home dads. effect of stay-at-home dads. i was out of work for a long. of time. the jobs that were available were hideously low-paying jobs. they did not pay enough to cover the cost of a watching my child. home and i did it for a while. i am the youngest of three children, i had no

experience at it. seeuld just really like to people that study this kind of stuff for a living look a little subject ofinto the stay-at-home dads and what effect they have on their children and the economy as well. we are working on that. there's more to come in this issue. what will this report look like? guest: i want to, the one thing that he said. he talked about how the begin staying home because he could not find a good job. what past research has shown and i will be curious to see if this has changed, when a dad stays home it might be because he cannot find a job. what a mother stays home, it may

be more likely that she is doing to take care of her family. a couple of decades ago, the dads at home went up and when things got better economically, that share when dad. thent to know if stay-at-home dads of today are there to take care of family rather than that they are because they could not find work. host: when we look at stay-at-home moms by race and ethnicity, what did you find? guest: increasingly over the , we found a growing share of stay-at-home moms are latino or asian american. look at that from another perspective, asian american and latino moms are more likely to be raising their children as stay-at-home moms. that is in the 36 to 38% range. marriedre likely to be

with a working husband? they are staying at home but they are married with a working husband. that is because most hispanic and asian-american mothers are immigrants. they are married with working spouses and that is common in that group. the two things are tied together. you are absolutely right. host: yolanda is in texas. good morning. you're on the air. caller: good morning. on thealling to comment fact that the majority of us stay-at-home moms have not always been stay-at-home moms. county, our jobs have been outsourced and we have become stay-at-home moms that not by choice. i would like to

see with the study says about the subject. guest: that is very interesting. is about six percent of stay-at-home moms in 2012 our home the goods they could not find a job. the economy has played a role in the ability to find for people attrue the lower end of the economic scale who have not seen wage growth in their employment. if i could be more completed my answer, there are a growing share of mothers who are home because they are ill or disabled or enrolled in school. school enrollment went up during the recession as way to upgrade job skills. host: we have about 10 minutes left ear. we are talking about this new report about the rise of stay-at-home moms.

debate ofed to the what is happening in washington on equal pay. ay should families take financial hit because dad wants to stay home with less income westmark -- westmark -- question mark. --? i work from home full-time. my youngest stays at home with me. i have a relative who comes in and watches the child while i am working but i can stop at any time. i think that is talked about a lot. college educated people are allowed to have a more flexible work schedule. if i don't want to work on a wednesday, i don't have to. we can go different places. where the mother

stays at home and does not have a full-time job. they just put their kids in front of the tv. i think it is the quality of time spent, it is not stay-at-home versus work full-time. host: you touched on something there about flexibility. to attain that? is that why you sought the job that you have? because of the flexibility that it gives you? i have been at the same job for 15 years. it was not always that way. it was not were i can work from home of i wanted to. i make very good money. now has jobs

flexibility. if you don't want to work on friday, you don't have to. host: did you negotiate this with your employer? caller: that is the policy. if you work so long, you can work from home. there've been articles about corporations out there and how they try to attract the best employees. one thing that employees are looking for is that flexibility. people really wanted. the caller raises a very good point. if you're college-educated you're more likely to have a job that will allow you to take off early to go to a softball game or leave midday to take your child home from school if they are sick. that may be one reason why we are not seen as many college-educated workers staying home. moms are more likely to work.

college-educated workers are less likely to have longer hours. some of the mayfield driven out of the workplace. the caller is right. college educated workers and make more money and are able to have more flexibility. host: gases near four dollars a gallon. gas is near four dollars a gallon. women are not going to have a choice. elyse is in washington dc. wondering, i am still on maternity leave. now that i have a taste of the good life to see my kids in the morning and put them to bed at night, i am looking forward to going back to work but i want to know how many moms change their mind later on and turn into stay-at-home moms after they have been working moms question --?

guest: we know that moms do head back to the workplace when their children are school age. i know have much to address the caller's question. host: we have a humanist left. keep dialing in with your questions and comments. about want to learn more this study, you can go to p ewresearch.org. what are the trends that people are referring to? guest: the family has been changing a lot. smaller -- a smaller share of adults is married. adultsre moral -- more living together and having children. couples. same-sex

there are marriages of different ethnicities. the family has changed quite a bit in modern times. moms is of stay-at-home a reversal of some of those changes. rubble going to be a limit as to how far we'll go because most mothers do say they would like to work. host: most mothers would like to work, even the ones staying at home? guest: the preferences to work part-time. more mothers but to work part-time. host: jim is on twitter. back -- bestond option. james says stay-at-home moms should be the norm. one he that is in south carolina. i am am -- retired great-grandmother.

my daughter became a mother for the first time at 34. she has decided to stay home. for theoing to do that first three or four years of her daughter's life. that, i to help her do am trying to help contribute financially so she can stay home and be with the baby while she is young. we both stayed home with our children were in preschoolers. then we went back into the workforce. we think that is important. thank you for c-span. host: we will leave it there. on thises next for pew topic? guest: we are very interested in the topic of gender and work. we have done stories on the gender pay gap. we look at how parents do what they do and what their

preferences are. we are going to look at all of that in the future. host: if you miss this and want to dig into it more, you can go to the website. thank you for your time. sebelius announced that she would step down from her position. up next, we will talk about what that means for the affordable care act. later, we will look at u.s. tech spared dollars going to the united nations. it is a 20 8 a.m. -- 8:28 a.m. the disabled egyptian islamic cleric lance to testify in his own defense when he is tried in compliedon charges he -- conspired to help al qaeda.

he was extradited from great britain where he was already serving time. an update on the situation in ukraine. the ap reports that deadlines and threats to the ukrainian government have not stopped pro-russian separatist from seizing another police building in russia leaning eastern ukraine. separatistand other holding buildings has passed. there has been no comment on that. the ukrainian operation has begun. sayingnuclear chief is they need more centrifuges to keep the power plant operating. the west wants them to reduce a number of centrifuges as part of a deal to curb its nuclear program. that has raised concern for the fate of the only running atomic power plant. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. he was a plant scientist as

well as the others. the story is that he knew it did not freeze in fort myers. a lot of the interest he had in this area was based on his love of plants. 1920's, the united states was relying on foreign robber. we were headed into war. thehat point, they decided plant material and the process should be done in this country. edison was traveling all over the world collecting plants. there were hundreds and thousands of people collecting plants and sending them back here to fort myers to his lab. he was fighting a source of plant material that could produce robert effectively. --rubber effectively.

this is an exciting project. the laboratory was interesting for many reasons. at that point in history, there plant patent process for or chemical patenting. part of the reason why this lab was important was it caused the government to come forward with what was called the u.s. patent law. this said that if you invented something with plants and it was a process that was worthy of patenting, you would be issued a patent. booktv and american history tv take a look at the history and literary life of fort myers, florida. there will be a stop at thomas edison's library. this will be saturday at noon on c-span two. washington journal continues.

host: we are back. we will be talking about challenges for the next two -- health and human services drifter. what does sylvia mathews burwell face? guest: we are getting to the first enrollment. right now. what doctors will people be able to see? there is a whole raft of issues. when it comes to putting the health care law in place. fornext big one is premiums 2015. that will be a political story, a much people see their costs .ise durin she will be under pressure to keep the rates down. we know there is some early

backlash about the size of the prevent not -- network. they are small this first year. they want to see them get bigger. when you expand your networks, that means higher prices. there will be competing pressures there. this we a huge political story. you can imagine how many ads will run. democrats will be concerned about that. host: she is the nominee. she's be confirmed. what is the congressional response. thet: pretty chilly on republican side. obviously, that was a less controversial position. was on her qualifications. it is about the law. be moree going to fights over the health care law that they hate. they're going to ask about delays. they're going to ask about of the mentation. it will be a huge fight over the

affordable care act. it'll be interesting to see how republicans handle this. said herry reid has hopes they don't obstruct. now that you have the nuclear option in play, they only need 51 votes. votes now. need 51 that is much easier. --on't know what hold up would hold her nomination. republicans will make some sort of a fight just because they have an opportunity to bring up issues with the health care law. her nomination does seem easier because of this change the senate rules. about policy.lk tomorrow is the deadline for those who started their application before march 31 but could not finish. what are you watching for? guest: we want to see the numbers about how many people enrolled but also who enrolled.

the last heard was 7.5 million people had signed up. what theill can see age mix was for that. there is a big emphasis on getting young and healthy people enrolled. they wouldtion was wait to the very and to sign up. from hhs, weumbers will know how many people have enrolled. host: when do you expect it the breakdown of who the enrollees are russian mark --? guest: that is good question. this month is different. they had the extension to april 15. i don't know if we will see that next week or a couple of weeks. we are on guard for it. host: who will be giving out that information? guest: this with him from hhs directly. they have been giving reports since october.

we will get demographic breakdowns, what they are buying, how old they are, male or female. this is a better sense of who is signing up. the outgoing hhs secretary was before the senate finance committee. this is what she had to say 7 million number for those that of enrolled so far. >> last week, we announced that 7.1 million americans have signed up for private insurance to the marketplace. week, 400,000 additional americans have signed up. we expect that number to grow. between october and at the end of february ammann an additional 3 million americans enrolled in medicaid coverage. 11.7 million people were determined eligible.

if more states move forward on medicaid expansion, more will be able to get covered. --ormal health coverage ont: let me have the way in what she says about the new enrollees and the medicaid numbers. guest: the medicaid number has not gotten much attention. states that or 26 extended medicaid. we are trying to find out how many came from the medicaid expansion. the affordable care act expends that program. -- expands that program. it is a voluntary program. that is on the challenges that the new secretary faces. publictry to get more and led states who are resistant to get on board with the medicaid expansion. host: republicans are

questioning the numbers. about the newked number on enrollees. >> using the conservative expenses have exceeded $1.3 billion. that is a lot of taxpayer money. how many of these people will actually pay premiums? how many of them had insurance before the law went into effect? the administration is hoping that nobody asks those questions. what do you hear there from the senator? they havet matter if paid their premiums? if they had health insurance before, why does that matter? guest: you're not officially

enrolled until you pay your premium. it's a 7.5 billion people have signed up, but until we know of them actually pay, we don't know, to actually enrolled. that is what matters. fromwe have heard civilians herself and insurers is 90% have paid their premiums. we are still waiting to see what numbers will look like. that number might be a little bit smaller but not too much smaller. they're still going to be opportunity for people to enroll throughout the year if they meet at a roman. qualifications. qualifications. host: to do not have insurance before? guest: it matters because the

idea of the aca was to expand health care coverage to new people who don't have the opportunity before. that is the one signing up in the marketplace. the idea was to get more people insured. the idea is to get people insured with better plans. we have heard that a quarter of up in the are signing marketplaces did not have coverage before. the new insured are looking at the marketplace. we still he more evidence of that. the law did not have a great reach if you've are just replacing coverage that they had before. that gets into the issue of canceled plans and whether people are losing the coverage that they like. million gain coverage under the affordable care act. 1.4 million our newly insured.

5.9 million our new medicaid enrollees. what you make of that number? with whatt would mesh i was saying before. they did not have insurance before. the newly insured are going to the marketplaces. this is not scientific. the author acknowledged that there are huge limitations. it was done before the 31st deadline. guest: we don't have the final picture of enrollees. also on the survey, americans without health insurance, there were 25 million. today that number has dropped to .8 million.

the uninsured rate is going down. that is a good sign. that is something the administration wants to see. the interesting thing is employer coverage looked to make up a big dent in the uninsured rate. that was something people had not been thinking about before. host: let's get to phone calls. you are on the air. go ahead. thanks towant to say secretary sibelius. spite the hatred she got from , she kept her eye on the prize. hope -- we all who are a great debt. -- we all owe her a great debt. this new secretary is getting hatred from the right. i hope she will not be faced

with the cowardice that came from the left. doinghe republicans are is denying millions of people insurance. thousands of people are going to die needlessly. sea of tranquility says will she be able to stand up to the white house? scenario, best case any chance premiums come down? guest: we heard that premiums are going to go up. she said this in a congressional hearing. that is the case every year. renames go up. they're not going to go up as quickly as -- premiums go up. they're not going to go up as quickly as normal.

the health-care law is very specific. the results are going to be very specific to states and insurers and what the markets look like beforehand. what assumptions did they make about their 2014 enrollment max? -- enrollment? premiums are going to be important to watch over the next couple of months. what are the rates that they are filing? host: you're from out caller about the controversies and republicans have been saying about the affordable care act. a republican from tennessee was on cbs. she was asked if the resignation means that the controversy is over and the afford will care act is on its way. >> is not going to quite the controversy. what it has done is elevates some of the concerns.

burwell is an interesting choice. that they consensus know they have a math problem. the numbers are not going to work out. they're going to have to have somebody spin the numbers. from omb,is coming they think she will be able to do that. how many of these people have paid? how many completed the process? how many are on medicaid? ,f those numbers don't work out they have a funding issue. will republicans still run on repeal? will they offer something different? will they try to fix the system that we now have? >> what you're going to see is a continued idea to repeal and

replace it. it will not be off the books until this president is out of office. let's go back to what she said about the numbers. what does she mean by that? they going to have the enrollment mix that is going to support the exchanges and make sure that rates don't skyrocket? will have a people -- will healthy people get in the exchanges? burwell is a budget want. .-wonk republicans are seeing this as an opportunity to attack it. caller: good morning. --on't think it is and it opportunity to attack it. it is an opportunity to expose the truth of it.

the president has lied to get the law in place. lied to congress. they replace her with somebody else. they have 7.5 million sign-ups. they don't know who they are or they come from. this is a scam to get the law and place deep. the -- eventually, the american public is going to pay every dime. differentre are issues with this law. things have been delayed. things a been put off. -- they did the employer mandate delay.

there are opportunities to investigate the program as to what has happened with implementation and where it is going. there are fair concerns. the administration has done things on its own. people in health care don't appreciate that. in the wall street journal, the health-care war endures. attention will turn back to the original question of if the insurance offerings will do the good work as promised. what are those offerings? we have mandated benefits. these are broad benefits. even if you have insurance

coverage in place, you have better coverage. can you see a doctor or get the coverage you need? this goes to the issue of networks and if the benefits our meeting people's needs. idea of get past the how may people have signed up and who is enrolled, the question is is the insurance being used? host: one of those mandates is preventive care. the wall street journal has a piece about that. questions about what qualifies as preventive care is creating a discord between doctors and patients. are anticipating

free visits. asy some of that qualifies preventive care. how are they defining newly insured? if i had medicaid or lost company insurance, would i be newly insured? guest: that is a good question. we have not seen what the administration's definition is. had a good way of tracking the newly insured. this is something that we are starting to look at now. that is a good question. we don't have a set definition. host: lori is in california. caller: good morning. i have medicaid and have had it for years. i have partnership insurance and everything is fine. so far, obamacare has not touched it. mine, she had

insurance before obamacare. it was a state insurance plan. they dropped her. she only makes $250 more than me. she is below poverty level. the lowest she has been able to find is $150 a month. she can't afford insurance. right now, she is uninsured. before, she can't get her medicine. fall wondering if you between the cracks, what do you do? question.t is a good i don't know this experience. we know that states that have expanded medicaid have shifted things around to shift -- meet the standards. california expanded medicaid

early. i don't know what the coverage situation is in california. they are embracing the law. they are doing everything they can to get people covered. --ould suggest cutting contacting somebody in california medicaid. they are really embracing it. host: lynn is in houston texas. caller: i have a question regarding payments to doctors. my doctor -- husband is a doctor. when these people come in with their affordable care act insurance, had you verified that they have actually paid the premium? how will the doctor get paid? it is supposed to work like regular insurance. you sign up to the exchange. the exchange hands off the information to the insurer.

it serves as a regular health care planned. you have a card. you deal with the insurer. it will work that way in the doctor's office just like you expect. in tennessee. i get $1100 a month on disability. my wife was disabled before me. $269 aapest i can get is month. that is a lot of money for somebody who draws disability. is it going to- start helping the poor?

when is this obamacare going to start helping poor people. host: what about the low income people and the health-care law? guest: that is a good question. insurance is still pricey. people will still struggle to enforce. -- afford it. we know that people might not be able to afford it for a very good reason. they have other bills. watch for things to is who stayed out of the marketplace and why. is a state tennessee that is not expanded medicaid. the governor is looking at possibly expanding the program. it is possible that might help the stillman out. each case is specific. it is very personal. that is what makes it hard to

generalize what the law is doing. host: there could be news from the cbo. there are some new projections about the affordable care act. outt: they're going to put projections. revised downvia -- their projections. they have better sign up numbers. they're going to say how may people are going to sign up. at?: what are they looking how many periods are we talking about? guest: this is 10 years out. this is something we want to watch out for. what assumptions are we going to make about the economy question mark --? are people going to be losing employer insurance?

there are a bunch of numbers to look out for. has the white house said in the past about their predictions? guest: they have not said. they have not set any specific targets for future enrollment periods> . adopted 7house million as a target. toward the end, they owned it again. were 13 projections million people would sign up in 2015. it will almost double next year. that is a projection. aboutl go until there are 25 million people through the exchange is. i'm not going to protect with the white house is going to say. it could always change based on the political atmosphere. host: is an illinois.

are you curious about the 7.1 million sign up number? sibley is the same she had no idea. -- sebelius was saying that she had no idea. they always ask if you had a previous policy. the number and yet they have no idea if you are insured before. i find that curious. you have all these benefits built-in. it is like taking your car to an oil change place. you get your brakes fixed and your muffler fixed, it is still 2995. how is this going to save money in the long run? if you're talking about

subsidizing. the 7.1 which is now 7.5 million, we do need to see these numbers. i don't think that they are lying. it will be interesting to see people is.x of we don't have that information yet. we will get that information. they are not collecting the information. a lot of states are running their own exchanges. they are not collecting this information either. we will have other surveys and studies. it might be a little while before we know exactly what denton the uninsured rate this law is making. in the insurer -- uninsured rate this laws making. this is an issue that people

will be looking at through implementation. costing?is this how much are premiums going up? we don't know how people are using their insurance. that is the key thing to watch this year. insurers don't have a great sense of how evil are using the coverage right now. host: what about the saving money issue? what does the white house say about that specifically? the law includes a bunch of changes to medicare and other things. there are fees and taxes that are supposed to even out. there been changes to the law. some costs have been put off. we don't know what the latest projection is and whether or not this is still saving money. the cbo said it $230 that is something to watch.

host: a viewer on twitter says this. gilbert in north carolina, democratic caller. comment based a on the last guess you had, the pew research person. that one of to say the major tenets of the aca is to have preventative health care. in thehat in mind, why face of the medical insurance industrial complex, can we not adopt maternity leave in countries like sweden. where, in sweden, women are aten 480 days off, 420 paid 80%. inwill never reach that, but most developed countries,

maternity leave is much better than we give women here. and preventative aspect based on the previous guest, i think this would be wonderful in aboutof what was talked in terms of stay-at-home moms. give moms or dads time to help nurture their children. that theyhat state are pro-life individuals and employers are pro-life, why not benefit a child's life in the first six months. letting the parents nurture their children. savvy --comment the andhubris and repealing removing the aca. when you look at medicare, medicaid, and how all of these major governmental programs were tweaked, it is taking time.

thisll take years to make a good plan for our country. host: we move on to susan and massachusetts, republican caller. i am a republican. i have romney care, it worked pretty well for me. when they switched to obamacare, the state must have changed vendors. i have a health issue. i cannot gap my insurance. looks like i was going to save 10% from romney care to obamacare. my premium is like $1000 a month. so they changed vendors in the middle of all this. centerid april, the old kept my money and said they would not send it back for six weeks. i went directly to the insurance company.

they said their plans are all federally regulated. they combined the individual and group plans so the premiums are low. i paid them directly. you go through an exchange with a screwed up all my payments? they are now telling me that they might cover me. why would anyone not just go right to the insurer? rs are regulated as well, is there any advantage to going through an exchange? given that they combined individual and group plans anyway? host: jason millman? guest: the main reason an individual will go through an exchange, it is really the only place to get subsidies for health insurance. that is up to 400% of the federal poverty level, there are subsidies available to help you afford the cost of insurance. there will be a offer where insurers can

you that subsidy so you can enroll through and ensure i get the subsidy if you are eligible. you have anon, opportunity to compare health plans as opposed to just using one ensure -- one insurer's plan. you can compare premiums and deductibles. you have more choice. host: on twitter, what pointclerk, "at does the irs go after those who are not aca compliant." they will lookr at compliance with the individual mandate. about howt much heard they plan to enforce this. signals are that it is not going to necessarily be strict enforcement. there might be lax enforcement. we're still waiting on this, it will be very politically sensitive. host: lawrence in colorado, republican caller.

good morning. caller: i am lawrence, but i am from illinois. host: ok. caller: a couple quick comments, jason mentioned -- sort of passed over that one of the big issues next year will be what the cost of the insurance will be. -- did we of funny forget that when this bill was being sold, before we were told to pass it to see what is and it -- it was being sold that the average cost of insurance per family was going to go down 25 hundred dollars. mathematically, if you look at that logically, these are questions that should have been asked. does that mean that everybody's insurance was going to go down? does that mean that some people's insurance would remain the same at zero and some people would go down?

$2500ill have the same average. that statement was pretty much meaningless. we are making it meaningless now. now we are talking about whether or not -- how much it is going to go up next year. one other quick point, too. this bill does not make any sense mathematically. the subsidies that are being -- it is- they basically on reportable income. this encourages people to hide income. it encourages people that are very wealthy and own a lot of a nice subsidy. i know people that live in million and $1.5 they have millions of dollars in a retirement fund. but because they are at the point in their life where they can decide how much they draw

$2 every year, if you have million in a 401(k) you can take out $30,000 a year. you do not have car payments or the necessities young people do. host: all right. jason millman, have you heard of situations like that? heard of thatnot specifically. i know that the subsidy issue will be looked at closely. are the right people getting subsidies and in the right amount? that is something that congress will be looking at. mark, that was a campaign promise that president obama said. it has been attached to the law. that does not have them. form the most part, the private system was left intact. there are problems with that -- rising costs. this law is not going to solve everything. the administration has said as much. the question is what can be fixed? in congress where democrats and

republicans are not going to come together on anything related to this law, it could be a while before we see major problems addressed like that. host: a few minutes left with jason millman from the washington post's wonkblog. washington post.com/ blog/wonkblog. linda, your next. caller: health insurance companies are starting to buy health care providing companies. the secretary is in charge of shaping long-term policy. about 18 months ago, the knoxville news sentinel reported buy aaetna wants to covenant health, one of the three major monopolistic health care providing companies. issecond citation "washington journal," you had dr. ezekiel emanuel on.

with glassesld guy and a big grin. he was a principal white house consultant on the affordable care act. asked what will health care look like in 2025. he cited the trend of health insurance companies buying health care providing companies. ofsaid aetna but a network 5000 positions. this is what people hated about hmo's, the people responsible for paying for it where the people deciding whether they got it or not. the end. host: if anybody missed the interview with dr. ezekiel emanuel, go to c-span.org. recently about

the affordable care act and his predictions of what is to come under the law. on whatllman, comment she had to say. guest: we are seeing a lot of consolidation, insurers buying up doctor practices. the idea behind that is the middlemen have a better idea of what the costs are. lashe is a huge back with hmos in the early 1990's. especially with these new plans with narrow networks and limited dr. choices. we will see how much people value being able to see the doctor they want versus having a cheaper premium. that will be an issue to watch. host: texas on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: i am a one hundred percent disabled, veteran from vietnam. i had experienced government health care for years. the problem -- it has gotten

better -- all i can get is delays. i have been waiting on an mri for over a year and still am getting delayed. i have got rehab, six months to get into rehab, delays. i have family going into this government health care law stuff. jason, what i am asking you is this. going have got my family into government health care, is there going to be a provision where people are not going to have these delays like they have in other stuff in the past? host: all right. the issue of delays. i think he is part of the veteran system. the issue of delays. guest: with olivier system, i have not really reported on that. delays, choice of doctors and being able to get the doctor that you want, how long you have to wait, these are issues to watch during the rollout of this law. it is a good question.

care, feel like they need if they have a health issue and need to see their doctor, that will be part of the patient experience and whether or not people embrace this law. host: jacksonville, florida, democratic caller. areer: the republicans going to attack this no matter what. it is not going to be repealed. obama is going to be president until 2016. we might as well get over it. republicanshouse cannot with a plan that kind of seemed to fly under the radar. their replacement. and cost more. there is no replacement, ok? i don't know why that flew under the radar. let's talk about it a little bit. jason millman, you republican alternative. one in the senate and one in the

house. guest: i am not sure, republicans in the house have put out their own plans. we have a mix of bills, this might have been from a few years ago. three republican senators recently put out their own plan. we hear that house republicans are working on a cohesive plan they will present as the house republicans as one party. beare hearing that it might coming in a month or two months. it has been pushed back. the problem there, whether they -- the problem there, whatever they want to unite behind, does it make sense to unite behind a specific plan or just bash obamacare before the election? democrats have control of the senate. the point of putting out a plan, what are their priorities, who are they going to cover, is going to be cheaper? we have not seen that yet. host: one last call, anthony in south carolina, independent color.

pendentdependent -- inde caller. previously, my wife and family were not able to get coverage for my wife because of pre-existing conditions. we were paying around $1500 a month for me and my two small children. under the affordable care act, my wife is covered. for example, the prescription she was taking over $300 a month, now it is five dollars a month. folks are coming in saying that the affordable care act does not work. host: jason millman, with the prescription drug component of the a portal care act. guest: this sounds like an aca success story. some people will benefit more than others. others are going to see worse options, more costs under this law. depends on a specific circumstance.

that is kind of why it is hard to generalize. working or is not, each person experiences it differently. story last was a week that the first wave of enrollees were people who were quite sick and needed higher, more expensive prescription drugs. thehat is the case, majority of enrollees, or some that a big factor in premiums going up or down? they could become a survey came out last week looking at the early experience of the exchanges. it was expected that the first people who signed up would be sicker. that is why we will need to look out for the late enrollment peopleo see us healthier signed up. we will not have the answer of how people are using their insurance for a few months. if it turns out there are sicker people in the insurance pool,

that is a problem for driving up premiums. host: jason millman with the washington post's wonkblog. "your money" series continues. taxpayer dollars for the u.n. first, a news update. of money, u.s. retail sales were up in march by the largest amount in 18 months. the commerce department said retail sales rose 1.1% in march, that is the best showing since september 2012. the rise, led by strong gains in sales of automobiles, furniture, and other products. the assistant it press says the strong gain is evidence the economy is emerging from a harsh winter. an update on the missing malaysia airliner. send a robotic submarine into the indian ocean for the first time after failing to pick up any signals from the jet's black boxes for six days. officials investigating an oil slick not far from the area

where the last underwater sounds were detected. this according to angus houston, the head of a joint agency coordinating the search australia's west coast. at 3:00 today, pulitzer prize winners will be announced. contenders are reporters who revealed the u.s. government surveillance effort week by edward snowden. revelations about the spy programs were first published in the guardian and the washington post in june. writing for the guardian was glenn greenwald, for the washington post per gallon -- bart gelman. a ukrainian leader has called for deployment of human peacekeepers in the eastern part of the country. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs offense from washington directly to you. putting you in the room at gresham hearings, white house briefings, and conferences. offering complete,

gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. cable tvreated by the industry 35 years ago. brought to you as a public service by your local provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> the first thing i would do is not let the largest cable tv second largest cable tv company. that is where i would start. y job here on the judiciary committee is to -- at these hearings is to raise my concerns. like a reallys smart guy, a really great guy. earns what he gets. ask tough was to

questions. they have 107 lobbyists on capitol hill. they are swarming capitol hill with lobbyists. got 100,000 people, more than 100,000 people write me their objections. the first thing i would do is stop this deal. i would not let this go through if i were -- it is not up to me, it is up to the fcc and the doj. >> senator franken weighs in on the proposed comcast-time warner cable merger. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. a lookn mondays we take at how taxpayer dollars are being spent. today we are taking a look at the united. funds

nations. joining us from new york is louis charbonneau with reuters and the united nations bureau chief. louis charbonneau, what is the united nations and why was it started? the united nations, if we take a step back, there was this thing after world war i called the league of nations that woodrow wilson created. it got off to a bad start because the u.s. never actually ratified the treaty to join the united nations. organization, which was the precursor to our current day united nations, never really got off the ground. and was unable to prevent like world war i. there was a big crisis in the 1930's when fascist italy invaded ethiopia. league of nations was

incapable of doing anything. it basically fell apart. after world war ii, during world war ii, franklin delano roosevelt came up with the idea for a new and better international organization that would keep the peace. it would have at the center of it the big powers -- the u.s., save the union, britain. at one point he thought about having brazil, france was included later as a core member. to prevent another world war ii. to make sure it never happened again because the big powers would be in charge of basically policing the world. things have evolved, but franklin roosevelt was not alive to see the fruits of his labors and try to get this going. she really pushed for it very hard. -- he really pushed for it very hard. for all of its weaknesses and

the difficulties that the u.s. has had with it over the last 6 decades, it really was something that was created by the u.s. if it had not been for the united states, it never would have come about. creation, what was the role of the united states over the years? what role is a plane today, the united states and the united nations? guest: it remains the most influential member of the united nations. today, there are 193 countries that are in the united nations. there are only two states that are not part of it. very beginning, the u.s. had this role. it was paying the lion's share of the u.n. budget. it pays roughly a quarter of the u.n. budget. a quarter of the regular budget

and then also the peacekeeping budget. united states a certain amount of leverage. it is also a permanent member of the security council. it has a veto so it can stop anything it wants to in the security council, which is the only u.n. body that has real power. it has the ability to send military forces wherever it wants. it can impose sanctions on countries. it can impose diplomatic sanctions, it can do a variety of things. it is a rather unwieldy body but the united states is a key member. host: the u.s. pays the lion's share of the u.n. budget. power, do weveto have more veto power than other countries that are big players in the u.n.? no, there are five veto

powers. the u.s., britain, france, rus sia, and china. of world the victors war ii. in the general assembly, a kind of world parliament of 193 nations, no one has a veto in the general assembly. its this is our -- decisions are generally recommendations. of powercertain amount in instances. recently, the general assembly overwhelmingly voted to come down the russian -- to condemn crimea.ian seizure of the region of ukraine that has been in dispute. the general assembly decision had far-reaching implications even though it is a nonbinding thing. to take control

of delivery of the mail to bodya, there is a u.n. called the international postal union. they do not recognize russia's seizure of crimea. as a result, a lot of international mail delivery organizations will not go to crimea because they see it as legal limbo. they do not want to run into trouble. sometimes even the general inembly can play a role daily life. host: on the money side of this. how does the united nations spend the money it receives from the u.s. and other countries? there are different parts of it. important, or the biggest part of the u.n. budget is u.n. peacekeeping. that is a separate budget run on a kind of voluntary basis.

that goes to the various peacekeeping missions, not quit e two dozen. countries like the democratic republic of congo, one on the border of syria and israel that has been in some tense situations over the last few years because of the war in syria. there are peacekeeping missions in other areas. share.has the lion's democratic republic of the congo and we have offices in burundi and elsewhere. one of the first peacekeeping missions set up was actually after the first arab-is raeli war.

shortly after the establishment of israel. the u.n. sent observers, generally that is how that united nations has worked. having military observers. these are costly ventures. let me give one example. there is one in the sudan it is acalled darfur, region of sudan that has faced conflict for more than 10 years. billion everyr $1 year. it has had a lot of trouble. it has not been using its money wisely. the u.s. has expressed concern about how that particular operation, which is run jointly with the african union, is being run. they want it to be better. to reorganize its priorities. we will see whether that happens. host: when you started to talk

about the budget for peacekeeping efforts by the united nations, we showed our viewers that the white house, in their 2015 budget request, wants 2.5ress to give the u.n. billion dollars for peacekeeping efforts. how does that compare to the overall total peacekeeping budget? guest: as i say, it is roughly a quarter of what the overall peacekeeping budget is. the united states is the number one funder, then comes japan, germany. other countries that have veto power like russia and china, for example, pay a miniscule amount of the u.n. budget. they are viewed as almost developing countries. france and britain are also big contributors. they are not up there with the u.s. and japan, but they pay quite a bit.

the united states has been -- they are asking congress for this money. a few weeks ago, the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., samantha for whyade the case this money should be coming. one of the operations she mentioned was the newest u.n. peacekeeping operation, just approved last week, for the central african republic. has warned that violence there is so that it could spiral into genocide. you have got violence against ilitias by certain maliciou there. there was violence against christians. the situation is a mess, the u.n. will be going in there. ambassador power said the u.s. needs to come up with the money for this and the other already existing peacekeeping forces.

host: according to the u.n., there are currently 16 peacekeeping missions underway. that includes 98,000 uniformed personnel. the cost from july 2013 to june 2014 for the peacekeeping missions was about a billion dollars. this is part of our "your money" series. today's focus is taxpayer dollars that goes to the united nations' budget. massachusetts, republican caller. a note.i want to make when gerald ford stepped in as president thomas after nixon's removal, he discovered every u.s. president inherits the secret -- the cia. what the cia is doing internationally is ruining the reputation of the u.s. on this 9/11 question that has

drawn us into these wars, there has been no redress. the international intelligence knew the cia and others were involved in 9/11. host: louis charbonneau, on the issue of reputation. is that one of the purposes of the united nations? to have a global institution that does this type of work rather than one country specifically? guest: yes. -- it can benefit individual countries quite a bit. for example, the u.s. has done quite a bit in terms of trying around the the peace world. sometimes successfully, sometimes not so successfully. if the united states was to handle all these peacekeeping goingions, 16 now, it is to be 17 soon. if the united states had to fund

all of these, the cost would be astronomical. it makes it a lot more affordable for the u.s. to outsource this peacekeeping activity to the u.n. of the peacekeeping operations, such as the one in democratic republic of the congo, have proven to be quite effective over the years. just recently in congo, they created a new, very aggressive and robust intervention force for the eastern part of the country. where there are a number of very hostile militias. this intervention brigade, blue helmets, they went in and very quickly cleaned up one of the worst rebel groups that was responsible for massacres of civilians, rapes, etc. do good work.

it is more cost effective for the u.s. the united states, since the 1993 black hawk down incident, has been very wary of putting its own troops under u.n. command. they basically do not do it anymore. theyput up the money, provide training and when. -- they provide training, equipment, and logistics. it is not as if the u.s. pulled out of u.n. peacekeeping. it has reorganized the way it anticipates. it plays a very important role. money is the lifeblood of these very expensive missions. michael on twitter asks "can the u.n. sent troops wherever it wants? russia, china, usa?" guest: well, in theory, yes.

but you have to have approval of the un security council. the united states has a veto securityability of the council to make any decision on where it is going to send troops. i cannot imagine the united states agreeing to have blue helmets sent into the united states. it would have to agree to it. same with russia. and china. britain and france as well. host: why the blue helmets? it has been the color since the very beginning. it was one -- as i understand it -- it was visible. it has a soothing feel. the -- they associate it with peace. it is there with the u.n. logo and the flag, it is blue.

the things they have stuck with. back to the white house's 2015 budget proposal for the united nations. $1.5 billion is what the white house would like congress to international organization. what are we talking about here? for the u.n.s regular budget, the day to day operations. the secretariat building here on the east side of manhattan at 42nd street and 1st avenue overlooking the east river. the thousands of people who are working their in areas departments. from peacekeeping, aid organizations, the administrative work going on in new york and in places around the world where they have satellite operations. that is what that is going for. it is not a huge amount if you

consider that the nypd budget is something over $5 billion a year. budget isecretariat's roughly the same. but usually on a 2-year basis. much money, but sometimes the u.s. and other countries get a little annoyed with the way their money is spent. sometimes they come up with him proper procedures. ofasionally, there are cases misappropriation of funds or inefficient use of funds. this is something that the u.s. has been trying to crack the whip on for some time. host: back to our phone lines. cleveland, ohio, democratic caller. greta, andd morning,

thank you for c-span. thank you for taking my call. i am a longtime viewer. this is my first call. i wanted to ask the gentleman in question. he mentioned a minute ago that when talking about the overall saidt for the u.n., he china and russia only contribute miniscule amounts due to their status. being developing nations. i wanted to ask him, did he think that because their economies have grown over the does he think the status could be changed because of their growing economies? and maybe they could be asked to will, giveo, if you more money to the u.n. that budget is a little small considering the workload that u.n. has and is asked to do

around the world. host: louis charbonneau? guest: that is a really good question. every so often there is a battle about the percentages of the contributions. and the amount of money that a country is supposed to contribute to the u.n. is based on its gross to nested product. -- its gross domestic product, its national economic output. the u.s., the world's biggest economy, has the world's biggest share. one would argue that since china is becoming one of the world's biggest economies, it should be paying an appropriately large sum of money to the united nations. that has not happened yet. because it is an emerging economy. russia considers itself also an

emerging economy when they have u.n. budget discussions. there is always an argument between developing nations and the more developed nations who feel that they shoulder an unfair amount of the burden every year. at the same time, a lot of these developing countries are the ones who are sending the most troops to peacekeeping operations around the world. they also have a certain amount of leverage. it has been very difficult to move this debate into something that results in a real change in how much countries are contributing based on what they actual economic output is. it is something that the u.s. and particularly its european partners keep pushing. so far, they have not succeeded. at the end of the day, russia

and china are still contributing much less than, for example, there veto power would seem to give them within the u.n. they have a lot more leverage couldically than one surmise from their economic contributions. go to edward in williamstown, new jersey, republican caller. caller: yes. good morning and thank you for taking my call. i do not believe that the united states should fund the united nations as much as they are doing. i do not think they have been too effective lately. i look at the crisis, the syrian crisis. i look at the crisis with iran, north korea, and a few others. how kind of wondering effective have they been? they have not been too

effective. since the inception of the united nations, iran world war thinkright after, i would as much money has been poured into this organization. the army should be well-equipped and it is not. countries look at the united nations' army as a joke. i don't think they are too effective. host: on twitter, asking louis charbonneau. "can you give us a list of the ".n. successes? things going on here. these are all really good questions. 's terms of the u.n. effectiveness. the first caller mentioned syria, iran, and others. now, we have to separate or differentiate between the u.n.

peacekeeping operations that are run by the secretariat. there is no u.n. peacekeeping conflictthe syrian full stop there is one maintaining the border between , that is notria really playing any sort of active role in the syrian conflict. it is the un security council, which is a political body inside the u.n., that is deadlocked. and has not really been able to make any effective, concrete decisions on syria in some time. that is the security council. it is separate from the u.n. secretariat. the u.n. secretariat is very active in syria. they are running aid operations.

we do not hear about those thanks so much. they are delivering food, u.n. workers are helping with medical very of the many people in grave circumstances right now. aid operations are also trying to lobby the syrian government and the rebels to let them get access to those in need in syria. that is an example of the kind not see that we do is separate from the political failure of the un security council. council, somey would argue -- i do not want to pass judgment. that the un security council has been effective in the case of iran. sections sincer 2006.

just this last autumn in october, the iranians, with a new president in place, started negotiating with the u.s. and britain, france, germany, russia, china, to limit its nuclear program in exchange for and end to the sanctions. some would argue this is proof the un security council taking the lead on international sanctions against iran, which were followed up by the united states and the european union with very draconian measures on iran's oil exports and petrochemical experts. that this was extremely effective. so that, i think, one could argue, is a success story of the security council. a few years ago, people were

talking about libya as being a success story because they managed to come together and -backedn a u.n. intervention by nato. not a u.n. peacekeeping operation. generate -- giving up her is a shantou nato to go in and protect civilians. it has not proven to be an effective -- it has not proven to be a success stories. there were those who wanted there to be a u.n. peacekeeping operation after the conflict ended in 2011. did not want this and we have seen violence going on ever since. situation. a great this is one of the things that russia and china have cited in their refusal to support similar measures in syria.

that some people would argue has been a success story recently was ivory coast. where the united nations got involved in pretty heavy combat in 2011 around the same time that the libyan conflict was at full speed. point u.n.at one attack helicopters flying next to french attack helicopters. they were bombarding the presidential palace in ivory hadt, where a man who refused to a knowledge the results of an election that he had lost. he was refusing to give up our. -- give up power. the u.n. had certified that election as valid. alignment with the

president who was refusing to accept the results of the election. the u.n. and it up him into custody and he was handed over to the international criminal court in the hague. this is where international justice is playing itself out. the is considered one of success stories. there have been others, such as liberia, sierra leone. the secondo question. actually, i think i answer -- host: i think you addressed it. we are talking with louis charbonneau of reuters, the u.n. bureau chief. part of our "your money" series, how taxpayer dollars in the u.s. are spent for that u.n. budget. last week, there was a house

theing on the funding for united nations. the u.n. ambassador samantha powers spoke about transparency. here's what she had to say. >> this past december i presented the case for financial discipline to the committee that handles the regular budget. i am pleased the u.s. has kept zero.n. budget to near real growth. we have secured u.n. progress in reducing staff, increasing transparency, and strengthening oversight of peacekeeping operations. much more needs to be done and much more can be done. we will continue our work to more effective, transparent, and accountable. host: louis charbonneau, on the transparency issue. is the u.n. budget transparent? guest: as investor power said, this is one of those things that u.s. has been pushing for some time. her former deputy ambassador,

torcella,ella -- joe budgetinhing to get u.n. meetings broadcast on television so we could see what was going on. there was a lot of suspicion and reluctance around that. he did manage to get an increasing amount of visibility to what was going on. for example, allowing journalists more access to things. and ensuring that certain budgets and audit reports would be put out. this is one of the things the u.s. has been doing. as investor power said, for quite some time they have been pushing to keep the growth of the budget down. and have been pushing unpopular moves like reduction of staff.

u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon has pledged support for u.s. initiatives. that it is something that is close to his heart. beennot sure he has entirely effective at it. he himself, in public comment over the past few years since he took office in 2007, has expressed some frustration with his inability to make the u.n. more efficient. as ambassador power said, they have made some progress. host: do we know how much ban ki-moon makes? how much does his office spend? a good question. i don't know off the top of my head. he makes a pretty good salary. $300,000 a year range for his personal salary. wrong about these i

think you're on that. his -- about the exact figure on that. his secretary it is the u.n. budget you were referring to earlier, the regular budget that contributents to $1.5 billion for. this is the part of the u.n.. ees.ki-moon overs he has limited control over other parts of it. the peacekeeping department and the body called the troop-contributing countries and then have to oversee how the peacekeeping money is spent with the un security council making the crucial decisions. ban ki-moon basically overseas a a $6ly, now it is around billion budget. host: john in pennsylvania, independent caller. caller: ex-congressman

kasenich and coburn the world's u.n. is largest arms bazaar. if you could speak to that, please. the u.n. in and of itself is not really an arms b azaar. been a very interesting development at the u.n. over the last few years. the u.n. general assembly last year approved the u.n. arms trade treaty, which is the first global treaty that is aimed at regulating the international arms export business. with arms ammunition.

yes, the u.s. is the biggest business, and international arms trade. roughlyal arms trade is $85 billion. plays a majortes role in that, the biggest role. generalhad was the u.n. assembly, after countries that were interested in having this treaty, they held a treaty conference and got close to approving it. then north korea, iran, and sy ria joined together and prevented the treaty conference from reaching consensus. thereby scuttling the whole thing. there was a provision that allowed for taking it to the general assembly and having a normal, sort of democratic vote in the general assembly. they did that and succeeded,

north korea, syria, and iran voted against it. but the treaty is there, the u.s. has signed it. it has not yet put it up for ratification. bazaar thingarms is something people are aware of at the u.n. it is something that countries have tried to take a stand on. the united states was reluctant coming to that particular celebration. it was not easy, the obama administration did sign it after obama's reelection. they played a key role in pushing the whole process past the 2012 election. host: back to the peacekeeping missions. you mentioned, as we showed our website,from the u.n. 16 or 17.

how old are some of these missions? guest: some of them are very old and go back to the beginning of the u.n. there is one that people do not the about very often in disputed kashmir region between pakistan and india. there, we dojust not get too many reports about it. every so often, we will hear things about what is going on. one i referred to on the border of syria and israel. that one has been there for now, four decades. 1973 the yom kippur war in

and after when they came up with a peace arrangement. the u.n. has been in congo from pretty much the time the belgians left it in 1960. theome form or another, united nations has been going to congo for a very long time. the country has had a very difficult path recovering from first its colonial experience t some kindying to ge of law and order across that huge country that is roughly the size of western europe altogether. yes, some of them are very old, as old as the united nations itself. host: this is an issue for congressman mario diaz bullard of florida at the hearing we showed you earlier with you on ambassador -- with eu on

ambassador. thehe success rate for united states continues to rise above what is authorized by u.s. law. meanwhile, the u.n. approves peacekeeping missions that are very costly. then we do not see a lot of reductions or proposals for the elimination and reductions of missions that have been allowed for -- around for decades like in the western sahara. what is being done to eliminate outdated missions. why should this committee support a contingency fund when there is little discipline being shown in budgeting for those current missions? what is being done to help bring resolution to some of those, specifically the western sahara. host: louis charbonneau, any effort in the u.n. to wind down

some of these decades long peacekeeping missions? guest: this is a really interesting question. the caseeresting that of western sahara was brought up. this is a disputed territory that is now controlled by morocco. it used to be a colonial outpost of spain. 1970's.in left in the moroccoen, now we have basically wanting to make it an autonomous part of morocco. the local population that has , they do not want to be part of morocco. force that numbers 5 personnel there.

ory are not armed observers peacekeepers, per se. they are just there to sort of keep the two sides that do not like each other separate. given that of the situation is unresolved, a lot of countries would argue it would not be a good idea to remove this particular peacekeeping force. that are examples of ones many people would like to get rid of. i would present another example, the one in kosovo. kosovo declared independence in february in 2008. ahe government in pristin declared independence from serbia. serbia has never recognized that declaration, nor has russia.

russia has used its security council veto to prevent the security council from getting rid of the you and peacekeeping mission that they have made an arrangement with the european union for helping with justice and legal issues, rule of law. they want the european union, which they see as their future home, to be in control. not the united nations. the u.n. peace keeping force is staying there and is more active in the serbian part. they cannot get rid of the force because the russians will not let them. put them there and it eats up money. the authorities do not want it. the americans do not want it either.