and then matthew rojansky talks about vladimir putin and the unrest in the ukraine. we take your calls "washington journal" is next. ♪ ♪ host: good morning on this easter sunday, april 20, 2014. we are bringing you a three-hour washington journal this morning where we focus on the nation's employment picture and u.s. banking and the continuing crisis in the ukraine. but first we will talk about electronic cigarettes. this week and the city of los angeles instituted new restrictions one- e-cigarettes, and federal lawmakers called on the fda to restrict the sale and content of electronic cigarettes. we are asking our viewers if you

think the federal government should regulate e-cigarettes and how far regulations should go. we have a special line for users, 202-585-3203 -- with republicans at -- democrats at -- independents at -- you can checkcatch up with us on twitter and facebook and at www.c-span.org. we have more on the restrictions that were implemented in los angeles over the weekend. here is the story from the "los angeles daily news."

e-cigarettes or restricted to the same as tobacco when -- it was made illegal to puff on battery-poweredd devices starting on saturday, and when to put away their e-cit garettes and public parks and beaches and outdoor dining areas, this comes one month after reports of potentially harmful chemicals in the e-cigarette vapors, and they seek to limit these in the same places that the bok -- tobacco is barred. this was over the objections of the users who inhale nicotine through water vapor. that is the story from over the weekend. last week, 11 lawmakers on capitol hill issued reports "gateway to addiction" is the title of that report, a survey

of popular electronic cigarette manufacturers and targeted marketing to youth. that was a little bit of the report that came out, and according to the center of disease control and prevention, e-cigarette uses going but these objects are not subject to federal laws and regulations. federal laws and regulations prevent traditional cigarettes from being sold to persons under 18 years of age, distribute or advertise on television and radio and characterizing candy and fruit flavors that appeal to children. there is no federal ban on the use of such tactics by the e-cigarette manufacturers or the absence of regulation, some manufacturers are using marketing tactics similar to those previously used by the tobacco industry to sell their products to minors. we will get to the recommendations of that report, and to your comments about should the federal government regulate e-cigarettes, but first

we will give you a look on what is coming up on the sunday show. >> coming up today on the sunday network television talk shows how to conclude the situation in the ukraine, the boston marathon and politics. you can hear a rebroadcast of all the programs on c-span radio beginning with "meet the press" at noon eastern. guests include bob corker of tennessee and democratic senator chris murphy of connecticut. and also congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz. and this week with mike mccall -- the secretary of the homeland security committee and retired supreme court justice john paul stevens. and at 2 p.m. -- guests include the russian ambassador to the u.s. and the archbishop of washington. the state of the union follows at 3 p.m., with stu rothenberg the publisher of the "rothenberg

political report," the director of the democratic national committee -- and ambassador to the u.s.. and cardinal timothy dolan, the archbishop of new york and massachusetts governor deval patrick on security for the 2014 boston marathon. the sunday talk shows on c-span radio, brought to you as a public service from cable companies and c-span. this begins at noon with meet the press, then at 1:00, abc's "this week," and at 3 p.m. cnn's "state of the union," then "face the nation" from cbs. listen to these on c-span radio, across the country on xm satellite radio on channel 120. and download our free app on the smartphone, or listen to is online at www.c-span.org.

>> right now on the "washington journal," we ask if the government should regulate e-cigarettes. the comments are arty coming in. -- are already coming in. ace bp says -- below that, tizzie -- patrick writes in -- according to that report that came out earlier this week, the headline "the gateway to addiction, a survey of popular cigarette manufacturers and marketing --:" --they want to

brother that this from users under 18, prevent advertising to children under the age of 18 and manufacturers should refrain from using radio and television advertisements and they believe the fda should require strong uniform labels that inform consumers of health risks and prohibit misleading product claims. those are a few of the suggestions in the report. that report is led by illinois democrat richard durbin, and california democrat henry waxman, among about nine others that came out earlier this week. for their thoughts, should the federal government regulate e-cigarettes. we start with jed, calling -- caller: the use of electronic cigarettes, all you're doing is allowing people to smoke tobacco more often, which is really not

what you're trying to do, and i believe that electronic cigarettes are excellent for smoking weed and heroin and meth. host: we will move on. here is a piece in "usa today," from craig weiss, from enjoy inc. one of the electronic cigarette makers. he says our products can help into smoking. tobacco will prematurely kill 480,000 americans this year, and e-cigarette skin -- deliver nicotine without combustion and can help into smoking. cigarette companies independent of the tobacco industry are making them obsolete -- he writes in his piece in "usa toda y." he says smokers have switched from combustion and it's harm, he says it must constrain nicotine to unsatisfying levels or bad flavors that appeal to

adult cigarette users, could keep current smoker smoking. we embrace efforts to prohibit candy flavors to minimize youth appeal. taxing e-cigarettes risk promoting continued combustion smoking. and he writes that -- they shouldwe want to know what you think about the federal government regulating e-cigarettes. should they do and how far do you think this regulation should go? we have brett, calling in from oklahoma on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you to c-span. i think my comment would be, is this right -- and do the

cigarettes -- e-cigarettes reduce tobacco usage. if so, the government should be involved and subsidize e-cigaret tes. host: you are saying if this helps reduce combustion cigarette smoking, this is of thing the government should support? and how should the government support that? what ways should they -- could they support that? caller: lower the cost, give somebody a tax incentive to switch, to quit tobacco, and use e-cigarettes. host: brett calling from oklahoma. a couple of more comments from our facebook page, david on the federal government working -- federal government -- the

federal government affecting e-cigarettes. he says -- and lance says -- the conversation continues on facebook and twitter, you can write in on our twitter page -- he has written on the twitter page, saying -- "usa today" has more on the piece from craig weiss. the editorial in "usa today," and it says -- they write --

they write -- >> editorial board of usa today, several opinion pieces out there we will go through this morning. we want to get your thoughts, should the federal government regulate e-cigarettes. we will give you some of the thoughts offered by the 11 democratic members of congress and the report that just came out. john from staten island, new york, on the republican line. caller: absolutely not. on february 2, the first of this year, after 40 years of smoking i purchased an e-cigarette, and after a month of smoking it, i no longer smoke e-cigarette

support cigarettes -- e-cigarettes or cigarettes. nothing worked for me, the gum or patches. e-cigarettes are wonderful for quitting. >> let me ask you about these, one of the key concerns for members of congress and a report that came out last week, do you think that those advertisers target children under 18? >> i think that they target smokers. >> so you are saying that they are targeting people that they want to target? caller: i believe so. for the people who really want to quit, if they can use e-cigarettes and stay with them for a month or more, it worked for me. i can't praise them enough. host: john, an e-cigarette user from new york. tony is on the line for

e-cigarette users. good morning. thank you. caller: hi, how are you. i am an e-cigarette smoker. i quit smoking approximately three years ago. i was a heavy smoker since the age of 15, i am 57 now. my doctors tried everything to get me to quit and it was very difficult. these are the only things that help me. i don't smell cigarettes and i can breathe easier now, i don't offend anybody, i also -- i understand the fda needs to do more research on it, but they do need to hurry up their procedures because when this was first given to me with the fda approved -- when the fda approved, they had no research on it, that someone took inside the medication -- they said this was safe to use only to later

find out that this was not safe to use, with an antidepressant. so the fda serves to a certain extent but i don't see this harming me at all. my health has gotten better and i think the government should stay away from it. if they get permission to heroin addicts to take other things to try to wind down their addiction, i think they should leave us nicotine smokers alone. host: i want to ask about the flavor of the e-cigarettes and the comments from the lawmakers last week. they are worried about the flavors appealing to children and those younger than 18. do you think that there should be restrictions on those kinds of flavors for e-cigarettes? caller: i think so but parents need to be parents again, that is the whole other story. they need to watch their children like they did -- they need to be monitored and i don't

think anyone under 18 should buy them. i don't want to see a 12-year-old smoking an e-ciga rette or a normal cigarette. host: so the federal rule across the board, nobody from under 18. toni calling from new york, on the special line for e-cigarette users. 5this is a column writing and in response -- to that report that we have been referencing this morning. the headline on e-cigarette restrictions to children may be deadly for adults. he goes on to say --

>> he ends his piece by saying -- host: lots of debate recently on this topic and we want to continue with our viewers this morning. here are a few tweets on this that they should regulate addictive substances. too many people have no willpower. another of the tweets that came in, --

host: we will be talking about that for the next half hour or so, here on the "washington journal." a few different headlines around the country and in magazines that are out today. we will continue to keep our phone lines open for you on this topic. here is a column in this week's "weekly standard" by fred barnes, talking about campaign 2014's picture and he says -- he writes -- he says for kay hagan's seat --

host: he goes in to talk about -- the republicans in the primary to go agaisnt hagannst hagan -- he goes on to write -- democratic consutlant brad crowe says -- and fred barnes says -- if you want to read more on that piece, it is in this week's

"weekly standard." on theat front, paul kane of the "washington post" talks about what life could be like in the senate under a mitch mcconnell majority leader. he says -- he goes on to look back at a january speech by mcconnell where he talks about issues that may change. he called for -- a change on the vote and a robust amendment process.

he writes that senators arrive at 5:00 pm and leave by 3:00 pm and spend more time raising money than on the floor. he said that many of us remember when there's a night was the main event. that piece, looking to a senate majoryt and whatity -- that is the "washington post" fixed column. we are talking this morning about the federal government should regulate e-cigarettes. we go to our line for republicans, peter is waiting in new york, new york. caller: good morning. i smoked for packs of cigarettes for 37 years and all my doctors said i had to quit. finally my nurse practitioner

put me on a controlled inhaler. insurance does not pay for it. no smoke comes out of it. i have been on it for a year and i am smoke-free in my fifth year of being smoke-free. and a lot of people don't even know about it, because this is a nicotrol inhaler. host: you say this is an alternative to the cigarettes and normal cigarettes as well? caller: no smoke comes out of it and it is used to quit. my nurse practitioner put me on. host: peter in new york, new york. we go to joy waiting in california on the line for democrats. joy, thank you for getting up for "washington journal." caller: hello, right now i am a

smoker of tobacco and i have tried a lot of different things. i am a recovering alcoholic. i have never done heroin, but i would say quitting cigarettes is harder than quitting a lot of drugs. i was recently at the doctor and the doctor recommended i quit smoking, and i told him i feel i would have to be tied down to a hospital bed for a week to quit smoking. this is very addictive. and i am all for the e-cigarettes thing, and i know the topic is whether the government should be involved in it. i do think that it should be promoted, in any which way it can. because i am just here to say that this is the hardest thing to quit.

it is coming out of your skin. host: do you think that restricting it to the use of those under 18 would be an issue here, in what you're trying to do, which seems like you are trying to get people off of combustible cigarettes? caller: i don't think children under the age of 18 should be allowed to have access to e-cigarettes or any kind of tobacco at all. i think it is a parental thing. host: and nicotine? caller: yes. it is a very addictive drug. host: joy calling in from california. we have a special line for e-cigarette users. tom is on that line. thank you for calling "washington journal."

are you with us? go ahead. caller: i am a user and has got me off of chewing tobacco. i want to add that my sister owns a store in new jersey, and there are hundreds of people who get off of cigarettes -- and i think that this helps them drastically improve in a very short time. host: tom what is your take on the advertisement for e-cigarettes? many people at the top of the segment were concerned about whether this is being targeted at children under the age of 18, to try to get them addicted to the substance? caller: i don't -- i am not sure, but what i think -- the flavoring is also for the adults. children should not. especially if it has nicotine. many people -- many of them come in with their children saying they want their children off of

cigarettes. that is if they're with their adult parents. host: tom, an e-cigarette user from new jersey. more on a congressional report that came out from 11 different lawmakers on capitol hill led by senator dick durbin and congressman henry waxman among others. they studied how e-cigarettes are advertised as part of the report and found that according to the staff report, eight e-cigarette -- e-cigarette companies from other product through samplings that appear to be youth-oriented. in 2012 and 2013 alone, six of the surveyed companies sponsored divided free samples at 348 of this. they found a seven e-cigarette companies air television and ready advertisements in programs including those with youth dealerships, and six companies

market flavors that could appeal to children and teens. for example, they have flavors like cherry crush, chocolate treat, peachy keen, and great meant. a few findings -- grape mint. a few findings we are finding this morning on "washington j ournal." barbara boxer tweeted -- this was a reason they should pass her bill, s-2047. and f-2047, protecting children from electronic cigarette advertising, act of 2014, to prevent advertising and promotion of a laconic cigarettes in a manner that is known to increase the use of electronic cigarettes by children under the age of 18. it establishes a civil penalty to be available that is

calculated by multiplying the number of days and persons not in compliance with such prohibitions by the amount of up to $16,000 adjusted annually for inflation. that is her -- protecting children from electronic advertising act of 2014. i want to get your calls, but first i want to let you know that on "newsmakers," we are joined by former minnesota governor tim pawlenty, the chairman of the financial services roundtable, on many -- financial institutions. this is what he says about how the u.s. can support cyber security and prevent the threat of things like the heartbleed b ug. >> on the public policy side we do need people when problems arise, they are able to access information from the government

and act upon it. if the ceo happens to be traveling to singapore and something terrible happens and i have to respond in five minutes it is good to have the general counsel also have a security clearance and weigh in on the discussion and we need better permissions. if you think about the array of government agencies that have usable and actionable information about cyber crime including the department of defense and the nsa and department of homeland security, the cia and financial institutions, the treasury and more, be able to work with them without fear of incrimination is important for that kind of protection of the things you mentioned. that is important. and current laws in that regard need to be upgraded. they need congress to act and they are not. host: you can see the entire interview with tim pawlenty at 10:00 am and 6:00 pm on c-span. this is on c-span radio and available online at www.c-span.org.

we are talking about electronic cigarettes, we want to get your thoughts. should the federal government regulate e-cigarettes. this is from the "morning ews," and our opinion, the fda must consider regulating nicotine and you cigarettes, although it is still early in the process of beginning to understand and regulate e-cigarette devices a recent study funded by the national institutes of health found that nicotine-laced vapor promotes cancer is in the same ways as does tobacco according to a report in the "new york times" this week. they going to write that this kind of hazardous product also is the subject of a regulatory scheme similar to that of tobacco. the fda has been dragging its heels on this issue including the need for warnings such as those required for traditional cigarette packages. that needs to change. let's go to brian in

massachusetts on our line for independents. brian, what do you think? caller: i think they should allow that. can i say something without you hanging up? host: if you're talking about e-cigarette, go ahead. caller: i want to say something i think you're program to talk about, and that is coffee taxes have tripled in the last 15 years, and in my city, the roads, 98% of them need to be replaced. horrible. host: so the suggestion is -- we encourage viewer suggestions. if you want to see a segment here on the "washington journal ," we certainly take viewer suggestions as well. let's go to paul as we talk about electronic cigarettes. paul is in anderson, california and is also an e-cigarette user. good morning. caller: good morning.

i just want to say that i've have smoked for about 40 years and i finally found these e-cigarettes when i was about 60, and i think it saved my life. software going to regulate it, i think we should regulate it with subsidies as someone said. host: you mean for the e-cigarette companies, paul? you think it should be regulated but that the government should also subsidize these companies? caller: yeah, subsidize the people that are trying to quit smoking cigarettes. host: i got you. go ahead. caller: and quality should also be regulated because i am sure some companies put a lot of junk in their stuff just to sell it. so i think we should research what is going into them and get all the facts before we start laws to regulate it. host: have you seen any of the advertising for e-cigarettes?

any concerns there? caller: i think parents, as the other caller said, should be up for that, but we do not have to get into that kind of nanny- state business. what we need to have is some decent research. they never researched marijuana and they spend billions regulating it. they never did anything but look for a handful. host: that is paul coming in from california on our special line set up for e-cigarette users. here are a few more tweets. vivian writes that smoking e-cigarette eliminates hundreds of chemicals that combustible cigarettes contain. it is the healthier choice. another -- why don't we regulate oxygen. we could tax it and a gay fortune. after that, we could regulate water. -- we could tax it and make a fortune. mark says he cigarettes a

delivery system for users of nicotine which is addictive. regulation should be equal to other uses of tobacco. let's go to thomas waiting in north carolina, also an e-cigarette user. good morning. [no audio] caller: good morning. i got the e-cigarette last september and i've not smoked a regular cigarette cents. to me if a teenager wants it, regulation is not going to stop that. host: they will find ways around it is what you are saying? caller: yeah, somebody will give it to them or they will find their way around it. i tried everything under the sun to quit smoking and this is the only device i have found that has stopped me from completely smoking cigarettes. host: thomas, let me bounce this quote off you from congressman henry waxman, one of the authors of the report we have been talking about he says e-cigarette makers are starting

to prey on kids just like the big tobacco companies did with over one million now using e-cigarette. the fda needs to act without further delay to stop the companies from marketing their addictive products to children. what do you make of that comment ? caller: i have not seen that around here in north carolina. there are no commercials around here, but i mean, you know, i do not see that here in north carolina. host: all right, that is thomas calling in on that line we have set up for e-cigarette users. a few more headlines. this from the afp wire service just out this morning to keep you updated on what is going on around the world. a deadly shootout in eastern ukraine shatters truce is the headline. four people were reportedly killed sunday in a gun battle in eastern ukraine shattering a fragile truce. it notes that -- quoting a

separatist leader -- pro-russian militants and an attacker were killed in a deadly firefight. he reported violent timothy u.s. was pressing russia to persuade pro-kremlin supporters to surrender their weapons and leave occupied public buildings. we will be talking more about that subject amount 9:00 hour on today's "washington journal" matthew rojansky with, -- on the "washington journal" with matthew rojansky. one other headline, read and hell are still hopeful for house action on unemployment extension. top senate backers of an unemployment extension say they are still hopeful for a deal and are working to set up a meeting with speaker john boehner about unemployment extensions. we will talk more about the u.s. employment picture in our next segment of the "washington journal" this morning.

we will be joined by ross eisenbrey of the economic policy institute. he is the vice president there. we will also be joined by daniel mitchell of the cato institute as we talk about the u.s. employment picture in a roundtable in our 8:00 hour of the "washington journal" this morning. just a few more minutes to talk about should the federal government regulate e-cigarettes. our fun minds are open to you. while you are calling in, i want to also give you one of the weekly addresses that came out this week. this is a republican weekly address, lamar alexander of tennessee talked about the contrasting republican and democratic approaches to government. [video clip] >> just imagine that instead of mandating things for you to do your government became a platform just like your iphone, enabling you to create a happier, safer, more prosperous life.

actually, government as an enabler was a good idea long before anybody imagined the internet. in 1944, the g.i. bill and able to world war ii veterans to attend the college of their choice come in today, half of our college students have federal rants or loans that follow them to their colleges of their choice, enabling them to buy the surest ticket to a better life and job. two weeks ago, the senate voted to continue to give vouchers to working moms and dads to pay for childcare while they earned degrees that enable them to get better jobs. in 2012, house majority leader eric cantor's jobs act cut red tape and made it easier for entrepreneurs to launch a business, raise capital, take companies public. a well helpful -- aol cofounder steve case wrote that that law

allowed a 70% increase and provide a model to tackle other heart problems with innovation compromise, and courage. while these ideas have attracted bipartisan support usually in washington republicans are the enablers and democrats are the manadaters. republicans say the proves of the jobs act shows that removing the obama regulations would enable us to create plenty of jobs. meanwhile, under the democrats' dodd frank law, community bankers and more time filling out forms than they do making loans. democrats want to mandate fixed wages while republicans want to allow more flexible of the for working parents, enabling them to attend soccer games and piano recitals. i propose allowing states to

turn have their federal education dollars into 21 hundred dollars scholarships that allow parents of low income children to choose the best school. democrat managers insist on telling those children what school is best. host: republican senator lamar alexander in the gop weekly address that came out yesterday. we have a few minutes left to talk about e-cigarettes. got is an oak view, california on our line for republicans. should the federal government regulate e-cigarettes? what do you think? caller: good morning, and thank you c-span. i am actually smoking an a cigarette right now, the ruby red mountain dew. this is an cigarette i just purchased for $40 from a new business that an e-cigarette store, and they are popping up all over the place, which is good for the economy. it has helped me. i have quit at least half a pack

of cigarettes a day so it is a good thing for me. i am completely surprised how fast this movement has gained momentum. if you are sitting on a bus, sitting on a train, sitting outside in public, people are going to complain about cell phones, they're going to complain about the food you are eating, how you are sitting, who you are talking to. we have become such a social society, created by facebook, everyone is so involved in other people's business. the united states of america is a free country, correct? host: do you think there is any role for the federal government here? age restriction, advertising restriction you think? caller: that is common sense sure. just like cigarettes, you have to be of age and a maturity level to handle it. host: you would be ok with the

fda taking those steps? caller: absolutely. just like anything else, tobacco, alcohol even candy should be regulated in the sense -- i cannot wait to see dumb and dumber, pelosi and reid on the air, wasting taxpayers' money when they should be focusing on how they fail their own states. host: that is scott in california. a new cdc study came out earlier this month found dramatic increase in e-cigarette-related calls to poison centers. the number of calls involving e-cigarette liquids containing nicotine rose from one per month in september 2010 to 215 per month in february 2014 according to a new cdc study that came out this month. the number of calls per month involving conventional cigarettes did not show a similar increase during that same time period. more than half of the calls to poison control centers involved

young children under the age of five and about 42% of the phone calls involve people 20 and older. the analysis compared the total number of monthly poison center calls involving e-cigarette than conventional cigarettes. poisoning from conventional cigarette is generally due to young people eating them. poisoning related to e-cigarette involves the e-cigarette liquid by an digestion absorption, or inhalation. replaytv republican weekly address -- we played you the republican weekly address, i want to also play you obama's weekly address. [video clip] >> for millions of americans this time of year holds great meeting. earlier this week, we held a passover seder and joined to his families around the world and they're storing of the exodus and the victory of faith.

and sunday, we will join our fellow christians in celebrating the resurrection of cry. the salvation he offered the world in the hope that comes with easter season. these holy days have the roots and miracles that took place long ago. yet they still inspire us, guide us, and strengthen us today. they remind us of our responsibility is to god and as god's children are responsibilities to one another. for me, holy week and easter is a time for reflection and renewal. we remember the grace of an awesome god who loves us so deeply that he gave us his only son so that we might live through him. we recall all that jesus endured for us, the scorn of the crowds, the agony of the cross, also that we may be forgiven our sins and be granted everlasting life, and we commit ourselves to follow his example, to love and serve one another, particularly

the least of those among us. the common thread of humanity effects of all not just christians and jews, but muslims, hindus, sikhs is our shared commitment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves to remember i am my brother's keeper, i am my sister's keeper. whatever your faith, believer or nonbeliever, there is no better time to read it -- to rededicate ourselves than that universal mission. for me easter is a story of hope, a belief in a better day to come just around the bend, so to all christians who are celebrating from my family to yours, happy easter, and to every american, have a joyful weekend. thank you, god bless you, and may god bless the country we love. host: and that was the president's weekly address. before we end this segment of the "washington journal" in which we have been talking about e-cigarette usage and getting your comments and reactions to

more tweets. mark rights in better ban all e-cigarette because the secondhand water vapor is bad for anyone around. one other suite -- i have seen someone switch from cigars to e-cigarettes. before they switch, extreme coughing after no more coughing at all. that is all we have for today's segment of "washington journal." later, we will be talking about the best way to create jobs, we will be talking with ross eisenbrey of the economic policy the institute and daniel mitchell of the cato institute. later, matthew rojansky will talk with us on the steps needed to prepare banks for future emergencies. we will be right back. ♪

>> i love duke and i am a loyal duke alum, and i did not do this to hurt duke, i did this to really try to figure out what had happened in a dispassionate way. again, there is a tremendous amount of passion about this or a come even to this day. all one has to do is going to amazon and see already that i have amassed 20 51-star review, even if the program had been out a week and it is a 600 page book, so i am not -- i'm pretty much guessing that not many of

those one star review writers have read this book. my last book was about goldman sachs and people have a lot of passion about goldman sachs, too, but this is in another realm altogether. >> in the "rights of silence," author in duke alum william d. cohan looks at the allegations tonight on c-span "q&a." >> cryptology is an agent art -- ancient art. we have some interesting artifact that really help you understand just how long people have been making and breaking codes and had a need for cryptology. when we talk about the united states, it is important to note that the making of breaking of codes has been a part of america even before we gained our independence. one of our most precious artifacts is known as the jefferson cipher device.

truth in advertising comments are important to note that we don't have any definitive conclusive evidence that this particular device belonged to thomas jefferson. but there are some interesting facts about it. one, this artifact was found in an antique store very close to monticello. it appears to have the ability to decipher french and english and we know thomas jefferson was an ambassador to france. there is a drawing of a device very similar to this in jefferson's private papers. even so, we cannot say for sure that jefferson owned it. what we can say is that this is an excellent example of how people use cryptology in the 19th century. >> from the nsa's national christological museum, making and breaking secret codes later today at 6:00 and 10:00 eastern part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: last month, private sector employment hit a milestone. u.s. businesses regained the number of jobs that have been lost do during the 2000, 2000 eight great recession. joining us now to offer their take on the best way to move forward with job creation are ross eisenbrey of the economic policy institute and daniel mitchell of the cato institute. first, mr. michel, how much should policymakers be celebrating the fact that private sector jobs are now back to 2008 levels six years later? guest: they should celebrate in that they are not below 2008 but that is a very low bar to clear. normally when you have a recovery from a downturn and we have theoretically been in a recovery now, we're well into our fifth year. you should be way above. when you look at the average of all post-world war ii recessions, this is a very weak job performance we have had in

the last several years. that being said, i'm glad we have gotten to 2008. i just wish we have gotten their sooner. host: ross, do we have a milestone we are celebrating? guest: i agree with dan. this is not much we are celebrating, it is better than being a few million jobs down, but because population has grown over this time, we should be 6 million or 8 million jobs ahead of where we are now. host: that is the question -- how is the great recession still impacting the unemployment situation? what if the jobs world that we are living in today compared to what we were living in in 2008? guest: i think the biggest problem is that the federal government has shrunk its budget, the budget deficit fell from 10% of gdp in 2009 2 3% last year, and it continues to fall. congress has engaged in austerity in a way that has really cut off economic growth

and there is probably nothing more important to the jobs picture than that. host: daniel mitchell, do you agree? guest: what ross is doing is giving the keynesian argument that somehow deficit spending is good for the economy and i just do not think that is true. i think obama's stimulus failed. if you asked me what the most important job number to look at, it is not so much the on implement rate, it is the employment population ratio, but for much of recent decades we have been averaging between 62% and 63% of the working age population to employee. we have been stuck around 58% or so. that is pretty weak. it is not just a went down for the recession. it went down, and it has been stuck down there like a heartbeat. host: are these the story close> -- are these historic lows?

how do they compare? guest: they got into the low 60's level and seem to be stable. not everybody of working age wants to work or needs to work. it is not we want that to be 90 or 95. that is not some magic number. but to see the number go from 60 to to 63 down between 58 and 59 and sit there when there is no reason why we might think that there is a big change in the preferences of the workforce, i think that is a sign of a lot of labor that is no longer being productively utilize in the economy. i agree with ross, we are 6 million, 7 million, 8 million jobs behind where we were be. what is the way to get out of that? what is the reason why jobs are too low? i think it is because the government is too big and it is too much pressure on the working sector. ross will say it is to do more. host: what is the role of

government, doesn't have any role of government in your opinion? guest: government has a role to provide the right framework and to have a system where the tax and burden -- government spending is not diverting too much, that kind of system that enables the private sector to flourish, but here is my number one message that i would give to every viewer out there -- businesses are not charities. businesses will create jobs when they say we will hire this person and that will make us a little extra money but if taxes and spending and regulation are so high, it makes it more difficult for businesses to make that trade-off and decide yes, let's hire a new person. i do not want government to be small in that way, i'm a libertarian, yes i like small government, but i want government to be small so businesses have an incentive to read jobs because of date do not

-- because they did not do it out of the goodness of their heart, they do it to increase the bottom line. host: ross eisenbrey, your number one message here. guest: the notion that regulation is somehow choking off american business i think it's not sensible. every survey shows american business itself rates american regulatory system is making it easy to start new business, and world rankings, we are still ranks number one in either starting a business or maintaining a business. our regulations are all cost beneficial. everyone of them end up helping the economy more than it hurts. so the notion that regulation is a problem is just wrong. what we need is primarily things like fixing our trade balance. we have a huge trade deficit which means we are not producing

things for our own market and for the world market. on balance we are borrowing from the rest of the world having been produced for us, which leads our point -- which leaves our people unemployed. that probably is the number one big ticket item for the government to address. host: mr. mitchell i believe brought up the stimulus effort. we are a little more than five years since that 800 billion dollars stimulus effort. is it time for another round of stimulus? guest: it was time for another round in 2009. we the stimulus we had was too small and too focused on tax cuts. if we had done more and sustain it, we would be in much better shape. we are making serious mistake for example not renewing unemployment insurance. that will cost jobs and is terrible for the long-term unemployed will stop we should be doing huge infrastructure spending. the mckinsey global institute, which is, you know, a business

advisor, assessed that we should be spending 1% of gdp more each year about $1.5 trillion -- i'm sorry, 150 billion dollars more each year than we are spending now. and that would put people to work on roads and bridges project, sewage projects, repairing schools. we have a huge infrastructure deficits, and addressing that would put people back to work. host: i went to get to some of these issues during the course of our hour-long discussion. we are joined by ross eisenbrey of the economic policy institute and daniel mitchell of the cato institute. before we open up the phones daniel mitchell, i want to get you to respond to some of the stimulus efforts that mr. eisenbrey was talking about. guest: i think ross is a government junkie. we took the head of whatever we want to call it, the heroin of big government back in 2009.

that did not work. he jobs creation numbers never materialized in the way the white house promised, and now ross wants us to go down the same path. i want to say do not believe ross, do not believe me either, just look around the world. why are companies countries like france and italy and greece in permanent stagnation, and why are places like hong kong and singapore, widely routinely year after year enjoy a 5%, 16% growth? the world as a laboratory, and i think that shows that the nation with the biggest government is worse. i want to get out some humility here. there are a lot of factors that the term and economic performance. this is another area where ross and i might agree. regulatory policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy -- i am a fiscal policy economist, so sometimes i'll get caught up in want is a taxes and spending

matter more than anything, but no, there are all these other factors. you want to make sure you are looking at all the things in your economy and trying to get the policies right. one policy is never going to be a stove or bone. i might like to have a flat tax i might like to have less government red tape, but you have got to look at the whole panoply of government. host: we are opening up all of government to our viewers, and ross "washington post and eisenbrey and daniel mitchell, republicans can call (202) 585-3881 democrats (202) 585-3880 independents (202) 585-3882 and if you are outside the u.s., it is (202) 585-3883. as we said, some of those headlines from earlier this month with that march job report, private employment slowly reclaiming its pre-downturn peaks. here is a look at the change in employment from january 2008 through the beginning of 2014,

u.s. finally reclaiming their private sector jobs lost in the great recession. jody writes in on our twitter page -- celebrating getting back to the 2008 levels is better than nothing. where are these job creators? i have heard about them since 2008 and i have not seen them. we will be taking your tweets come e-mail, and our phone lines are open. we start with julie calling in from wisconsin on our line for independents. good morning. caller: it is absolutely amazing those members in congress who refuse to pass the american jobs act. those are government jobs that they are holding, yet they won't pass this act so that the government can help people get to work because everybody knows this -- government workers spend their money, and when they spend their money, well, the companies they are spending that money on hire new people to handle all the business that the government

workers are creating by spending all that government money, and it is clearly an effort by the republicans in congress, let's face it, to make sure that president obama has the worst possible job creation record ever. it is so obviously political and it is hurting the american people and i am very disappointed at all of those congress people who are holding government jobs, who say the government can't create jobs. it is total fallacy. think about all the time the economy has shored -- it has been with the help of government created jobs hiring american people to get paychecks from the government, so spend the money on the american economy. it is a cycle. host: ross eisenbrey i saw you shaking your head during some of those comments. guest: well, we have laws from before 2008 where about 400

thousand, 500 thousand public jobs lower than where we were because state government, local government has been cutting back our lead because the federal support that they got was cut back, and it is not because air is not a need, it is not because we don't need school teachers or day care programs or after school programs or first responders, it is because the government cut back its support, so to that degree, i agree with the caller. host: part of this chart we are showing our viewers look that government jobs, the yellow line on this chart is federal jobs. over the years from 1960 on word, you can see a falloff. since 2007 2 thousand eight. daniel mitchell, your thoughts on where these public sector jobs fit in to the picture? guest: here is something i think

julie missed. every public-sector job has to be financed by somebody producing something in the private sector. so that more we have come up with a bigger return on the productive sector of the economy because somebody has to pay for. you cannot consume what is not first produced, and if you look around the world again, this is my mantra about the world being a laboratory, if government jobs were some kind of magic elixir to create economic growth and prosperity why is greece in the economic toilet, why are france and spain and all these other european welfare states in so much trouble? government spending in of itself is a cost, it is not a stimulus because some he has to produce the resources before government spends them. host: a question on twitter -- please explain why the president seeks another trade heal what we have lost so many jobs due to outsourcing. guest: i think free trade is a good thing and i'm glad that the president is at least moving in the direction of some bigger opening up trade markets.

american at sports, supporting millions of jobs, free trade is good whether it is free trade between oklahoma and kansas whether it is between california and new york, whether it is free trade between me and my local supermarket. i have a big trade deficit with my supermarket -- they never buy anything from me. i am always i ain't groceries for them. what we want is a free market where producers and consumers can decide what is best for themselves, free from the burdens of government. here is something where we can make a big difference. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. we have the highest corporate tax rate in france. all the welfare states in europe or corporate tax rates, and we have a worldwide taxation system on top of that, some american company trying to compete in foreign markets really has a big news around their neck. there are all sorts of things we can do to make america more competitive place to increase jobs and make our economy much

more competitive. i just don't think bigger government is the answer. i think less government. guest: our trade regime has been pretty much a failure for the last 15 years. we had nafta and lost hundreds of thousands of jobs because of it. manufacturing jobs are down 4 million, 5 million since nafta was passed. then we have the world trade organization letting china in. from 2000 on, our manufacturing sector just tanked. literally we lost $5 5 million jobs, and most of that went to china. u.s. manufacturers moving their operations or companies like walmart importing back to the united states from china. so these trade deals -- it is

sort of the definition of insanity. if you keep doing the same thing, you will keep getting the same result, and when you have a half trillion dollar trade deficit, that is the single most important thing we can do to restore the american economy is to balance our trade and get to a position where we are producing for our own market and exporting to the rest of the world in balance with what comes into the united states. host: as we are talking about job creation in the united states, we have a special line in this segment for and about the next voice i've met or so for the "washington journal," for those who are part-time or on employee, -- unemployed, a sever line is open for you (202) 585-3883. for the rest, standard lines are

open for you. we go to a republican in new york. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i want to say that i agree with mr. eisenbrey and the reason i'm saying that if everybody the xl pipeline creating something like 40,000 jobs, but i would argue that if we were to focus on our infrastructure, our railroads, orur roads our bridges, that creates millions of jobs, but congress fails to do anything about that because that would make obama seem like he is doing something great towards jobs, but they fail to do that. i have one question for mr. mitchell -- why in the past have we given big businesses tax breaks after tax breaks to create jobs, and they have

created zero jobs? host: mr. mitchell? guest: well, i will agree with you on that last point. i want a fair flat tax. i want to get rid of the thousands of deduction, credit exemptions, and other loopholes in the tax code. i hate the fact that they businesses are prowling the halls of congress looking for special handouts and bailouts and preferences. i want businesses to be free from government but i don't want them dependent on government. i want them concentrating their energies on creating products and services that consumers want. that is a way to get profits. i do not want them to somehow view working congress as a way to get profit. i want real capitalism, not crony capitalism. i will go back to what i said before about infrastructure, somebody has to pay for all of that. so if government is taxing and borrowing money out of the private sector to pay for infrastructure, you better make sure that you are getting a decent rate of return on that. in some cases the answer is yes

but another case is if you are a politician doing porkbarrel projects for cronies and campaign contributors, then the rate of return will be very low, which is why i think we will get better infrastructure if we get the federal government out of it and let state and local governments raise the money and spend the money because they actually know what is in the best interest of the motorists in the commuters in their states and districts where as in the federal government, that is where you get the corruption. host: who on capitol hill is pushing a cache structure similar to the division you just outlined? guest: well, the flat tax and other tax reform have not been exactly a hot topic. obama is much more into the tax warfare approach van taxation, and everyone knows there's no point in pushing a flat tax when it would just get vetoed by the white house. that being said, senator shelby of alabama has been a longtime supporter or the introducer of a flat tax. i think congressman michael

burgess of texas is the house member who is the lead sponsor of the flat tax was up unfortunately, these ideas are dormant. about 30 countries around the world have a flat tax, places like hong kong have had a flat tax for six decades and is doing very well. but we are saddled with an internal revenue probe that is an embarrassment to the human race. host: on our free-trade question from earlier, kevin writes -- fair trade yes free-trade, no. these trade agreements have killed the middle class. we have got a special line on this segment of the period "washington journal" for those who are part-time employed or unemp loyed. peter, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about where government is spending money, and theoretically, i do not know your name from the cato institute, you are right -- host: mr. mitchell. caller: mr. mitchell, if you are taking money from people who are

making it an over doing jobs, it is going to fail, it is obvious. but when you look at it realistically, when the banks get bailed out, and that is from taxpayer money so, you know sometimes you are not getting the whole picture. when harvard does the study, this 10 years war is going to cost our country a fortune and by the time you pay benefits to soldiers over 30 years, if we took the money we put it into the factories to make fuel efficient homes, businesses, and cars, we would be the leader in the world. think about that. $4 trillion. that is a huge pot. that is my personal opinion, why these wars were important or done, and you have welfare in terms when you are giving it to all of these defense contractors that should be put into production -- what does that do?

it creates havoc. we are not building anything. if we built things, we would not need to have all this security apparatus. host: why don't you both respond to this? we will start with mr. mitchell and then we will go to mr. eisenbrey. guest: i friend from massachusetts will be happy to know that the cato institute was against the bailout for the big boys of wall street. we did not supported at all. we wanted those big banks, financial institutions to be wound down. capitalism without bankruptcy, and i want the big boys and wall street to play by the same rules as folks on main street foes of you will also be happy to know i get to work at the cato institute, we are a libertarian think tank we are not republican, we do not want bailouts for defense contractors, we do not want to waste money on the defense budget. we support less domestic spending and less defense spending. we do not want to go into a big nationbuilding exercise in iraq so i think you will find that we have a lot of agreement. i would invite you to go to the

halal.org website and see that the libertarian principles of small government across the board are the best for the economy, growth, and job creation. guest: i think there is a little but of agreement here. i think we are overspending on the defense, but i want to go back to what he said about the infrastructure and about our highway system. he wants to get the federal government out of the highway program, get the federal government out of airports and out of ports and out of sewage treatment. it is like there is no history involved in attitude like that i have to say. the railroads were built by the federal government, the national highway system was built by the federal government. in fact, most of the roads in the united states that were paid for the first time in the new deal -- there is no way to have a nation of 300 million plus and not have the federal government

overseeing the infrastructure of the whole system. i just think that it is unrealistic. host: mr. mitchell talks a little babout what the cato institute does. we talk about the economic policy institute? guest: without about wages employment developing policies to help working people, the middle class. we have worked for a closely with the congressional progressive caucus on a budget that does some of the things that the callerds just now asked for that would reduce spending on defense, put more money into infrastructure more money into education, research, and the health of the american people and it would raise taxes on the very wealthy. we have a serious problem when all of the growth, virtually all of the growth of income since

2009 has gone to the top 1% of americans, and they have really have not been taxed on that income. a flat tax sound like a good idea, but when all of the income growth is going to a tiny slice of the american people, not to tax them with a progressive tax would be disastrous for the government and 40 quality. host: you talked about quite a few job initiatives, but i want to talk about job training in particular and get to some of the news last week speaking wednesday at a community college in oakville, pennsylvania, president obama took those two different proposals that are initiatives that do not require congressional approval. here is a bit of what the president had to say about partnering with community colleges and local employers to come up with job driven curriculums. [video clip] >> today i'm taking two

significant actions that do not require congress. that don't require congress. [applause] first, we have asked more community colleges to do what you have done here at allegheny, and that is to figure out what skills local employers are looking for, and then warner with them to help with curriculums into help students find those jobs. we want industry recognized credentials and credit toward a college degree, and today i am announcing that we are going to award nearly $500 million to those institutions who are doing it best in all 50 states using existing money to create opportunity for hard-working folks like you. [applause] host: mr. mitchell, i wanted to start with you to your reaction to some of the announcements the president made at that event. guest: the government accountability office estimates that there are currently 47 different jobs training

programs. now it's going to be 49? more affordably than that, gao found that when you look at the track record of these government programs and you look at the people who went through the programs compared to a controlled group of people who did not go through the programs, you do not find any improvement in getting jobs or in the wages that people receive once they do get jobs. so i think this is just another example of a feel-good government program for molecular spend money, let's make voters think we are doing something. i would much rather president obama and congressional republicans come out of the cara parties in this, i would much rather them figure out ways to lower the tax burden, make it easier to grow, making job creation more profitable. that is where we get the minimum wage. if you have the government say it is now going to cost you more to hire someone, who on earth would think that would create jobs?

but one obamacare says when your business gets to a certain size you now have thousands upon thousands of allers of mandates -- dollars of mandates, when you are trying to survive, you are trying to make sure the business gets going, you are thinking about the long-term, you're putting in the blood, sweat, blood equity of your time and industry not to mention your family's life savings, and the government instead of staying out of your way is putting all these burdens in front of you in terms of the taxes the regulations, obamacare, and minimum wages -- it all adds up. if we make our economy more like the french and greek economy, we will not get the different results. we will get the same stagnation. host: i want to give you a chance to respond to that into house speaker john boehner touting the republican skills act in response to the president's speech.

we will play with speaker boehner had to say and then we will come back to you. [video clip] >> times are tough for hard-working people, and republicans are working to turn things around. right now there are less than 10.5 million americans looking for work and 4 million job openings remain unfilled. experts attribute this to a skills gap. every year, taxpayers spend $18 billion on job training problems, but only a fraction of workers receive the training necessary to get a job. wahthat's more, our job training system is on updating since before the dot com burress. provide students and workers with the opportunity to get ahead. that is why as one part of a job plan for republicans to pass the skills act which will give workers the job training they need when they need it. to read the bill and learn more

about how republicans are helping close the gap, go to speaker.gov/jobs. host: that was from the speaker's office, and of course with the speaker's voice in the voice over. ross eisenbrey, your thoughts. guest: well, our job training system has not been very successful. i agree with dan and gao. it depends on where you go in the country. part of the country is it was broken up into the 50 states. it is a program that works better for example in washington state than it does probably in mississippi and some other places. you cannot talk about it really as a single system because it is run by the states and by local boards. it is a fractured kind of system. i do not like it very much. i think the republican skills act is just politics, it is just

a slogan really. the systems that work -- i mean dan talks about europe. he does not talk about germany which is a big government country. it has a fabulous training program an apprenticeship program that all businesses pay into. it works so well that they do not have any talk about skills gaps over there. the nordic countries also have a much bigger share of the government. dan somehow does not mention them when he talks about -- actually have a smaller share of their economy devoted to welfare thenan germany does. you need effective government, you need a system where all businesses pay in or they carry their weight so that businesses are not afraid about training somebody and then have another business coach them. that is why american business is not investing as much in training as for example the germans do.

if everybody paid in, there would be no benefit to somebody just poaching another company's workers. host: we have about 20 mins left with ross eisenbrey of the economic policy institute and daniel mitchell of the cato institute. we want to get to your calls about the best way to create jobs in the u.s. let's go to dale waiting in albuquerque, new mexico on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree completely with mr. eisenbrey. i am a retired sheet-metal worker and when we come in the sheet-metal workers -- all the company and the tradecraft were kicking into the oppression program, and we would be training young people, kids behind us to fill these positions, and we would train them in the job so they can come out and do that. that is exactly what we should be doing.

we should have been doing a long time ago. right now, there is no skin in the game for companies that is what the federal government betraying our people. the companies have to start kicking in a little extra if they want a trained workforce so instead of trying to send these people overseas -- when they put money in the game and help us out in america, then the entire economy comes up because a lot of these companies -- they want to get people from overseas and this and that. hey, if i am an employer, and i train you as an apprentice, i'm going to keep you and work with you because i have money, i invested in you. try to get the government to send a guide to college or a trade school -- i have nothing invested in you, so i don't need you. host: dale is talking about is a conference in albuquerque, new mexico. we also have a line set up for part-time workers or on

unemployed worker. james is in elizabeth city. caller: the situation in north carolina is terrible because we have a governor -- he vetoed a bill to help carolina. you have people unemployed and people with no insurance. and you take the republican party, they have stalled or blocked every program for political reasons. they are destroying our whole country. [inaudible] data not care what happened to the people of the united states of america. host: daniel mitchell, the caller concerned about gridlock on capitol hill and some of the job creation proposals. guest: two points.

first, in general, i think gridlock is a good thing. we got very good points in terms of economic freedom during the clinton years, so the company survey democrat white house and a republican congress worked out pretty well. also if you look at the job numbers, once the public and took over congress and we got gridlock, i think the job numbers have been much better since that time than they were in 2009 and 2010 when it was all obama, pelosi, and reid. i think there is a lot to be said for gridlock because it means one party does not have all the power, which of course with government when politicians have a lot of power they tend to abuse it. the other point i think is important for the caller because he was complaining about the situation north carolina. north carolina according to the tax foundation had the worst tax system of all southern states. they did a big tax reform either late 2012 or i think it was 2013, but that reform i think it's going to pay dividends

along with some of the other things that have happened in north carolina. maybe two years from now we should all come back and look at what has happened in north carolina, but i think you will see some pretty good results improve the business climate the ability for companies to create jobs in north carolina. i would be hopeful that things will pick up for you down there. host: twitter question for each of you. mr. eisenbrey first sandy beach asks -- why are all of your job growth all of these centered only on union jobs? unions represent less than 16% of all jobs. guest: well, i have not said anything about unions. the infrastructure jobs would be mostly in the construction industry although there are transport jobs and manufacturing jobs that go along with building roads and railroads and so forth. the construction industry is what, maybe 25%, no more than that unionized, so three out of four jobs would be with nonunion

workers. i think the question is misguided. host: looking at construction jobs the chart showing construction jobs through january 2008 through february 2014, those construction jobs still not recovered. guest: that is right. we are still down about one million construction jobs. host: mr. mitchell, less regulation, are you priming for another wall street bailout? lack of regulations was the direct cause. guest: i have to disagree with the question. i think it was the easy money policy of the fed, the government created fannie mae and freddie mac that created the excess liquidity, and then poked it in a flood to do housing and we got the bubble. and of course the private sector did play a role. a lot of the wall street banks try to go in for the ride. that is precisely why i think they should have been allowed to go under. we should've had them going into

receivership, had their assets broken up and sold off. that would have been the smart responsible thing to do. i want capitalism, i don't want cronyism. host: gary in tennessee on our line for independents. good morning. you are on with ross eisenbrey and daniel mitchell. caller: good morning, guys the solution to this jobs problem is very simple. it can originate with we the people. if we the people held our elected officials to what they swore to do, what does uphold the constitution, the problem would be solved because congress has the right and the authority in article one to regulate trade and terrorists. now then, if we bring the terrorist up or the imported goods to where they are equal -- to regulate trade and tariffs. now, if we bring the te

ariffs up or the imported goods to where they are equal -- you're probably do not recognize ron paul as an economist, but he is a lot more blind than a lot of these flukes running around here now. host: mr. eisenbrey i will let you take that one out. guest: i think our problem is a little different. the dollar is overvalued. it makes our goods more extensive in foreign markets, it makes imported goods cheaper than they should be because our dollar is so strong, it is so overvalued. now the reason that is is partly because countries like china and korea and many others around the world, even denmark buy u.s. currency to raise

so i don't think we need to address that with tariffs but think we can do what the bush administration the reagan administration did, actually in 1987 and reach an accord with our trading partners to stop doing that, lower the value of the dollar and i think that we can probably create a couple million jobs here in two or three years by that one simple process. host: staying in tennessee for a second, we'll go to jonah who writes in over email from oakridge tennessee. mr. mitchell, i'll give you this question, huge profits don't seem to be trickling down. how about letting a higher minimum wage and jobs and new infrastructure percolate up? guest: if the minimum wage is such a great idea q why not set it at $50 or $100 an hour. even then, i suspect ross would agree it would hurt jobs so we have an empirical question, at what level is the job creation damage less and at what point

is it too heavy? let's get back to the bottom line. as i said earlier in the program, businesses create jobs when it's profitable to create jobs. we may think that's bad. we may think they should create jobs out of the goodness of their heart but i'm just focusing on reality because i'm looking at the bottom line. i want more job creation and prosperity in america and that's only going to happen when businesses think it's profitable to hire more workers, create more jobs, and i think that the europeanization of the american economy with more taxes, more spending more regulation is just the wrong approach. i'd rather us copy the countries having good economic performance, not the ones doing poorly. host: i'll let mr. eisnberry jump in but in this bloomberg piece, highest minimum wage in washington beats the u.s. in job creation is the headline. just a bit from that story and want your thoughts. when washington residents voted in 1998 to raise the state's minimum wage and link it to the cost of living, opponents

warned the measure would be a job killer, bloomberg writes, but the prediction hasn't been borne out. in the 15 years that followed the state's minimum wage climbed to $9.32 and meanwhile job growth continued at an average of .8% annual pace, .3% above the national rate. how do you account for those numbers? host: guest: imagine it has to do with cost of living in the regions of country. you'll have that kind of effect if you put a pin mum wage of that in michigan state which is lower than new york city. i like the idea of getting minimum wage policy out of washington and have the states, let's have 50 different experiments of what the right approach is on this type of legislation. i think you would find a much better outcome if states were responsible for this type of policy than the politicians here in washington. host: mr. eisenberry? guest: every state can do what washington state did and raise

the minimum above the federal level. i agree with you. there is a right federal level or rang that's appropriate. i think it's way too low and the president's $10.10 makes a lot of sense. we do have a disagreement about how the economy works. i agree with people like nick happenhour who says job creators aren't people with a lot of money. people with a lot of money are just rich and they don't create jobs unless there's demand. if people need goods and services. if they have the money to buy goods and services, they will be provided by people who can make a profit from it. but if people -- for example, they're in the bottom 20% of income and haven't seen a raise in 15 or 20 years they aren't going to be able to buy things. their purchasing power will be so reduced they can't contribute to economic growth and so that's why things like

the minimum wage are important. it's why putting a lot of people back to work and getting money in their pocket so that they can spend it will be good for business and the entire economy. host: we have 10 minutes left with ross eisenbrey of the economic policy institute and then daniel from the cato institute. let's go to james in gillette, wyoming, who has been waiting. guest: good morning. i agree with both sides but at the same time i do disagree. i think a lot of it has to do with the fact if businesses would put a cap on every single job for every worker because it seems like nowadays companies require you to have a college education and most people that don't have a college education are just as good at working jobs as people who do have a good education. and i do think that that would

save a lot and actually help out the whole tax inflation and everything out there. host: mr. mitchell, you want to jump in on that comment? guest: i think i agree, if i understand. a lot of companies do use a college degree as a proxy for ok, is this person educated and intelligent? but of course that's not necessarily the same as being educated and intelligent and unfortunately, one of the reasons why they use a college degree as a proxy is because they're not allowed to use other measures that might wind up getting hit with an eeoc lawsuits and regulations. so the government has sort of forced them into using a college degree as a proxy even though as we both agree it's not really a good way of determining who is a good, productable worker. host: the special line this morning for those who are part-time workers or unemployed. mark is waiting from that line from torington connecticut. he's an independent dent. mark, good morning.

>> good morning. how are you doing? caller: i just want to make a point i intended a training session to drive a trailer truck two years ago and have been unable to find any employment in connecticut because the corporations require you to have experience, and i've been told that the insurance companies are behind the requirement that they -- that the drivers have the experience, and so they're not on the same page to the training programs that are being provided. host: mr. eisenbrey, you want to jump in? guest: that's an example the government can do a better job, to train somebody for a job they aren't going to be able to take doesn't make sense. getting you or people like you experience, having a program where you could drive for the postal service or somebody would obviously, it would take care of that insurance problem.

i never actually heard of this problem before but you know, my heart goes out to you to get that kind of training and then not find a job is pretty tough. host: in some of the time we have left here, i want to focus on the subject of long-term unemployment. here's the numbers from the latest b.l.s. report that came out earlier this month 3.7 million listed as long-term unemployed. that's not much change from february. it's down by 837,000 over the year 35.8% of the unemployed population meets the defy ligs of long-term unemployed. here's a story from yesterday's "washington post" talking about work being allusive for the long-term jobless just two paragraphs from that. new research tracking people who have been out of work for six months or longer found that 23% of them landed a job within a few months of the study but a year later, more than 1/3 of that group was unemployed again or out of the labor force. the story notes the long-term

unemployed could become a permanent underclass left behind by the nation's broader economic recovery, citing several economists over the course of that story. i want to talk to daniel mitchell about that issue and the trap of long-term unemployment. guest: it's something we have to worry about. you see growth of 1.5%, to 2.2% and what we're projected to have, that creates a lot fewer jobs and the historical average growth of 3% which is what america has experienced for decades upon decades. so if we have permanently lower growth, we'll have permanently lower job creation and of course the more marginal workers with fewer skills will be the ones most victimized by that. i think ross and i both would agree the best outcome would be to have good strong healthy growth with tight labor markets and we had that back during the clinton years. i'm not here to make a partisan point. i give reagan and clinton

credit. some presidents preside over policies that liberalize the economy and enable faster growth and that faster growth creates a tight labor market which means the marginal workers who are most in need, better economic opportunity, they get stronger outcomes from that. but then we get to the big fundamental debate, i think we get that faster growth and those tighter labor markets with policies of free markets and smaller government and ross has a different perspective. that's fundamentally i think what our whole fight is about. host: mr. eisenbrey your perspective? guest: these people are a huge resource. we invested education -- a lot of the team who are long-term unemployed are not skilled people, they're bookkeepers technicians, computer programmers, and people with a lot of skills. so why are we wasting as a nation you know, 3.5 million of them are long-term

unemployed. but all of these 10.5 million people, why are we wasting their resources when they could be put to work, they want to work, and they could do things everybody agrees need to be done. for example, in detroit and many distressed communities, we have buildings that are empty that should be torn down. the local government doesn't have money to do it. why doesn't the federal government have a program like the one that congresswoman jan schakowsky proposed where you'd have a corps of people hired in different cities around the country to address those problems? people could be put to work. we have, you know, among these millions of people are people with health care skills who could be put to work providing services to communities that don't have any services now. there is plenty of work to do. and we have plenty of skilled people to do it among the unemployed. we just need to find a way to get them back into the economy.

host: one chart from "the new york times" showing the long-term unemployment situation. this chart noting short-term unemployment is below prerecession levels that would be on this chart here but medium and especially long-term unemployment are higher for those unemployed 27 weeks are over -- it's up 191% from prerecession levels. that's that final chart on the right there. time for a few more calls. let's go to jesse waiting in darlington, south carolina, on the line for republicans. jesse, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: i just wanted to say what i'm not happy about, like for example, i have directv and i pay $112 month to watch tv and i'm told by the corporate company, they worry about their stockholders more than they do the customers, just like grocery stores and all these other places . and you know, higher and higher

prices, you talk about raising the minimum wage, what will that do? that will just have inflation on groceries and gas and all these things. if things were lower and stop worrying about the stockholders so much and worry about us, we could create our own jobs because we have part-time people working in grocery stores and not full time because they're not moving the product off the shelves because they're so high. host: jesse from south carolina and we'll go to edward from new jersey. good morning, on our independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. mr. eisenbrey, i called in in 2006 when you were with william miller from the chamber of commerce about the economy and politics and i was saying i would never vote democrat ever again. i never would vote republican. i feel like with all the obstruction in congress from the g.o.p., we'll never know

what the american jobs bill is that the president has to go through in time for us. i don't know why the g.o.p.'s are having this public, all-out public assault on public jobs. there's no jobs in my city here in jersey city. our local newspaper prints only five jobs. there are no jobs. there are no apprenticeship programs for training for us. i don't know what we're going to do. we're stuck with these two political parties and there's seemingly no way out. thank you. host: edward from jersey city. mr. eisenbry, i'll let you give your last thoughts before we go to mr. mitchell. guest: i'm unhappy with the politicalization too. i think there are clear solutions we're not addressing. you can see why. we have a very different view in one party and another. the views i've been expressing are pretty much in line with democratic politicians and dan's are more in line with

republicans. if you really think the government can't help, that the best thing the government can do is to get out of the way, then, you know, you're not going to get help from the government. and i think that that's the wrong way to go, that there's things we can do to put people to work, building things that the nation needs, providing services to people that the nation needs. the government can get involved in our trade problem rather than passing more trade deals like the korea free trade agreement that cost 40,000 jobs in the first year and 70,000 over two years we could have balance trade if we addressed our currency problems and we could thereby put millions of people back to work. so i think there are direct, good policies that could be adopted and we just don't have a congress that will do it. host: mr. mitchell? guest: i think having a caller from new jersey to close things up is very opportune for me

because new jersey is the third highest tax state in the nation. so is it any surprise that job creation in new jersey is lagging? chris christie talks a lot but -- so i don't know whether it's his fault or the state legislate you are's fault but when you have a very high state tax rate and a burden of government spending that's far higher than the national average, not to mention the fact that whatever new jersey's congressmen in washington, new jersey sends a lot more money in washington than it gets back. so big government in washington is bad for new jersey. big government in new jersey is bad for new jersey. so of course you're not getting a lot of jobs created there. that's sort of my fundamental concluding message, we don't want big government if we want to help the prosperous, private sector. as i said before, the world is a laboratory and that laboratory shows we're much better off if we copy hong kong and singapore and will be much worse off if we copy france, spain, italy and greece. host: dan mitchell is a senior

fellow with the cato institute, cato.org and ross eisenbrey is with the epi.org. thank you both for joining us this morning on the washington journal. up next, business and economics reporter daniel kurt slaben is joining us to talk about what steps the federal reserve may take to help prepare the nation's banks for further emergencies and later matthew rojansky from the wilson center on the u.s. role in the u crane and what's motivating russia president putin on this ongoing crisis but all week long on book tv and american history tv, we continue our tour of american cities as we visit the city of palms in fort myers, florida, today at 2:00 p.m. and you can look at the history of that city and the surrounding area, including a visit inside thomas ed usson's botanic research laboratory where edson developed and tested a domestic

source of rubber. >> the research lab was built in 1928 and was very active until 1936. his primary focus for laboratory work was new jersey. edson's life in the early days was built around the creation of electricity. and in the early days, the focus of that was of course new york city, it was manhattan. so his primary residence for the second half of his lifetime for 40 years was just outside new york city in a little town called west orange, new jersey. part of the reason why this lab was so important was that it caused the u.s. government to come forward with what was called the patent, the u.s. patent law. which then said if you invented something with plants and it was a process that was worthy of patenting, it was issued a patent. until that time the patent

process in this country had been for mechanical devices for machinery, for things that moved and operated for mechanics. and wasn't until really the early 1 00's, that the era of plant scientists, george washington carver, that whole new era of plant scientists emerged. so the patent process for plants was very critical in america and internationally. host: make sure to tune into book tv and american history tv this weekend as we feature the history and literary life of fort myers florida, and to watch videos from all the cities we visited, go to c-span.org/localcontent. we continue our focus on the u.s. economy today with daniel kutslaben. last week it was indicated u.s.

banks might need to hold additional capital to be prepared for additional stress. explain what are the rules today for how much capital banks have to hold to protect against losses in the future? >> right. ok. so what janet yellon and a couple bank regulators said this week is a new rule would say there's a thing called the enhanced leverage ratio. banks will have to hold 5% as opposed to 3% of capital and reserve. capital is just assets minus liabilities. it's cash, it's assets, it's what you have lying around. it's sort of to hold in reserve. so what they said was the percentage of that has to be quite a bit bigger from 3% to 5%. about a 2/3 jump. host: how do regulators determine what the right rainy day fund here is? what are they looking at to make that determination up to 5%? guest: so right now there's a thing called basal 3.

it's an international committee on bank regulations and they said 3%. so 3% is sort of a worldwide global what a bank should hold and they decided to up it to say banks need a little bit more in reserve because looking back at the financial crisis, what they've decided is that because of the financial crisis was so bad because banks' losses were so bad during the crisis that you should up this in order to -- modestly but enough in order to give banks more of a cushion because that's what it is, you up the amount of complail a bank has to have. it's essentially a cushion and prevents them from having greater losses. host: what does it mean for businesses and joe public here? guest: right. it totally depends who you ask, of course. if you ask banks, they are not happy about this and have said this many times and said the financial services roundtable which is a lobbying group headed by tim pulenti former

governor will put banks at a disadvantage and hurt them as compared to european banks and will reduce bank lending. both the consumers and businesses. however, regulators say no, this is going to make banks safer in the long run and it's better for consumers and businesses. and furthermore, banks are -- it shouldn't hurt them too much. host: and the business roundtable is headed by tim pullenty -- tim pawlenty, the c.e.o. of roundtable services and joined us on our news show and talks about the requirement of banks keeping more money on hand. here's a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> our members are concerned if you go too far in that regard, what you'll do is put them at a competitive disadvantage against other global banks that don't have that high of a requirement, number one. number two, it's going to stifle lending which is needed to keep the economy moving in a

positive direction, particularly when it's still fragile. host: you can see that full interview with tim pawlenty at 10:00 a.m. after today's show on the washington journal and of course at 6:00 p.m. as well on c-span and online at c-span.org. can you talk about the -- you mentioned the global banking system and the rules other banks have to follow on this. what are some of those rules around the world? what do e.u. banks have to do here? >> right. guest: really, like i said, basal 3 found 3% and the u.s. is up to 5%. when mr. pawlenty said it will put u.s. banks at a competitive disadvantage that's a very good point. what it means is the u.s. government is saying this is going to create safety but we're limiting essentially the amount of risk we're letting you take. so of course with risk comes reward. mr. pawlenty is saying, you know fewer rewards because fewer risk.

what regulators and pro regulation people would say is risk equals risk as well. that's sort of the two sides fighting each other here. host: if you want to talk about the u.s. banking system some of these rules we're discussing with danielle kuhseben, give us a call. our phone lines are open, republicans 202-585-3881, democrats, 202-585-3880, independents 202-585-3882 and if you're outside the u.s., 2o 2-585-2883. what is vox.com? >> started by three people from "the washington post" and matt iglesias from slate. we try to take the big stories like dslr and make the stories understandable and put them out in language people understand and show why these things

matter. host: vox.com. if you want to see their work. this conversation we're having today started a bit this week from news that federal reserve chair janet yellon talked about some of these rules and potential for future action at a video presented at the federal reserve bank of atlanta 2014 financial markets conference. here's a bit of what the federal reserve chair had to say. [video clip] >> the reserve staff is considering measures that could address these and other residual risks in the short-term wholesale funding markets. some of these measures such as requiring firms to hold larger amounts of capital, stable funding, or highly liquid assets based on uses short-term wholesale funding would likely apply only to the largest most complex banking organizations. other measures, such as minimum

margin requirements for repurchase agreements and other securities financing transactions could at least in principle apply on a market -wide basis. in designing such -- host: federal reserve chair janet yellon talking about some possible future actions as well. can you talk about the news coming out of that conference this week. guest: right. yes. really what this means is these sorts of rules the federal reserve and other regulators propose, they are a long time in coming. and what she's saying is more might be coming down the pipe. banks have known about this leverage news for quite a while and is saying more capital requirements might be required for the largest banks and those are some of the very biggest. already the rule proposed this week could mean an estimated -- those banks have to raise an estimated $66 billion more in capital. that means they might have to sell more stock or sell some

assets to raise that money, and what she's saying now if you up those capital requirements as she's saying might be necessary, those banks will have to do even more of that. host: are these specific banks she's talking about or all banks? guest: she's saying the very biggest ones, the ones that could pose a bit of a systemic risk to the u.s. banks like jp morgan chase, those really big banks that we all got to know really well during the financial crisis. host: if you want to talk about some of these issue with danielle kurtzleben of vox.com our phone lines are open to the republicans and democrats at 202-585-3880. some folks waiting to talk to you including bob in boca raton, florida. bob's a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. host: go ahead, sir. caller: i don't think that 5% is enough.

and i'm not quite sure about what the competitive disadvantage is. i would like to know more about the canadian banks that have weathered the storm of five years ago very well. and also, i'd like to know if they're required to have the 5% on reserve what's the other 95% consist of? you know, we're always crying for the multibillion dollar financial institutions that operate in this country, you know, any fdic bank should be required to pay more for the fdic insurance and the consumer should be bolstered, not set back. host: thanks for the questions for daniel kurtzleben. >> guest: i'll try to cover the ground he covered there. competitive disadvantage, sort

of like i said, banks are of course trying to mat biggest profit they possibly can. if my bank versus your bank, if i'm not allowed to take as much risk as you are, you're going to get greater profits potentially. to sort of bring it down to a person to person level, if i'm only allowed to put money in a savings account but you're allowed to put your money into stocks, that's not exactly what the fed is saying but essentially is saying there is going to be -- you know, the amount of risk that will create a certain amount of reward. as far as the canadien banks' level to be honest, i'm not quite sure. he does make a point about the fdic insured banks. what the fed and fdic and o.c.c. said this week is that major bank holding companies, those really huge ones, are going to have to have greater capital requirements. but fdic insured subsidies the smaller banks they own will have a 6% ratio. there's more of a cushion those banks will be required to have. host: you also brought up the

question, what is the other 95% used for if they have to have 5% on reserve? guest: this is assets vs. liabilities. so the amount of -- this is saying the amount of capital you have on -- that you have, that you're holding has to be 5% to 6%. capital of course is assets minus liabilities. so liabilities are, you know, debts that the bank has, things that the banks owe to other banks. banks are borrowing from each other all the time. shall sort of thing. >> danielle kurtzleben is a correspondent with vox.com. we go to mark on the line for independents. caller: how are you? host: good morning. go ahead. caller: happy easter. host: happy easter sir. caller: danielle, i have a question, all these big banks that have been paying huge fines and i was wondering why nobody has been put in jail or prosecuted for that.

i'd appreciate an answer. thank you. guest: that's a big question. and you know, this is something that of course, people guest: to be honest -- i have not been keeping my eye on all of them. i am not entirely sure. this is been a major source of strife on capitol hill and among regulators. the point here is that regulators want to stop this from happening again. it is difficult to put these rules in place. instead, they want to prevent it before it happens and not worry about putting bankers in jail. host: the banks of gotten bigger

, is there any plan to correct that? guest: the one thing that is in the works and has been for a while is the volker rule. that separates the investment side and the commercial side. the commercial side can involve lending to businesses and average people. the law wants to put a wall between that. it is not shrinking a bank, but putting a firewall up. the point of capital requirements is not shrinking the bank. it is taking a big bank with its big asset sheet and saying we are lease going to cushion your self. we don't want the rest of us to get hurt. host: michael asks if these

rules apply to foreign banks that are doing business in the united states? guest: i don't want to say anything incorrect, but i think that is correct. host: peter is in miami beach. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to ask why the canadian banking system did so much better. basically, the canadian banking system was only damaged because of its exposure to the american banking system. host: that was peter in miami beach, florida. guest: we have a lot of canadian interest this morning. i'm not entirely sure what the requirements are. the international basic requirement is three percent. that is the baseline that all international banks have to follow.

i'm looking at banks around the world, not just canada. the u.s. has basically upped that ratio. host: you may have answered this question, bill richman asks to big banks need their arms twisted? guest: i'm not entirely sure what he means. sheila bair made a great point. she said that this is not exactly on twisting. this takes -- you can't change a banks behavior. what you can do is set tangible rules that say you have to hold this no matter what. you have to have this in your pocket. do would you like, as long as

you have this cushion. this is sort of saying do as you like, but wear a seatbelt. host: patrick is calling from miami, florida. caller: good morning. it is funny that you mentioned sheila bair. the last time i called this program, she quit her job. i am a real estate investor. i am 43 years old and i have been invested in property for a long time. i watched this calamity transpire. i knew it was going to happen. the banks are lending out too much money. no one knows what the consumer protection act did to the economy. you probably don't know.

a lot of people don't know. if you stop the banks from lending, normal people that are innovators and willing to engage in business activities are not going to engage in those activities. they put their life savings up for risk with a bank and they are going to lose it. you have to totally go broke. why do you want somebody who is a risk taker to go broke? they know there is no safety net. we are concerned about the banks but we need to be concerned about the people. i like the banks because i borrow money from them. if i mess up, they mess up. host: we're going to let danielle kurtzleben jump in. guest: you don't want to stop

banks from taking risks. what is really interesting and i wish we had the numbers. the economist crunched the numbers. the biggest u.s. banks already do have quite a bit of capital and are sort of approaching that five percent mark. a lot of european banks are lower. there is a case to be made to this is not going to worsen lending necessarily, at least from where it is right now. thanks already have the capital on hand. that is one point to be made and one thing to look at. banks of lopping -- lobbied against this. they don't like this. then again, many of them are seeing this come down the pipeline. they have said something to the effect of -- they feel confident

about this. i don't want to put words in her mouth. they feel they can raise the capital for this great. caller: this is complex. it is a complex for most people. this is something that is not simple. people have to understand this. that law that was passed in 2005 which was enacted in 2006 tom a this is what crushed the economy. if anybody out there -- he is from berkeley. they agree on this.

they've wrote -- they wrote a 42 page report. i am sorry to put them out there. my boss told to change it. this is real. you can look up the bankruptcy abuse. they explained what happened to most of the economy. i have been an investor since i was in my 20's. i am 43 now. i watched all this happen. you have to give people the money to create new businesses and let the banks make as much money as they can. host: we will go to neil in maryland on the line for independence. --independents. caller: the richest bank in england said repeatedly to give

me control of the money and i cannot who makes the laws. the politicians in washington are owned -- the majority of them are owned lock stock and barrel. they are afraid of the bankers. that goes for both the democrats and the republicans. bill clinton signed three laws the interstate banking law in 94 the financial services modernization act and the commodities futures act. the interstate banking -- the used to be thousands of community banks in our country. now there are five or six banks the control 85% of all the deposits in our country.

that is the result of both they were democrats and republicans' actions. the banks write legislation for these people. you never get the truth. i have seen the show firsthand. the deregulation turned wall street into a casino. if america is wondering where the jobs want, the money they put in the bank is controlled by six corporations. host: i am going to let danielle kurtzleben jump in. guest: they both touched on the idea of lobbying and who is behind the rules that are created for banks and who is in control of all of these laws.

that gets that a fascinating point. the range of opinions on this, you have some people who say even within the fed, you have a wide range of opinion. janet yellen has said we're looking at other things. you have some fed governors expressed reservations about the type of regulation you might put on a bank. the last caller got to capitol hill. he is right. banks are huge lobbyists. you have some people on the hill , like senator brown who said last week that they approve of this new regulation. they are all for it. more can be done. you do have bipartisan agreement on this, at least in a certain sense. these days that can be rare.

host: we have just a few minutes left with danielle kurtzleben. we have a story on the law that failed to rein in ceo pay. let's talk about the story. what the u.s. would look like with no minimum wage. what is the answer to that question? guest: the answer is complicated. the fascinating thing is the conversation about minimum wage is should we keep it where it is or raise it? that is a sizable jump. that is pretty big. let's say that the minimum wage disappeared. what would happen? you get rid of the minimum wage, you have a relatively small

percent of the population works at the mama age. what that means is more of a reliance on government programs potentially. things like food stamps and the earned income tax credit. taxpayers should be responsible for helping each other out. we would keep the low-wage workers going. that is fascinating, i think. the other is thinking about the different -- this is a huge country -- there is nebraska where things are quite a bit cheaper than manhattan. the interesting thing is this could affect rural areas in a particular way. the cost of living is cheaper in nebraska. they could learn -- earn much less.

let's say that i am a computer programmer who lives in the middle of nowhere and i want to move to silicon valley. this has a much higher cost of living. i don't have the wealth to move there. it is harder for me to get there. this can really hurt mobility and hurt people from moving up and moving to higher cost of living places. it could hurt rural america in a certain way. >> we have just a couple of minutes left. host: we have some tweets it came in. big bank customers are part of the problem, move your money to local banks and credit unions. if the government insures banks the government has the right to make demands on them. let us go to terry in indiana on the republican line. guest: good morning and happy easter. host: go ahead. guest: eric holder was on tv a

few days ago. he said one of the big banks admitted that they were in cahoots with drug gangs laundering their money and that no charges were filed against them. the rich people in the banks do not get prosecuted and they admitted to laundering hundreds of millions of dollars, but they don't get no charges at all? host: talking about more lawsuits coming up with banks. what is next for big bank regulation? is the fed the place to look? terry is talking about looking to the justice department. guest: bank regulation in the u.s. is remarkably complicated

even post-financial crisis. you have a lot of offices the do it. you have the fdic, the fed, the office of the comptroller. there is one for credit unions. there are a lot of places to look. the fed is on the point players and you want to keep your eye on them. when a rule is coming, it is coming for a while. they wait for banks to say what they want. they wait for the citizens to say what they want. there is a lot that happens in the process. it can move like a glacier. it keeps going. host: danielle kurtzleben, we appreciate you as always for joining us on "washington

journal." next, caller: matthew rojansky will join us. this is a look at what is coming up on the sunday shows from c-span radio. >> some of the topics include the situation in ukraine. they will talk about the boston marathon and politics. at noon, nbc's "meet the press." guests include the ukrainian prime minister and bob corker of tennessee. also on the program, debbie wasserman schultz. at 1:00 it is cbs's "meet show. at 2:00, it is fox news sunday.

guests include the russian ambassador to the united states. cnn's state of the union follows at 3:00. also, the communications director for the them accredit national committee. at 4:00, it is face the nation from cbs. they will talk about security for the boston marathon. the sunday network tv talk shows are on c-span radio and they are brought to you as a public service by c-span. at 2:00, fox news sunday, 3:00 is cnn's state of the union and

4:00 is face the nation. across the country, you can find us on 120 on xm satellite radio. you can download our free app on your smart phone. >> we should have finished al qaeda in 2001. our general who was there, it wasn't just the general, think back. we were attacked on 9/11 and 3000 americans died. we had al qaeda and we had osama bin laden trapped in tora bora. we did not finish them off. we let him escape over the other side of the mountains because we said that his pakistani territory. think for a moment. it can you imagine during world war ii when we had the battle of

midway which changed the war against japan, we sailed across the international date line and attacked the japanese. we destroyed their fleet in 1942. he went across the international date line. what if you say that is the international date line and japan has said if we don't cross it we will take this part of the pacific and live happily ever after. we get to these mountains in the middle of nowhere and we allow al qaeda to escape. it makes no sense. our entire country had become more legalistic. we should have finished it right then. >> our book club selection is "the wrong war" by bing west. on may 4, look at our next in-depth guest.

his work includes the award-winning "always running." we are on every weekend on c-span two. 2. >> c-span brings public affairs from washington directly to you. we offer complete gavel-to-gavel are coverage of the u.s. house as a public service of private industry. we are created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago. watch us in hd. follow us on twitter. like us on facebook. >> washington journal continues. host: join us to discuss the ukraine is matthew rojansky.

he is from the wilson center. you're glad to have you back on "washington journal." we are three-day removed from that international pact. it is still early. is that succeeding? guest: it is better than nothing at this point. the united states and the european union and the russians as well as the ukrainians are involved in the process on some level. the geneva talks that came out of it, that they were able to get any agreement means that diplomacy has a chance. there has been violence, the separatists have not abated the buildings that they occupied the russian side has asked that program ukrainian forces stand down, nobody has moved in that direction. we have relative quiet. it seems like the agreement gives us the opportunity to let

cooler o or heads prevail. host: everybody aggrieved -- agreed to this except the separatists on the ground. guest: the challenge is the relationship between the geopolitical actors and the forces on the ground. just as the united states and europe can't dictate to key of --kiev, let's not disconnect the story from that story. they are related. just as we cannot control what those authorities do, the russians cannot necessarily directly control what pro-russian separatist do in eastern ukraine. that is where it gets tricky. the russians have sent -- set a big precedent in crimea.

the russians will come in and create a de facto new reality like annexed the territory or provide reinforcement that nobody could dislodge them. in the mind of separatists in the eastern ukraine whoever you think they are the calculus is still if they can just get over that tipping point and be successful enough to occupy enough positions and become an dislodge will, the russians will come in and make it a reality. >>host: who are the separatists? guest: i have been the fly on the wall for these conversations between americans and russians. i hear over and over the same conversation. haven't you seen the hard evidence that there are russian agents stirring up trouble in eastern ukraine?

that is from the western side. the russians say what hard evidence? the evidence that there were wmd in iraq? it is surreal talking around each other in circles. the one common denominator is the progression forces on the ground are more likely to listen to moscow and if moscow can talk to the west and try to figure out a compromise, they will have more influence than anybody else. second, violence in the situation, if there is a lot of bloodshed and we get into a shooting war, it is to nobody's advantage. in crude -- it means that ukraine will be a basket case. host: pearson a more from the associated press on the shooting.

a shootout took place at checkpoints in ukraine. it left one person dead and others hospitalized with gunshot wounds. this was the first since the international agreement was reached last week to these tensions in eastern ukraine. reports like this, do they concern you three days later? guest: it is easter. both on the ukrainian side and the russian side. they are orthodox christians. these provocations indicate that for some people on the ground, all bets are off. they are on the mindset that this is civil war. that is why this it -- scariest things.

many of my ukrainian friends say they are at war and it is time for mobilization. i find myself saying to them, do you not realize if you get assistance or not, if you're at war with russia you have already lost. host: what is the assistance of the west is giving? there been calls for legal assistance from the united states. where are we at right now question? guest: our best assistances direct negotiation. we have costs, which are targeted sanctions of various kinds. they may escalate. in terms of the direct relationship with kiev, if we got into the business of fighting a war with russia through a ukrainian proxy, we would still lose. this is literally their

backyard. they have tens of thousands of troops amassed on the border. they have done multiple military exercises. they have a huge amount of support from individuals on the ground. it is still huge amount. we would lose. i don't think we are in a position at this point, ukraine is not a nato ally. we have no legal obligation. we should not be supplying them with equipment that could very easily turn a situation that is probably still manageable at this point into an outright unmanageable war. host: if you want to talk with matthew rojansky, we are talking about the crisis in the ukraine. the phone lines are open. if you're outside the u.s.,

you can call in as well. is crimea a complete loss for ukraine? are they still looking to gain crimea back? guest: realistically speaking, i have not seen a political scenario or military scenario that results in crimea at changing hands away from russia at this point. it is not just the technical fact that russia has annexed crimea. it is the reality on the ground. there is overwhelming support from the crimean population. they are having their assets taken away from them and being marginalized. russia has done a good job of consolidating their control over the region. there is going to be a diplomatic push to get compensation for this. the ukrainians began totaling up

the value of state assets -- assets in the peninsula. it is in the tens of billions of dollars. could there be a deal where the russians wipe out ukrainian debt? you have to be prepared to be cynical and real that crimea is lost. the authorities in kiev kiev are living in the twilight zone and they don't legitimize or admitted. host: with except something like what happened in crimea in other parts of ukraine? guest: only if they were forced to. if it was that or an out right war in which they would likely

lose. the scenario that comes before that that is more appealing is that they have some kind of dialogue that leads to a new relationship between the region and the country especially the eastern region. these are the places they have been having trouble. perhaps they can figure out a way, this is similar to western europe giving autonomy to scotland within the united kingdom, figure out a way to give enough power to the eastern area that they have some self determination. host: our phone lines are open. we are talking to matthew rojansky. we have albert in mississippi. guest: good morning. host: are you there? guest:caller: why does the united

states feel that we need to stick our nose in the ukraine a business? that is part of our problem. we stick our nose where it does not belong. guest: thank you for the question. i can give you a technical legal answer that is straightforward. the united states was a signatory of something called the budapest memorandum. the ukrainians, they were a former soviet republic, they inherited several hundred nuclear weapons. they want to hold onto them. the only way that we were able to negotiate with them to get them to remove those nuclear weapons was on the condition that we were a guarantor of their future security in definitely. not just us, it was other nuclear powers, including the russians. the russians have not upheld their deal -- end of the

bargain. we are a guarantor of their security. what that means in practice that is up for debate. military invasion is not going to happen and probably would not work. the bigger reason is just ukraine. this is the biggest country in europe excluding russia because it is largely in russia. it has huge potential. it has 50 million people. it is at the north end of the black sea which is a strategic region. it has been a valuable partner with united states. the real question is does ukraine succeed as a development

story? does it become more prosperous? does it become more stable? or does it become this more dysfunctional basketcase? host: peer a question from twitter. guest: that is a really good question. the commitment is there. the polls and the baltic states are more interested in western europe is in support -- supporting the ukrainians. what is supporting that is a very good question. they have a very optimistic positive vision of where ukraine can go. it can be like them. ukraine can follow the poland path and become european success story. if that comes with eu membership, so much the better.

what they want more than anything is to assuage their fear of russia. ukraine is a bulwark against russia. russia would have to go through ukraine. there is that motivation as well. it is not frequent enough that we call these states on their cynical motivation for wanting to support ukraine. it is a good question. host: are you supposed about this headline? poland expects u.s. troops to be stationed there. guest: i'm not surprised at all. what a striking to me is that the united states has gone down this road. we have finally begun to deploy significant numbers of troops and materials to the decade-old nato allies in eastern and

central europe. this is about political reasserts -- reassurance. this is not about fighting the war. we don't have the equipment or people in europe to fight a war against russia. those countries can be a little less paranoid. they can play a balanced and mature and productive role in diplomacy that is going to have to happen to resolve the ukraine crisis. host: john is in a new york city. you are on with matthew rojansky . caller: i think your guest is very optimistic, more than i am. i think eastern ukraine is a de facto extension of russia. putin is on a mission. he is taking over crimea, the

eastern ukraine, and now he is calling for this concept of new russia. he is looking at the southern ukraine out. he is out to correct the mistakes of khrushchev and nicholas. he is also -- what is going to stop putin? his appetite is unquenchable. he might consider the mistake that alexander the first made. they sold alaska to the united states. guest: that is an understandable question. i have to disagree with the premise. i don't think eastern ukraine is lost at this point.

if you look at the map, if you look at the list of cities where pro-russian activists, whether it is russian agents or simply locals who are in cahoots, have seized objectives, it is not the entire region. it is really mostly just in one area. if you listen to and talk to ordinary people in the region, the people are not itching for a fight. this is not crimea. you don't have the number of people turning out. if you were to hold a referendum in eastern ukraine, you would not necessarily get a majority in favor of seceding from ukraine and join in the russian federation. if you look at some of the big business oligarchs in the region, most of them have said

whatever they may be doing in private, they have publicly said they are in favor of ukrainian territorial sovereignty going forward. how far will put in go? i don't know. we are through the looking glass. it is conceivable to me that force is now being used to change borders in modern europe. is a striking idea. putin may go further. there has been a lot of -- they may push very hard now. they might try to -- create some violence. host: this is dug in virginia on

the independent line. caller: i would like to ask the gentleman in his opinion on the basic idea of trust. it would seem to be the russians are in a position of pride having seen their crumble -- empire crumble. if you go back to world war ii, that was a matter of pure subterfuge. we have putin, george w. bush was very naïve dealing with them , we are much better off having president obama take a more reaganesque position. how many of the eastern area

ukrainians want to rejoin? why can't we have putin and obama get together? let's get together and decide the people of an area want to secede or go east or west. what are the rules? if they have a referendum, if we have monitors from the u.n. and they assure a legitimate election what is the first step? this boils down to the trust and pride that the russians feel they have lost. host: we will let our guest jump in. guest: you have a good handle on the political realities on the ground and the psychology underlying it. it is very much about national pride and dignity and import.

you mentioned obama and prudent should sit down and work out ask -- x. that is exactly what mr. putin wants. i think when he rose to the presidency 15 years ago, if he fixed russia's problems and economic backwardness and brought rush up, which he has done by many measures, he has repaired a lot of things in russia? then russia would be taken seriously. he would go back to the cold where are -- war paradigm. they would sit down as equals and work out the details of the european security. he feels that has not happened. the united states have pushed their advantage.

if he wants nothing more than in this situation to sit down bilaterally and negotiate with equals with the united states. he does not like the idea of collective europe. he doesn't understand the european union. he wants to be treated like the cold war with one great power speaking to another. the problem is if you ask the president obama, he rejects that paradigm. he says that is a 19th century way of thinking. he says that resident vladimir putin is a man of the old ways. he suggested he will not be willing to speak with them unless that is the conversation. host: can you talk about the expansion of nato on how that is playing on the psychology of what we are talking about here? these are three different charts from the washington post.

the blue countries are in nato, the original nato. this skips ahead to 1988 and the expansion. then, it skips down to 2014 and the further extent -- expansion of nato. guest: as you can see from the lap -- last map, nato has common borders with russia. that is all factual. that is because nato expanded for 15 or 20 years and the russians could not do anything about it. all the cards were in the hands of the united states and the west. russia is colored in the same color. the idea that russia and the

soviet union are the same thing creates its own reality. if you are convinced that they were always the enemy, then you will make that true. when asked about the expansion of nato, this was a historic mistake. it will be a slow road to a new cold war. it puts russia in a situation where they have to be the enemy. they don't get to become part of the solution to become a part of a collective european order. that would've been the way to go. we have a lot of uncertainty and our own limited capability. the russians had huge problems. they had huge economic and crime problems. the net result of it is, you are exactly right. we encircled the russians and when the guy like vladimir putin

arrives, he looks at the landscape around him and says it is time to fight back. host: he made a few comments this week. here he is on a call-in program from russian tv. he was asked about russian forces in eastern ukraine. >> which are response on the statements about kiev that russia stands behind the uprising in the eastern part of ukraine. and that russia is sponsoring and financing them. >> this is nonsense. if there are no syrup -- special services. those are all local residences. i mentioned that to my western partners.

they have nowhere to go. they live there in that land. you need to be talking with them. host: would you take from his statements this week? guest: the russians have learned a lot since crimea. that they would just go in with regular military units and remove the flag at this point is not going to happen again. the evidence is clearly mixed. 20 of ukrainians are pointing out that people have been apprehended in eastern ukraine who are russian citizens. it is at the very least true that even if everybody who has occupied buildings and led protests or set up roadblocks, if they are local they are taking their cue from moscow. moscow has a better chance to get them to stand down and compromise.

on the other hand, putin is not wrong. he has always said there is a risk of civil war in ukraine and there has to be us -- a frame to stop it. that feeds into the shooting. the victim was a local ukrainian pro-russian separatist. that is what the supports are so far. we don't know who the other victims were. if ukrainians are killing ukrainians. host: harry is in tennessee. caller: thank you for having me on. i wanted to make two statements. i wanted to say that i would advise people to not say the president obama is weak or that

we are weak. fdr, people said the same thing about him. he was a weak president up until doral -- pearl harbor. putin is very symbolic. he wants to expand his empire. i think we should be careful about his intentions. i am a democrat and i am against boots on the ground. a i see no problem with applying -- supplying ukrainians with weapons to support some cells. i think we should take that into consideration. i am not against war, i do feel that we can't leave them on

their own. they have given up their nuclear weapons and we were involved in that. host: harry makes very historian comparisons. guest: thank you for the question. i agree to the extent, i like the fdr analogy. it does take the west more broadly to get engaged in any kind of conflict. we've seen this across the board for the last half-century. i do think that the russians underestimate their adversary if they want direct conflict with the united states. we are the arsenal of democracy. it will take us a long time to get rolling, but when we do we hold a lot of big and important cards. i am not sure that this is a

global conflict scenario. i think that what he is doing is he wants to roll back what he views as a historic injustice in russia's immediate neighborhood. he is described the territory that the soviet union lost to the newly independent republics as creating the biggest thing in europe. 30 million russian speakers are now outside of russia. as long as nato runs the table on security in europe and russia is not in nato the idea is he

has to push nato back. russia can't be outplayed and encircled. he expects the president of united states to sit down and treat him as an equal and negotiate every issue. host: on the weakness issue guest: i think this is one of several of those dilemmas that the u.s. faces. we are less prepared to walk close to the threshold of further spiraling chaos and conflict. the motivation for the united states in syria was the body count. i member friends asking me how many bodies it will take before he shares our perspective. he does not share our

perspective. i think the american perspective in ukraine is we don't want to do anything that is likely to lead to more bloodshed chaos and destabilization of this tenuous new government. sending a lot of weapons into that region and effectively fighting a proxy war with russia but using ukrainians to do it would escalate the situation. host: matthew rojansky is at the wilson center. how long have you been studying russia? guest: since college. once you start studying the region, it gets in your blood. i came to washington to try to escape it and yet here i am. host: we have him for the next seven or eight minutes. ray is

in western virginia. caller: i hope these chicken hawks will sit down. i am listing to what you're saying. a lot of people forget that when we won those wars, russia was on our side. you want to get into this nonsense with a country like that. i think what the president is doing, there is not much more you could do except what they are doing. thank you. guest: thank you very much. this gives me a chance to make a point. i find myself needing to remind people that if the russians are prepared to do things that are completely counter to international law and against

american interests our ability stop them from doing so is very different than with many other countries in the world. the attitude of many in washington is that this is one more crisis, ukraine is just like north korea or syria, we isolated and we solve the problem. what is wrong about that is we underestimate how important and central this one is for the russians. we fail to appreciate the tools that the russians have at their disposal. the russians are going to be willing to walk very close to the line of the one thing they have always had. that is mutually this sure -- assured destruction. the knowledge of that and the ability to threaten that type of

confrontation with united states does not mean we are going to be in a nuclear war, but it is a backdrop. we have to be aware of it. too few people remember that. it has been 20 years. people think we are past that age. that is wrong. host: david is in ohio. good morning. caller: matthew is right when he talks about the economic consequences of an ex kgb agent. he is put the world and an economic bind. his but the united states in an economic bind.

he has found a way to hold us hostage. not only the american people but the whole world. it comes down to serious iran, north korea, they are isolated. the united states is not isolated. we are going to have to pay five dollars a gallon for gasoline. we're going to have to cut back on food. we will have to cut back on the necessities of life because putin wants to have his way. host: i will give you the last

two minutes. guest: i appreciate the question. it reminds me of what a german friend of mine says. the russians are prepared to sacrifice a lot, it is not just putin and the kremlin. my german friend said that if it cost a few more pennies to keep their houses in germany, people will pour out into the street and protest. that is a difference between our situation in the west. we don't think of ourselves as being in a dire situation that requires major sacrifice. this is not world war ii. we will not be rationing or joining the military. the russians have a different mindset. this allowsputin to hijack the economic situation. if russia remains economically

isolated, there will be a severe effect on the russian economy. it will hurt russia more than the west. the russians are prepared to absorb pain and we are not. host: matthew rojansky is at the wilson center. you can follow him on twitter. we always enjoy visiting us on "washington journal." that is it for our show on this sunday morning. coming up tomorrow is michael green. he will join us to talk about the president's upcoming trip to asia. we will discuss tax credits for the renewable energy producers in the united states. that is all tomorrow on

"washington journal." we will and with the president's easter and passover greeting in his weekly address. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> today "newsmakers" with tim: pam pawlenty. later, he refused to reveal his cia sources to the government. he is part of a discussion on conflict is when the press and government. -- between present government.