market and possible action by the federal reserve. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. host: the u.s. senate will try for fourth time today to advance a bill to fund the department of homeland security. this rolls back the president's recent executive active -- action on immigration. the gop is considering various options to end of the stalemate and avoid a government shutdown. they are back on it at the senate at 4:30 p.m. you can watch all live over on c-span2.

should immigration be tied to this spending bill? this is a subject at hand for the week. this is the number for republicans. you can land by six -- social media. you can send us an e-mail. this immigration story is front and center as you can imagine on a lot of the papers this morning. this is "usa today." friday is the deadline for congress to act. this is "wall street journal." deadline nears on security funding.

there is the setup this morning on what should be an interesting

and active week on this topic. join us by phone is jeff mason from reuters. what is the president's posture on this bill? is it likely to change? guest: i think it will not change. his posture is he believes the congress should fund dhs. he believes he was within executive authority to issue the orders announced last year. that would shield up to 5 million immigrants or undocumented immigrants from deportation. right now, he is in your in curious to see where congress will go. it's not going to change his position on what they should do. host: we expect action today as

the president last in appeals court to issue a stay on this amnesty injunction. guest: for the last week, a judge in texas issued an injunction, a temporary stop to the order that the president issued, it puts on hold his plan to grant this shield of deportation for up to 5 million immigrants. what the white house said is the department of justice will seek a stay on that injunction. that would allow the department of homeland security to continue preparing its program to allow these immigrants to stay. basically, they are trying to have the court set aside its injunction and let the preparation to continue while the process goes on the court system. host: the president is traveling to miami on wednesday for an immigration town hall. what is the message going to be? guest: the message will be an

opportunity for obama to talk about this issue, which is so important politically in florida and in many other states in the country. the issue of immigration will probably be a huge deal and the 2016 campaign. the white house wants to highlight that they are trying to give an opportunity to immigrants to stay in the united states and reach out to latinos for whom that is a very important issue. the president will directly addressed what went on with the court. he will talk about what the republicans are doing in the congress. he has not gone much further than what he said in the oval office last week. i think this is a way to keep the issue in the news and for the white house and the president in particular to make his argument to the people. host: there is a lot more out there for the white house and

jeff mason is from reuters. one is a veto on the keystone pipeline legislation. is it coming soon to the white house? guest: i believe that is coming soon. that is the pipeline that a canadian company wants to build that would bring oil from a alberta to the gulf coast. basically, the presidents position has been that the state department is studying the project and it should be up to the state department and the white has to say if they want to go forward. congress led by republicans passed a bill that would force his hand on that. the president has said he will veto it. it will line -- land of his desk this week. that will be the culmination of a showdown between executive and legislative branches on this very controversial project. host: one topic is in the

"washington post." congress is divided as it debates the war resolution. this is the legislation that the president sent to the hill. remind us of what this is and what the white house's role is. guest: the resolution is seeking authority for the president to continue the united states attack on isis and the islamic state. the president has put forward the resolution seeking acting from congress, looking for what the government is doing. the controversy is how far it goes. some republicans think the authority he is asking for is not going far enough. there are some lawmakers who think that it another open-ended request for the united states to be at war. that is going to be debated. the white house has said they are willing to negotiate on that

with congress and that is what they will probably start to do. host: some tweaks that you put out recently, one it about the president meeting with the governors. he will deliver remarks about the new consumer protection announcement. guest: more information is out of this morning. i wasn't able to tweet last night. he will be announcing today during an appearance that aarp his direction to the department of labor that they should come up with new rules that would give -- remove a conflict of interest between what he sees for financial brokers when they give retirement advice to clients. it suggests that some brokers don't always follow what's in the best interest of the client's when they steer people toward more expensive investment products.

it is not necessarily higher returns for their clients. that is a little bit controversial for republicans and financial firms who believe less income for their brokers but better products for investors. host: the president is campaigning for the mayor of chicago as he runs for reelection. a little but of trouble for the mayor, but the election as tomorrow. guest: that was for last week. he went to chicago last week and appeared with rahm emanuel who is running for reelection. he was the president chief of staff of the white house. that is a very tight relationship. the president went to give him some help and he will get a clean it reelection. host: jeff mason is the white house reporter for reuters. we appreciate your time.

should the immigration policy issue be tied to the dhs spending bill? our first call is from bill in texas who is a republican. good morning, bill. caller: we see the problems with immigration very much so. we sought with that they surge of the children coming in from south america. we know what's going on in texas. the department of homeland security, it should be a separate issue. this is where i am confused by where the administration is coming from on this. our governor has told him, he has had so many people tell him he says they don't have the authority. a texas judge said you don't have the authority to do what you're doing. that should be a separate issue.

they should not attach immigration reform which we do need that has nothing to do with security of our ports and borders. host: this is sheila in virginia. she is an independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i understand what bill is talking about. i will explain that we have been debating this for over 20 years. republicans and democrats. i feel like we need to separate the bill and not penalize the dreamers for this. thank you and have a good day. host: dan is in indiana. caller: the republicans have tied this to that to stop the unconstitutional act by the president.

a federal judge, not a texas judge, ruled this needed to be stopped. this is a tactic to hold up the unconstitutional spending. it should be tied to it. host: thanks for calling. chris writes, of course not. it is stupid political nonsense. the executive orders are not amnesty or anything of the like. more of your calls on this topic. should the language be tied to the dhs spending bill. the deadline is saturday night. a government shutdown might occur. good morning. caller: good morning. please let me finish. i don't think we are being truly

representative. every black person i've talked to is against immigration reform. this is hurting the black community. we will be directly competing with these people. the black unemployment rate -- we are the bottom of the pit. these illegals we are citizens born in the united states. what i can't realize is you have hispanics in the united states, two thirds that live in the united states live in california and texas. i can't see why this is a top priority of the black representatives that we voted in office to put these illegal immigrants and give them taxes and you are thinking about talking social security.

this is why democrats lost. african-americans would not come out and vote for hillary. i am a 54-year-old black man. everyone i speak to, this is how i feel. host: eight fight goes into crunch time. that is the headline with politico. they say that mcconnell will force the fourth vote in three weeks to fund the agency to protect americans from terrorists. democrats will all certainly block it again.

one more point. there are some conservatives who might abolish the filibuster. peter has been hanging on from west palm beach, florida. caller: good morning. i'm calling in reference to this topic. i think this is blackmail.

the bill is being pushed through to blackmail the president. while they just -- they could put up privatizing social security. they could voucher medicare. these are the things you put onto that bill and say sign this or you won't get funding for security. you can't run the government that way. you don't blackmail the president and say you've got to pass because this is what we want. that's not the way you run the government. i think they are absolutely wrong. pass a clean bill and then passing immigration bill the lake is supposed to be done. >> we will do this for about 25 more minutes. we will ask you what you think about immigration. these are the numbers you can call. we will continue to take your tweets as well as your calls and your facebook postings.

here is one of the items in "the washington post here co this battle may result in some employees going without pay. the secretary of homeland security jeh johnson elaborated on this point yesterday in his session with the governors. here is what he had to say. >> if the department shuts down, we will require some 85% of the workforce to come to work. border security, coast guard cyber security, law enforcement homeland security missions of the department. they will not be paid. the working men and women of my department will not receive a paycheck for the.

time of the shutdown. if you are a man or woman trying to make ends meet, that will not be an easy thing to ask of our people. that includes the coast guard deployed as far away as the coast guard. it is a very harsh winter. approximately 30,000 employees of my department will be furloughed. most of those are headquarters personnel. to give you a sense of the impact of that, at my headquarters, i'm pressing my staff continually to stay one step ahead of groups like isis and al-shabaab. they will stay one step ahead of what's happening to increase

illegal migration. i press our staff almost daily about aviation security. if we shut down our headquarters staff is scaled back to a skeleton crew. i am told from the 2013 shutdown when we furloughed our headquarters, we are still feeling the impact of that year and a half later because of the things we were not able to do. host: back to facebook, amy wright. joe writes. let's go to virginia, democratic caller. caller: i'm calling about

immigration. this is not about -- when this thing goes through the legal system,. i am tired of hearing this nonsense about african-americans affected by immigration. the guy who called about that what i am telling you is it does not matter. the system is set up against african-americans. you can see from the educational system from high school how many

americans graduate and drop out. immigrants who have come to this country, look at the charts and see how many americans are holding jobs in this country. everything is twisted. people are screaming about everything. the system was set up, there are winners and losers in every system. this is how it is set up it does not matter. republicans won't give obama credit. they change the message about unemployment. it has been like that for years. employment among

african-americans has always been high. now the government is better. these crazy people any policy is sad. look at our crumbling roads. since i have been in this country, this country needs me more than i need america. what people do is focus on -- host: i'm going to let you go. we have some other voices that need to get into the program. beverly is in columbia missouri. caller: no. it should be a clean bill. as far as i am concerned, i

could come up there and solve both problems. it's called common sense. it's called passing -- you give the dreamers that have been here forever, you put them through. you go through one by one. people want to know why your groceries are so high, it's because last summer we had no people to pick the crops. host: that's beverly. we are back to twitter. this is chris and alabama. here is the viewpoint of one republican. this is senator lindsey graham of south carolina. he was on television and asked about the issue of dhs spending.

>> i agree with the texas judge who said that the executive orders were illegal. i hope republicans will come together and back the court case. i am willing and ready to pass eight dhs spending bill and let this play out in court. the worst possible outcome for this nation would be to defund the department of homeland security. i will not be part of that. >> can you get to the house? >> time will tell. i hope the colleagues in the house will know that the best that is to challenge this in court. if we don't defund the homeland security department, terrorist organizations can strike the homeland. this is a direct result of a

failed foreign policy by president obama. the worst thing to do is add gasoline to the fire by having the republican party defund the department of homeland security. host: michael sprague writes. becky writes. those are a couple of facebook comments. in "the hill," here is one of their items with senator mcconnell pictured. the gop is plotting a new strategy.

that is in "the hill" this monday morning. gary, you have been patient. caller: we are talking about how things should be done. we need to do things the way they are supposed to be done. how about acknowledging the balance of power in the constitution. our thing supposed to be done like this?

how about that for how things are supposed to be done? the difference between the democrats and republicans with the homeland security is the republicans are trying to do what they feel is best for the country. the democrats -- are there no democrats will come over and opposes this executive action? i think there are some democrats who feel it wasn't right. they are just staying with the party and covering the president. the republicans are doing what they feel is best for the country. host: we will go to louisiana. go ahead, sir. caller: good morning. i think we need to -- those kids

we send us up to represent us they need to leave politics out of things and get something done. i guess would be nice if obama gets out of office. we need to quit this politicking and get something done. this reminds me of the schoolyard. host: this is carl in west virginia. should these two issues be tied? caller: yes, i think so. my point of view is once obama leaves office, he will have changed our form of government.

the executive branch is not supposed to have all that power. if a republican gets in the white house next time and he says by executive order, any doctor performing abortions will be prosecuted for murder. that's what could happen. if obama wants to transform america, he's doing it the wrong way. i believe in the constitution. i believe our government should here to it. by law, the congress passes a law in the president sees that it's executed. that's just the way it should be. host: this is the front page of the "arizona republic" this morning. they are focusing on this story. here it is.

they remind us that the deadline is friday. you can watch a little bit of the debate on c-span two on this vote proceeding to the bill formally happens at 5:30 p.m.. one more headline from the "washington post." they talk about the deadline. they have a quote here from secretary johnson. the governor of virginia, a democrat, was at the governor's meeting yesterday and spoke about be impact of a potential

dhs shutdown. here's what he had to say. >> it will affect everything will governor and everything will community. let me be clear. there will be real world consequences for all of our sake is dhs funding runs out. 30 hard-working employees will be without paychecks and g grant funding to everything will stay could be significantly impacted, even in the event of a continuing resolution. many of these grant support our local police firefighters, and emergency managers. they make artists date able to respond to threats and hazards. the lots in dhs funding could also affect for operations

across our country, something the economy cannot afford today. it is time for congress to get together and act. it should not let partisan politics threaten our security and the economic security of the only americans who depend on their paycheck to put food on their table for themselves. host: you can watch the governor's talk about this issue on our website, www.c-span.org. we covered several sessions over the weekend. we will probably show some of them to you later today. you can watch all of them online. clyde is calling from san antonio, texas. caller: good morning to you. i do not think that these things should be tied together. the immigration process should be unraveled. there is no way that hispanics can be immigrants when they are part of the original people of this country. the only so-called a legal

aliens are europeans, africans and all those other people who were brought in here. particularly those called hb or hb one b says, all those things. a quick history lesson to my african-american brothers, complaining about illegal immigrants. these people -- this is their land. we are the people who were brought here. thank you. host: willie from jacksonville, florida. willie should these two issues be tied, the way they currently are in the legislation? caller: first of all, president obama did not create isis. the iraqi army created isis. billions of dollars, 30,000 soldiers, that is what created the threat. homeland security -- according

to republicans isis is taken over everything. what have they done? [indiscernible] that's much they love this country. that's how much republicans love this country. they put as all at risk. ok. you asked them how much they love this country. thank you. host: "the new york times" lead story this morning talking about lead activity in the white house, talking the keystone and other items. they expect the pipeline veto to be the number in a wave. they say wielding the pen, the president is expected to formally reject the keystone xl pipeline.

in stopping the transit of petroleum from the forest of alberta, mr. obama will be opening the veto area of his presidency. the expected keystone veto, the third and most significant mr. obama six years in office, would most likely be followed by presidential vetoes on bills that could emerge to make changes to the affordable care act, impose sanctions on iran, and back child nutrition standards. mr. obama will become an extension of his second term strategy to act alone. that is the lead story from "the new york times." richard, thank you for waiting. what do you make of this debate going on on the hill? caller: i would say, quite clearly, this is economics 101. you bring in illegal elion so you can have cheap labor. if they are no longer eat

illegal, there will no longer be cheap labor. both parties want them here. democrats want to make some legal. republicans wants to keep them illegal. if republicans really wanted to solve this problem, they would pass a federal law that would put them in prison -- put in law any a law that arrest anyone who employs them. host: thanks for calling. i'm from chicago heights illinois. caller: i have a comment about the dhs funding tied to the immigration bill. first off, i think it should be separate. there needs to be funding for dhs. on top of it, the next thing you know, immigration policy needs

to be fixed by both republicans and democrats. i do not understand some of the callers who think that some of the immigrants in the united states are hispanic or mexican. there are different people. people from different countries. polish. poland. jewish. all sorts of a legal immigrants. it kind of sounds like racism, almost. like the mexican should go back to the country and they should not be here. i mean, you know, this sounds really sad and almost like a racist type of thing, like we do not like you says you are in the current or this or that. i think we need to have a discussion about this hatred about people that do not look like this. or they are the other. whatever. i think there needs to be a conversation. people think that their is a

god, and at the same time, they tell people they need to go back to their country. that is selfish. i think people need to look into this agent. it is not good for america. host: thank you. and that reminds us of the "chicago tribune" headline -- the man's race is tomorrow. the incumbent has four challenges. the final week of campaigning just happened. it has been a race headed by an manual. he is a $15 million war chest in this race. the opinion section of "the usa today" talks about tom friedman of the center for disease control. it's says that in need to be

harder to get a vaccine than to get one. if parents opt out, they should only do so after understanding the full indications of putting their children and others at risk. for house by requiring that they meet with the doctor and their local health department and they renew that decision every year. that is the opinion section of "usa today." bill from south carolina. welcome. caller: first off, to a net there, and everyone else who wants to defend obama's a legal action, a used to be that people came to this country and became americans. now, people come to the country and use america for their own games. they create their barrios, and whatever. their own little exclusions. you don't learn to speak english. you come here and continue to speak in your native language. it is different than it used to

be. the irish, and whoever else came to this country, they became americans. now, to my point. they have not generated a clean bill out of congress in the last 100 years. that is why we are in the mess that we are in. there always tying all kinds of bills to the cl spending bills. we are spending money hand over fist in areas that no one ever really votes on. they talk all sorts of little packages together. this is business as usual. host: thanks, bill. we have time for a couple more calls. another headline on rudy giuliani who has taken a lot of criticism lately.

"my bluntness overshadowed by message" he writes in an op-ed. he says, as a federal prosecutor, i earned a reputation for being blunt. my thoughts i express our my own. whether or not you agree with what i said last week, i hope the intention behind the words can be the basis for real conversation about national leadership and the importance of confidence and optimism in framing america's way forward. i hope also that our president will start acting and speaking in a way that rings sharp, clear distinctions butchering us and those who threaten our way of life. that is in "the wall street journal" op-ed section today. i manual from dorm, north carolina. -- from durham, north carolina. caller: hello. regarding the funding of dhs

tied to immigration policy. my position is the spirit dhs inc. funded is a no-brainer. regarding immigration, i do not think it should be a part of it. the pilgrims from the old colonies paid in blood, sweat tears. the yankees paid in blood, sweat, tears. my ancestors, the slaves, paid in blood, sweat, tears. these people who are coming here and breaking the law, they should pay. that needs to be clear-cut. thank you. host: thank you for calling. roy, last caller for this segment. sun city, california. democrat caller. caller: my color, is simple.

i myself am an immigrant, legal. now, i am an american citizen. no one wants to have skin in the game. known wants to pay taxes. no one wants to serve. the people doing hiring, they would rather hire illegal aliens because it is cheaper. the whole thing could be corrected if there was a national id card that, when you hire someone, they have to show proof that they are here legally. if not, that company or corporation would have to pay a substantial fine. if there were no jobs for people to come here to get, we would not even have the situation. i think that would be the best way to fix it. host: roy, thanks for calling. you can stay on the line if you have not gotten in. our next segment will focus on little bit on this issue. we want to get some other issues on the table.

politico senior editor, manu raju, joins us. later in the program, leading chief economist, mark zandi joins us on the economic picture and the job outlook. first, we will show you an exchange from the governor's meeting yesterday in washington. jeh johnson, they dhs secretary was the featured speaker. arkansas governor, hutchinson, had a little bit back and forth about the dhs bill here is a look. [video clip] >> the art of compromise is sometimes important. we wanted to be funded, but what is the administration putting on the table to resolve this disagreement on foreign policy. for example, can the administration withhold putting it to play the executive order until it is finally resolved by the supreme court? this issue will ultimately be

resolved in the courts. what is the administration putting on the table to resolve the current impasse. >> governor, my response is that we encourage, we want to have a debate in congress about immigration, immigration reform. we have been wanting that debate for years now. the senate passed a comprehensive bill in 2013. we hope the house would do the same. the house did not act. so in november, we issued a number of things that across-the-board would reform the immigration system. it is not just a new deferred action program. it is added bordered security. it is a southern border campaign strategy for arizona, new mexico, texas. it is getting our immigration enforcement personnel at pay raise. it is helping to facilitate

employment in high tech. there were nine different initiatives. we launch them in november, all of which, there is an effort to define. it is not just the deferred action program for the parents. on your point, my point is that if congress wants to have a debate about our executive actions about immigration reform, let's do that. don't tied to the entire budget of the department of homeland security, which includes the coast guard, the secret service fema, cbp, ice cif, and so forth. that's why i am fighting for a clean, fully funded budget. there are real consequences to my department's ability to pursue its mission.

to our grantmaking. to your states. and to homeland security, as long as we are in a consumi continuing resolution and face a shutdown of my department. >> so there is no compromise? >> when congress comes back into town, they will have to decide how to break this impasse. the president has said that he will veto an appropriations bill that comes to his desk that the funds are executive actions. i believe that is the right position. you should not tie one to the other. the litigation plays a factor, i'm sure. we have said that we will appeal and seek a stay. that will play itself out. we need to break this impasse. i'm hoping in the coming week we will figure out a way to do that. host: president obama meets with

the nation's governors at the white house today. this meeting comes at the end of the n g annual meeting. we expect some of those attending will speak with reporters. we think it will happen around 12:30 p.m. eastern time. if anyone comes out, we will have that life on c-span. at the table now is manu raju, politico's senior editor. what are the options right now for the gop leadership to avoid a shutdown? guest: everything right now is a bad option for mitch mcconnell or john boehner. no matter what they do, it will spark outrage from the right or left. what we will see tonight is an effort by mcconnell to showcase what they believe is the democratic obstruction on this issue.

they will pass the fourth procedural vote in the senate that democrats will block over this house bill that will keep the department funded through september, but it will also block the president's executive action on immigration. both the 2014 move and 2012 move. democrats say they want a clean bill. after that, mcconnell has a choice. he could either pass the clean bill, but even the chances of that going to the house are slim. i will not go to the house. or, he could pass a short-term measure that would keep the department open for a few weeks maybe a few months. there is no guarantee that that would pass. that would extend the issue of another few minutes. -- another few months. host: at this point, we would ask of congress is speaking to

the white house. i guess the question is, it are mitch mcconnell and john boehner speaking? guest: they are talking. it has been a curious thing watching the new congress given that boehner and mcconnell have coordinated well and have had a good working relationship since they became the leaders of their respective caucuses. right now, they are dealing with different internal politics on these issues. in the senate, remember, there are 54 republican senators. they need 60 to advance any legislation to overcome a democratic filibuster. that means they need some sort of bipartisan support. in the house, they can pass anything with a simple majority of republicans. the conservatives do not want republicans to bend it all on this immigration issue. they are each dealing with their own challenges within their

caucuses. they are talking about what they can do, but they're not entirely clear on how they can get out of this. host: our guest is manu raju. the senior congressional reporter for politico. we are talking about dhs, which has immigration language. lots of other issues out there as congress comes back from a week long presidents' day recess. one of them, mr. raju, is keystone. where are we at with that issue? guest: it looks like congress will send the keystone issued to the president this week. this is something that was passed at the beginning of the congress. republicans wanted to show how they are taking the country in a different direction. democrats have resisted. that bill has cleared. house and senate republicans held back on sending that to the white house while they are out of town last week.

when they send it over to the president, he will veto it. it will only be the third veto of his presidency. then, it will come back to congress for an override vote. they do not have the votes to override it. it is sort of this beginning of the cover additional. of the last two years of the presidency. host: will they actually try to override? guest: i think they will try to override. they will not have the votes in the house. it will sort of die from there. the question will be -- it will be in the president's hand. he is not formally rejected building the pipeline. he has said the reason that they are the towing it is that the decision should be made by via administration not congress. there are still ongoing reviews. these reviews have been going on for six years. the feeling they need to finalize the review process. there remains an outside chance that the administration is the

green light to this program. lots of people don't think that will happen. host: lots of other issues out there like the attorney general nomination. let's get a call in first. from conway, illinois. you are out first. caller: think you. thank you for c-span. has there been an audit, or there could be an independent audit of homeland security? host: why would you want that? caller: there are a lot of people out here who we do not know what they are doing and they do not know what they are doing. host: independent audit. will there ever be an independent audit of this agency ? the dhs. guest: there are inherent qualities built into the dhs like the inspector general. every federal agency has an

inspector general that looks of the problems happening internally. clearly, they have things that have been done. the inspector general has launched investigations about different problems and programs happening at the agency. as well as at the government accountability office. an investigation at congress considered a looks at what is going on in the agency. there are those aspects of oversight that do happen at the homeland security department. the question is if it isn't enough. that is a constant thing that the people deal with on a regular basis. host: let's hear from pat in south carolina. hey, pat. pat, you still there? caller: yes. good morning. i have a question. is the congress passes the bill and the senate passes a bill, and that he goes to the

president, and he vetoes it, is he not the one shutting the government down, not congress? guest: that is a fair question and something the republicans will argue. they are saying this is on the democrats. they have actually proactively try to fund the government. that's why some people believe -- on the republican side -- that they will not incur a political backlash. at least not like the 2013 government wide shut down. this will not you make it to the presence desk is democrats in the senate are filibustering this to prevent a debate from even happening. that is why republicans bring this up for a vote in the senate. then, they can pass the blame on the senate democrats.

however, republicans would probably incur most of the blame if this were to happen. we will see if that plays out. that is certainly something that republicans are nervous about. host: just to be clear, the house and senate bills are currently the same bill? guest: no. there is currently a bill with these immigration writers and question as to whether those writers will be stripped out. they cannot even get to the bill because democrats are preventing debate. host: from clinical -- politico -- speak more about conservatives and how mr. mcconnell or mr. boehner could include something that does not include immigration? guest: one of the ways it could

potentially happen is is people in the leadership try to convince the rank-and-file to fight this through the courts. we saw this texas district judge last week ruled that the president moved unlawfully by taking these 2014 executive actions. now, via administration is trying to stay that texas judge's decision. that will go to the appellate level. essentially, republicans could have a chance at winning this in the courts. they may say hey, we do not have the votes in congress let's try to fight this in the courts where we have a better chance of rain in the president and. the problem is that those judicial proceedings will take months, even years. i do not know how effective of an argument it will be in the short-term when a lot of those conservatives say they are in

power and promise they would fight him on immigration. they want to act right now. that core argument may not work so well. host: steve, via twitter writes, what is the historical president of a political party playing what he calls petty partisan politics with homeland security? guest: it has not really been used as much for some of these fiscal standoffs. at least in recent years. they have been government wide issues. anytime there is an appropriations bill, any party tries to put a writer in to rein in the president. this is common practice on capitol hill. it can be the homeland security department. it can be the environmental protection agency. i is common. what is less common is one specific agency going to the brink, and is being used to push

a political ag agenda from one party to the other. you do not see that happen as often with one specific agency. it does remind me of back when the democrats took control of congress after the 2006 election. they tried to tyi president bush's handed -- tied president bush's hands with troop which all language at the time. democrats put a clean oh forward, if passed, president bush got what he wanted. host: let's go to ernie. an independent. caller: i have a question for mr. manu raju. i'm wondering how many games the house of representatives actually -- how may days the house of representatives actually worked in 2014. i'm trying to figure out what we

pay these people for who are not doing anything for this country. i don't believe anyone is doing the job up there. i don't think congress is doing their job. i don't think the house of representatives is doing theirs. host: thanks for calling. there is also tweak here saying, the only people who should go without paycheck is congress. guest: congress is not a very popular institution. as your call is a test tube. i do not have the number of days that they worked right in front of me. that is something that you can find online. however, in an election year congress does not work very often. typically, in an election year, what happens is they are out campaigning. they take long recesses. they do not work monday nor friday. in the house and senate. it happens always. it is a bipartisan tradition. particularly in an election year. host: let's hear from phil and

fort mccoy, florida. a democrat. caller: my biggest question is -- as americans, we had to wait 18 years before we had to vote. why don't they wait 18 years before they have to vote when they become americans? host: any response? guest: no, i'm not quite sure what the caller is referring to. i don't know if he is referring to the immigration system, people coming to the country. i think it is. i think when people are awarded citizenship, they deserve the right to vote. host: our guest, manu raju, has written for "the hill" and is now with politico. he has a byline this morning about the war authorization resolution. the headline says "president

obama faces of rift with the left." guest: the president a couple of weeks ago the pose a of force resolution with ices. this is a three-year proposal that would essentially limit the use of force with ices and associated forces. groups associated with ices. part of that proposal, the president rescinds h the 2000 two war authorization. they keep in place the 2001 authorization that was enacted after the 9/11 attacks. that is what the president has used to justify the ongoing campaign against isis. in addition to this, the proposal says there will be no enduring ground forces of troops

. it is an effort to limit troops going into conflict with isis. the challenge for the president right now is that he faces skepticism on the left and the right. folks on the right, republicans who control congress, believe this is much too restrictive. it means, the president, the commander in chief needs much more authority, they say. the problem is that on the left, a lot of folds on the left, are not happy with his either. they think that it is too much authority. by take really because a keys in places 2001 war authorization. they say that this administration, the last the administration, has abuse that authorization. they think it should be repealed. the president will have a choice as it makes its way through

congress. does he go against his own party and side with republicans, or does he stick with his guns and tried to push something that splits the difference between the two sides, and makes pretty much no one happy. that is a big question moving forward. host: is there a chance that nothing will happen? guest: there is certainly a chance of that. it would be stunning to see that happen in the aftermath of these headings -- be headings, and things that isis is doing overseas. it is certainly possible. i think it is why the administration believes its action right now under the 2001 were authorization, is legal and why they're making the argument, and reason they are keeping the authority it in. if this fails, they believe they can still move forward with the campaign. it would look really bad for the president, both internationally and domestically.

if you are unable to get congress behind the military campaign. host: let's go back to our calls. we will remind callers that a senate vote on cultural or -- you can watch the vote and the preceding debate on c-span 2 today. i'll go johnny, by the way writes via twitter, democrats will not allow debate on the dhs bill, that's partisan politics. steve from new jersey. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i was just wondering if they were to add an e-verify claws onto that bill and allow various levels of government to force that law.

that would take the enforcement of way -- a way. if e-verify words the end force perhaps they would stop immigration from happening. that would be a way to counter allowing a lot of people to stay here. guest: e-verify is not part of the homeland security funding bill. it was part of the larger comprehensive immigration overhaul that died in the last congress. it is a key aspect that a lot of republicans got behind as a way for employers to crack down on undocumented immigrants. people working in this country illegally. the only way that that gets enacted is a fair gets enacted as part of a larger overhaul.

it would certainly not be done to the funding bill. that larger overhaul is unlikely. host: one person writes, art senate democrats oblige by the federal judges ruling to suspend their filibustering on the dhs bill? guest: one of the rules under the constitution is it allows members to object on virtually anything. democrats are doing that on the debate of the homeland security bill. it is something that republicans and democrats have used over the years. mitch mcconnell, when he was minority leader, routinely filibustered motions to proceed. democrats may routinely do that going forward.

particularly on bills that they do not like. they're not at all obligated by it. the only way they may change their minds is if democrats feel the heat that changed her position particularly people from breads aids. -- red states. right now, there's no indication that they will do that. host: we have tom on the line from ohio. republican caller. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. i would like for the republicans do not shut down the department of homeland security. 80% of homeland security would keep coming to work, no matter what. guest: that is an argument that some republicans have been advancing in recent days. i talked to ron johnson, the chairman of the homeland security committee in the senate, who was in a tough

election race in 2015 in wisconsin. he says, look, 80% of employees will still report to work even if no deal is passed on thursday. 13% more not be able to show up. i essentially, the department will still be a shutdown. by, there are a lot of caveats to that. 13% amounts to some 30,000 employees, as well as those who are showing up, they will not receive their paycheck. they will possibly get back pay. in addition to that, that 13% could be -- they are a lot of support staff. it would leave the current staff strain. certainly, that is an issue. tsa will continue to operate customs. border security will continue to

operate. i'm not sure if any side wants to go that far because of concern about the fallout. particularly if something bad word to happen to this country during that time where the agency may not be working a full capacity. host: good morning to ryan. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i have a question for the reporter and some comments. basically, i want to ask it is it -- is it mandatory to have the department of homeland security? i believe it was created after 9/11. george w. bush had congress created for the purpose of combating terrorism. before, all the agencies were under the doj. is it essential to have dhs? also regarding the executive

orders can't congress pass a constitutional amendment as to what the president does with the executive order. there is a lot of wishy-washy talk. it is not defined in the constitution. is that something that congress should look at? if so, what should it look like any constitution? guest: as far as a constitutional amendment, that is not something that republicans have really been talking about. certainly, if they were to propose that, chances are it would be very difficult for it to get enacted. you would need a two thirds majority in congress, as well as the senate. i certainly think there has been a concern when george bush was president, increasingly with republicans with obama as president, that the president have been taking liberties on executive action and going around congress. it is what they view as an

unconstitutional matter. i'm not sure there's anything they can do to rate him and. certainly, the department homeland security was created by george bush after 9/11 as a way to centralize all the security agencies within the federal government, as well as to respond and a more centralized manner to concerns over national security. i think it is essential right now, given the way the government is structured, for that agency to exist. there was a massive reorganization within the government after 9/11. right now, that remains an important agency for homeland security. host: let's bring up loretta lynch. the nominee for attorney general of united states. what will happen this week? they will need to have a vote.

how is the nomination doing? guest: it is a good question. some of it is wrapped up in this immigration battle. most are of all the guns, democrats say that she is a well-qualified nominee. if this immigration fight was not part of the date, she would probably sell right through. as attorney general, the nation's top law enforcement official, she has sided with the president on this executive action. during her confirmation she says she has no reason to doubt the executive action being constitutional. that has provoked some responses. it looks like right now, she probably has the judiciary committee which doesn't need to

take up her nomination. the question will be when mitch mcconnell schedules a vote on the floor and how the republicans ultimately vote for her. they will need to reset the republicans to vote -- i'm sorry, five senate republicans will need to join with the 47 democrats to break what will probably be a filibuster on her nomination. she probably has those votes but the problem for mcconnell right now is if he gives democrats what they want on the dhs bill, and then turns around and schedules the loretta lynch vote, he will face a lot of backlash from the right. we will see how he deals with this in the coming weeks. host: back to your calls. norm. caller: i just want to comment a little bit on the homeland security. is it really necessary, when we have 12 million to 25 million

illegals who have walked across the border. if we did not find it, who would even know the difference? when you have sony people that have made it into this country illegally encouraged by president obama, and others, think both parties want illegals here for the economic benefits to the big-money people. if we define homeland security who will no when they are walking across by the thousands across the border daily. how will that stop any terrorist . if they can make it to mexico they can make it to the united states. guest: border security is clearly a huge concern. republicans talking about this a lot more. they say that the boarding is not secure and you need to spend a lot more money, emphasis, and effort on personnel and other

matters to ensure that folks do not come across the border. you hear white house democrats say that the border is more secure now than it ever has been. certainly, there are still a legal crossings, but apprehensions remain at a steady pace, as well as other security efforts have been undertaken that the country has not done in the past. the question will be if the department is not funded, what kind of impasse does that have on the border. i don't think we entirely know at this point the impact that that may have. certainly, you will hear jeh johnson, homeland security secretary, say in the coming days, and you have probably heard him say this before, there will be in security particularly at the border, if congress does not approve the funding practice. host: here is a tweet from jim

-- has any government employee not been paid and the last 10 years? guest: in 2013, over the fight of obamacare, there was a 16 day shutdown. congress passed a package of back pay to for a loan employee -- two furloughed employees. the last shutdown that happened was in 19 a seven during the clinton era. i believe those federal employees received back pay as well. i think that would be the situation here is the homeland security shutdown. host: we have a little more than

10 minutes left with our guests. linda is calling from stanley, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i was watching the senate last week, and it was brought up that the department of homeland security has ordered law enforcement to not -- companies that hire illegal immigrants. if i remember correctly, president obama blocked george w pushers immigration bill. then, he's going to allow dozens of syrian refugees to come through. that seems strange to me. thank you. guest: a few different points. i think the caller is referring to the 2000 immigration bill. a copper for -- a conference of

effort pushed through by george bush. the president came through a lot of criticism, particularly in 2008, when he backed an effort that was supported by labor unions on the key aspects of the immigration overhaul. that was something that supporters of the comprehens ive bill viewed as a poison pill. i do not think president obama was on the side of those ultimately trying to kill it. but try to change it. that is an interesting question for the president going forward. how does he do with immigration. and how much is immigration part of his legacy. clearly, the executive action is something that the president will fiercely defend until the end of his term.

he promised to do something as soon as he came into office, he did not move on a comprehensive bill in the first term. in the second term, of course they tried and failed. now they are moving and he is doing everything he can to protect it and using the veto pen. host: karen from clarksville, ohio. karen is an independent. caller: i wanted to make a comment. no one ever reports on the temporary services that bring in illegal aliens especially to the hospitality business. there is one company that is coast-to-coast, and when a hotel cause up to ask for a housekeeper. we used to hire people from high school, college, summer help. now, they bring in these ec you

people -- ecu people and they have a list of social security numbers that they are attached to them. the hotel, they are not responsible for the person. they are hiring through a 10 service. i know some of these people, they were working overtime, they were not even earning the minimum wage, and they were ripped off terribly. i have never seen any reporter talk about these 10 services that do this. they are directly related to the coyote is that bring these people across the border. host: thanks, karen. is this something you can speak to? guest: i can say that i do not read everything article and everything will publication, but there has been quite a bit of coverage in the major papers of the impact of immigration.

i think the caller speaks to the challenges of the president and democrats have on the immigration issue. it is a very emotional issue. the executive action that was taken would essentially deferred deportation for about 5 million immigrants. i think when you look at public polling, these that policy itself does have support generally speaking. the country is very divided over the issue. i believe it is up plurality of americans that do support what the president did. however, they do not approve of the way he did it by moving administratively. that is the reason your thing republicans advance the argument that they are. host: let's go back to another foreign-policy issue. it is ukraine and what may or may not be happening on the hill with that issue. senator mccain from arizona made a law of news with a crow, or statement, he made yesterday.

he was on cbs's face the nation. take a look. [video clip] >> this is a shameful chapter. i'm ashamed of my country, and of my president and myself that i've not done more to help these people. it is really heartbreaking. >> what you think can be done now? >> does start with, we can give them weapons with which to defend themselves. there are tanks in eastern ukraine that they have no weapons to fight against. some of the best russian special forces are there. they will continue this aggression for the long as they can get away with it. it is not just the military side. economically, they are on the verge of collapse as well. vladimir putin once ukraine to not be a part of europe. he is succeeding in doing so. he is putting enormous pressure on the politics, not to mention multiple love. and the continued occupation of georgia. this is really a dark chapter in

the history of our alliance. >> i will say this, senator, i have known you a long time. i've never heard you say that i am ashamed of my country, which you just said. >> and i am ashamed of myself. host: strong words there. guest: mccain has been on a crusade of this issue. particularly, trying to get the administration and allies to help arm ukraine. he believes that the united states has not done enough in that. and that we are letting russia run rampant across ukraine. as you heard from his remarks over the weekend, he has offered legislation with a group of lawmakers in order to force the administration to arm ukraine with lethal weapons. that is unlikely to move forward

, given the administration's resistance. the administration however knows there is pressure on this. if it proceeds, it will be done administratively. it will probably not be a successful push in congress on this. host: james from marysville washington. a democrat. caller: good to be on c-span. i appreciate it. i appreciate what the president is trying to do with the immigrants, getting them signed up. the other thing is, social security. i was reading in my paper on saturday -- our republican senators --

[indiscernible] i don't know what to say. host: thank you for calling. guest: it was hard to hear the caller. it was breaking up. i think it is important to remember that what the president did on his executive action, the 2012 action was something that was four people brought to this country at a young age it legally. people l living in the country for five continuous years up until that .12 executive action, and folks who had entered high school, or military service, or tried to get a college degree and have not been convicted of a crime. that was an effort moving forward. the 2014 action expanded that. for could apply under that

deferred action program in addition, it was aimed at helping the parents of children who are legal citizens, or legally here in the country. those parents may be here unlawfully, they could also apply. it was the expansion of the texas judge that block the order last week. host: either calming -- ida calling from california. thanks for waking up early with us. caller: i would like to make a comment about the immigration happening now. i do not think it is right to let those people come in without going through the line. i came from a foreign country. my family waited 10 years to be able to come. we should go back to the old system where people are going

through the law. this immigration law is being wasted. no body is respecting the law in this country. host: either, -- ida let me ask you, this is tied to the funding of its part of homeland security. if they do not solve this manner, dhs will run out of money. should the two issues be tied in this legislation? caller: i don't know about talking money. all the time, it is because of money. all the people who come here it's all about money. we have poured people here too. if they do not give them the money, i don't know what will happen. if we do not enforce the law, we will open the door and we are in big chaos. guest: the immigration bill that

stalled in the last congress, supporters of that would say that folks are here illegally the 11 million have to go to the back of the line in order to get -- eventually get on a pathway to citizenship. i believe, if i recall correctly, the 13 year window in which those folks would have to apply, they would have to pay back taxes fines and wait in line with the rest of the folks who are also trying to get through the legal channels. clearly, what the president has done in an executive action, it was to defer deportation for people here illegally. the white house says that we

want to pass a copy of the bill. and go to aligns like everyone else, like the caller had to. right now, we are at a stalemate. host:caller: i is to be a democrat but i am a republican. host: when did you change ny? -- and why? caller: i changed about 10 years ago. the things i believed in started changing from party to party. mainly i just want to say that i would like to know a dollar amount about what it costs to keep the illegals here every day. i want to say we cannot take care of our veterans, how can we take care of all the illegals? until we get it sorted out, we need to deport them. host: final thought on this or any topic?

caller: it just shows -- john boehner knew this would be a red-hot issue. the end of last year they warned the president not to go forward and he said he is going to given the refusal of john boehner to move on a comprehensive immigration bill. now that the president -- there is such an emotional response. i think your collar's demonstrated -- callers demonstrated their passion for this issue. it is very easy for republicans to turn around and cave on this.

thank you for your time and insight. host: we are halfway through the monday edition of the washington journal. we have 1.5 hours left. next moody's chief economist mark zandi will talk to us of that the economic outlook and later in our weekly segment on your money we will talk about the growth and costs associated with your loans. >> we spoke with two industry

investment -- investigators at the consumer electronics in las vegas. they talk about their companies and the technology in which the internet, mobile phones and the cloud operate. >> we talk about the network society. it is something where everyone can benefit from having a connection and will have one. we put a mission forward in 2009 in barcelona at the tradeshow. over 50 billion connected devices in 2020 which is going well. and many people's mines, the mobile industry is not limited to the smart phones and devices. it connects so many other things and to be all to build a better society. >> the internet started with this thing the people needed to get somewhere or somehow.

we brought that internet from that thing somewhere to your home. to your home and being with every device you carry around. the next step is to take it from all of these mobile devices and connecting not just people but things and people and information with people. so you can create an entire internet of everything. >> tonight at 8:00 est on the communicators. washington journal continues. >> as you may know, every monday at this time we take a look at your money. the cost and effectiveness of various federal programs. we talk now with mark zandi of moody's analytics. first question, how is the u.s. economy doing headed into the

spring of 2015? caller:guest: much better. over the past year the economy has created 3 million jobs each as as good a year as we have had -- since the height of the technology. in the last three months the economy has created over one million jobs and the jobs have increasingly brought pay. more recently, the job growth is high-tech, professional services across the board. still a lot of low-paid but high-paying, middle paying jobs as well. we are not quite there yet, too many unemployed and underemployed but we are moving in the right direction. host: a quick look at the economic report of the president. he highlighted 2014 as the

fastest job growth since the 1990's. will this keep going? guest: yes, i think so. all the trend lines look very good. some of the best indicators in the labor market is the number of opening positions. the number of job openings is over 5 million. that is as high as it has been since the bureau of labor statistics were keeping the data back. if you have live job openings that suggests that businesses are out looking for workers and that means they will continue to hire and job growth should remain strong. lots of things could go wrong but the risks feel less risky than they have in a long time. i think the economy is on the right track. host: we are talking economy and money matters with mark zandi of moody's analytics.

he joins us from new york city this morning and we welcome your questions and comments. phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. democrats, independents and republicans. we look forward to you weighing in. there are parts of that are doing particularly well right now and who is left behind? guest: one of the hallmarks of the current recovery is that it is across the country. we are seeing solid growth from the east coast to the west coast and everything in between. given the collapse in oil prices. up to this point that will

change and you can see that in places like north dakota, south and all the way into parts of texas. broadly speaking, across the country the job picture looks about as good as it has in almost 10 years. host: at the democratic winter meeting, the president said the success may not be enter accident. we want to take a look at what he said about the economy and get your reaction. [video clip] president obama: the facts are before us, about economy kept growing. the stock market has more than doubled restoring the 401k's of more than 10 million people. our deficits are down by two thirds. [applause] i always find it curious that

when a democrat is president deficits go down and when a republican is president deficits are going up and yet they try to take on the mantle of fiscal responsibility. our auto industry is firing on all cylinders. none of this is an accident. it is not an accident that america is create an jobs faster than the last time a democrat was president. it is not enter accident that manufacturers are creating jobs for the first time since the last time a democrat was president. it is not enter accident that health care inflation is running at the lowest rate in 50 years and deficits are falling at the lowest rate in 60 years. host: the president taking credit on behalf of the party but in reality when there is job growth, who or what is

responsible? guest: i think there are lots of reasons for a strong economy. obviously it goes to the dynamism of american businesses. they have done a marvelous job of reducing cost structures and becoming very competitive globally. if they survive the great recession they must be doing something very well. it plays to the underlying strength of the economy, we make mistakes and have problems but the economy adjusts rapidly. we run quickly after that. fundamentally it is the strength of the economic system. i have said that, i think monetary policy, what the federal reserve board does and fiscal policy at the ibis ration and congress have done, have also contributed. the very muscular response have

contributed. in terms of lowering interest rates and providing liquidity through fiscal stimulus and efforts to support the auto market and housing market. there was good and bad in all of that but in general it was quite good. it distinguishes our economy and response to the recession from parts of europe and japan. but this fundamentally is american businesses and companies that are competitive strong and you can see it in their hiring and investments. host: first call for mark zandi jim is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask, when the sequester kicked in and the federal reserve brought the interest rates almost down to

zero to lend money to the banks would it have also been a good idea to suspend the interest rate on the national debt at the same time? to have that run alongside with the sequester? wouldn't that have put us in better shape than we are in right now? on top of that, could this have been an executive order? thank you. host: mr. zandi. guest: no, i don't think that would have been good policy. there are a lot of investors global investors, that have bought our treasury bond. many of us own treasury bond in some form or another through our mutual fund and pension and insurance companies that invest on our behalf. we have a lot of global

investors that of also purchased our bond. we suspended the interest payments on those bonds, we will be hurting the investors and our self. then we can say, you will have to pay me a much higher interest rate in the future because there is a risk you may do this again and i want to get my interest payments. at the end of the day it would cost us a lot of money. it is effectively a default on the national debt. we don't want to do that, that is not a good idea. we want to ensure everyone that if we have a debt we will pay it and pay it on time. because of that we paid the lowest interest rates in the world to our enormous benefit long run. host: let's touch a little more on wages. everybody picked up and noticed headlines like this recently, walmart lifting pay as markets get tighter. this is the wall street journal

version, at least $10 an hour by next year. why would walmart do this? what does it mean? guest: i think it is a good sign. the catalyst for walmart's decision, i don't know this for sure, is that we saw minimum wage laws rise in many states and localities at the start of the year. so walmart wanted to make sure that the salaries of the employees across the board were consistent with the higher minimum wage. i don't think they would have done this if the job market wasn't strong enough that it made sense to raise him him wage. as we were talking earlier, we are creating lots of jobs and so many jobs as unemployment and underemployment are declining very rapidly which is causing the labor market to tartan and workers -- tighten and workers

are now gaining negotiating power. walmart and other companies walmart just being the most recent, other companies are also doing this. if you look at the overall wage statistics. they don't indicate the overall pick up in wage growth yet. there are not enough companies doing this that we see wages in the aggregate statistics affected significantly. we will get to a point in the future when the labor market will be tight enough that wage growth will start to accelerate. that will be a positive thing because it will lift consumer spending and economic activity. walmart, in the sense of the canary, is signaling that we will get to a point where it wage growth will accelerate. host: let's get to stand independent color.

-- caller. caller: i have a solution to the student debt problem. in the first place, the students who cannot afford to go can't go and should not expect their neighbor to pay for them. that is the trouble with kids nowadays that it is a big party and someone else should pay for them. host: what is the impact of a very large student loan bill right now? what is happening with that? guest: it is a problem. just to give you an idea of the magnitude, there is $1.2 trillion in student loan debt outstanding. that has doubled in the past 10 years. kids did the right thing in the recession, they couldn't find a job after getting out of high school or college because the job market was bad and they went back to school or state in school longer.

exactly what parents and policymakers were telling them to do. take the opportunity to raise your educational skill level because in the long run you benefit from that. unfortunately they had to take on a lot of student loan debt to finance that. it is a big financial burden for them. it is having broader economic impact and it will be more so as this age group of millennial's reach the age when they normally buy homes and do the things their parents did. this is an issue and is not a problem. we don't seem to have a good solution for it. just one point, i do think that we need to rethink student lending altogether. in many cases what is happening is universities are simply raising tuition to capture the

greater student loans so these kids are not really finding college more affordable but are racking up a lot of debt. if we can redirect some of the subsidies to providing greater educational services, expanding the supply of educational services through community colleges, that would be a more effective way of helping educate the population and to get these kids on a more sustainable financial path. it would be a better path for the broader economy because the millennial's are the future and we have to make sure they are in good financial situations otherwise we will not perform well in the long run. host: there is a poll cited in the washington times today, and support for a plan to raise taxes on the wealthy. most people in the u.s. support

the president's proposal to raise taxes on high income families. what do you see happening if anything this year with tax policy and what might the impact be on the economy? guest: i don't see any change on the tax policy front. there is a lot of discussion and you mentioned the president's proposal on raising income taxes on wealthy individuals and using that money to reduce taxes for lower income households. there is lot of discussion today about the corporate tax code. i'm sure many of your viewers are aware that u.s. companies pay a very high tax rate compared to many other countries and companies that are their competitors. we need to address list but the politics of this and other things, i think the odds of getting something through

congress and signed by the president this year or next year are very low. well below even. . i don't think that is likely. i think that is something that the next president will have to tackle. host: democratic caller. caller: first of all, i have a comment. a lot of our money and tax dollars and everything is being sent out of this country. people who are not from this country -- i don't want to say it illegal because some are here legally but they send that money back over to their country. that is why our economy and country has been hurting. they send all the money back to their country and we don't need those people here. the second thing i want to say is how do you get a background check on these people from other

countries but you background check americans when you have something as simple as you protecting yourself in a fight and you got the best of the person but they give you a bad record because you got the best of them which would be misdemeanor battery and then jobs won't hire you because these people come out of the military and they go out and shoot up government buildings and kill people and they make all of us look bad. host: is there anything there relative to the larger issue of the economy? guest: let me point out that the u.s. economy is part of a large global economy and there are negative so that and positives to that. but net u.s. economy has benefited enormously through trade, through foreign immigration and foreign

investment, we invest overseas and overseas companies invest in the united states. those global linkages have been enormous lee beneficial to us. -- enormously beneficial to us. the closer we are tied economically, the global economic links are stronger, the more likely that our geopolitical problems will be stronger. if we're tethered at the hip with each other economically it will be easier to come to terms with regard to foreign policy. that is key. case in point, from china there is a lot of concern about our relationship with china and the fairness of that and that is appropriate. we need to be cognizant of having a fair relationship with china.

at the end of the day, the stronger that relationship and the deeper that relationship and the greater the economic ties, the more likely we will be acting in each other's interest. yes there are problems but global linkages are a significant positive for the economy. host: let's take a call from david from anaheim california. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. and thank you c-span for doing such a wonderful job. my question to you mr. zandi is what would be your opinion on rand paul's initiative to audit the federal reserve? i'm a first generation irish-american born in orange county and we are conservative county in a liberal state. i understand that this conversation is so profound tonight and i thank you for your time. guest: thank you, that is a

great question and i appreciate that. let me say two things. first it is important to recognize that the federal reserve board is already the subject of audits. i don't think there is anything untoward happening at the federal reserve that we wouldn't know about quickly because of the oversight the federal reserve board already receives through different gal and other organizations. i think the audit process is already working effectively. the second thing i would say is the worry i would have about an effort is that it may hamstring the ability of the federal reserve board to respond aggressively in all times, but particularly in times of crises. we can see how apparent that was

in the great recession. there is nothing more important than ending the recession and getting the economy moving again than the aggressive action taken by the federal reserve. we can debate the merits of those actions and even federal reserve board members having knowledged that everything they have done has positives and negatives but on that things seem to be a normal sleep positive and they only reason they could do that is because they had latitude. this is the third point what is so key about this is it -- success of our system is that the federal reserve board is completely independent. it makes decisions independent of the political process and because of that they can make the right decisions and do it quickly and that is an enormous benefit to us. anything that looks like or limits the ability of the

federal reserve to do its job and respond outside of those political fetters would be a mistake here it i would be very nervous. host: about 20 minutes left with the segment with mark zandi, chief economist for moody's analytics. i want to ask a couple of questions about energy policy, but first let me ask about the weather. there has been such terrible weather in many parts of the country, does that have an impact? guest: it can but it has to be really bad weather. rembert last year, it was a disaster in many parts of the conch and -- country, the polar vortex. december of 2013 through january february 14 and that did hurt the economy. you may recall that the gdp declined in the first quarter of

2014. this year with had our bouts of bad weather and in some parts of the country like boston, we have got smashed, but broadly speaking the weather has been pretty typical. so that should have no meaningful impact on the economy's performance. host: what has been the impact on the lower gas prices and where do you see those heading? guest: this should be a huge plus for consumers in the economy. last year, in 2014, the typical american paid $3.50 for a gallon of regular unleaded. that varies a lot across the country that that is the average. this year my view is that we will probably see gasoline

prices averaged $2.15. that is a buck difference. every penny lower in gas prices saves american consumers $1.2 billion over the year. if you buy into my forecast for gasoline prices, consumers will save $120 billion on gasoline bills this year compared to last. that is $1000 year for the typical american household. some of that will get saved and some of that will be used to repay debt but a big chunk of that will be spent on other things and that should help consumer spending and create more jobs. one reason why i am more optimistic is because of those lower gasoline prices. host: we're also reading about the president embracing natural gas exports a drive grob -- job growth.

talk about that. guest: we have a surplus of natural gas across the country and it looks like that excess supply will be around for a long, long time. there are a lot of shale gas reserves and we have technology to extract that at a relatively low cost. i do think it makes sense to allow for experts -- exports of natural gas because that will help bring down global oil prices and it is good for the economy. that would be a positive policy step to take. in the grand scheme, it will take a long time to come to fruition because to build the facilities necessary to ship the natural gas overseas would take a long time to build and a lot of resources. ultimately i think that would be a positive development. host: lee is calling on the

independent line. caller: i will try to make this fast we have the fascist wing on one side of the country and the communist wing what did they do they send this man here an economist, to tell us that way sai -- when we sell u products, and we lose the dollar, that is good for america. i gentlemen, like the one here, tells us that when a company fires its workers 30% are stronger because our jobs went to another country. what we spend a dollar, instead of saving a dollar, being in debt is a good thing. he's economist tell you everything that your grandmother always told you was a good t

that thing. w need to spartan up in thi country and learned that if you are losing abou, that is a bad thing. we need to stop selling ford products and stop allowing these a l a legal aliens coming into our counry. and stop listening to these economists. host: let's hear from the chief economist at moody's analytics. it makes me want to rethink my profession. those are pretty tough words. look, let's look at the numbers. if you look at what is going on in the labor market, in the job market, we are creating a lot of jobs. jobs are broad-based. they are full-time jobs. part-time jobs have not increased in the past several years. unemployment is falling rapidly.

we're looking at a very good chance of seeing a pickup and wage growth. in laos, they are at record lows. as you look at the number of layoffs, people actually losing their jobs, it is the lowest it has been. you know, you are right. economist do not always get right. they make mistakes. of course, there are lots of economist with lots of opinions. both from republicans democrats independents, and everything in between. you have a lot of different views. the facts are the facts. our economy is doing pretty well. the indications are that it will continue to do well. i think the caller will feel better one year from now, two years from now, about the situation. i think the road we are on looks to be like a pretty good one to me. host: levy pick up on one point

that the caller made. he talked a little bit about immigration. i wanted to ask you about the presence executive order. if it winds up happening, what is the impact on the u.s. economy as a whole? guest: i think it is positive. these folks are here. they're not going. i figured be impossible to deport these folks. it would be wrenching, not only their families, their communities, but also the businesses that they work in. it is not feasible to do that. they are here. many of them, most of them, are hard-working, productive people. in many cases, they are working jobs that are really not using their skills as effectively as they could be. because of their status it is very difficult for them to change jobs, find the right kind of job, use their skills that they came with.

by giving them some kind of legal status, that will allow these folks to unlock their talent and skills and it should list economic growth and activity. by definition, immigrants are risk takers. you don't pick up and come to united states unless you are mistaken and willing to take chances. it possible the risktakers who are entrepreneurs. they make the economy take, fundamentally. finding a way, a path to allow these undocumented workers to stay here with some sort of legal status and a path to citizenship will unlock those talents and it will be of benefit to the broader economy. host: let's hear from felix from north carolina. caller: c-span, america, good

morning. i have a quick question for you. i hope you can do a little research on it. it is my understanding that the stagnation of jobs is a direct result of reagan's trickle-down economic theories. my other part of the question is i have done a little research and it is my understanding that the presidential budget takes effect in october. i've done some research to compare reagan to obama. on the unemployment rate obama is 1/10 of a percent under what reagan did. reagan was a .2% obama's 8.1%. as far as their jobs, during the same. , 64 months, obama created i think 10.6 million jobs, reagan 9.2 million jobs.

one less thing. i'm here at fort bragg. the spearhead of most operations. godspeed to all those brave american men and women who go out and protect america every day. host: thanks for calling, felix. anything you want to pick up on their? guest: thank you for the question, caller. i think the point was comparing the economy's performance under the current administration, the obama administration, with the economy performance during the reagan years. you may recall, ronald reagan became president also added tough economic time. he became president in 1980 when the unemployment rate was about 10%, about the same when obama became president. we can debate the policies that reagan put into

place. i think the one thing that was quite good he recognized many parts of our economy were overregulated. it was not very productive. the lack of competition cap prices higher. and reduced choice for consumers. i think he realized that and work to reduce regulation in many sectors. that did read benefits longer run. it created more competition it brought down inflation, which was a real problem in the 80's, and increased consumer choice. again, there's a lot of good and bad. again, i think it was certainly a positive thing that he did. i think that has read benefits of the economy since then. host: on to boca raton, florida. a republican caller. yvonne. good morning to you. caller: thank you so much for

taking my call. mr. zandi, i am thrilled that opportunity to ask you a question. i am a senior citizen, and over the years of this recession, i have only depended on cd money interest rates that i can earn in the banks. what i'm wondering is this year is my d-day. i will have to start drawing from principle. do you have any idea -- i have been very hopeful that things would change as far as the rates. but so far, it does not look good. you have any idea as to what needs to happen in the economy before banks will start to raise their rates. also, the second thing that i wonder is do you have a guess as to when that might be? guest: thank you.

you know, my mother-in-law asked me that question all the time. she lives in daytona beach, florida. she is in a very similar situation. she has seen interest rates come down. she calls and says, mark, what should i do? it is a very difficult question to answer. particularly for older americans who are not in a position to take any kind of risk with that money. they need to preserve that principle. the cd is the principal investment for them. this is a tough thing for them. now, the good news, i think this is the year when we will start to see it just rates particularly short-term rates interest rates that affect the cds, they will start to rise. the economy is now strong enough. unemployment is now low enough. wage growth will start to pick up. once that happens, the reserve will start, as they say,

normalize interest rates. this will happen starting this year. it will take the next 2-4 years to get interest rates back to what you would consider typical. i cannot tell you the exact rate. date. the financial markets, the people who invest in these questions are betting that the federal reserve will begin to raise rates in either june of this year or september. those are the month when the federal reserve meet. it will either be june or september. that is the most likely betting. one last point. they will not go from -- 02 3% or 4%. this is a process.

it will take a number of years. host: to our last couple calls for mark zandi. ron is calling. caller: i just why to say thanks for having me on. there is so much junk science all over these polls. global warming, all that kind of thing. i think the three things that could help most in this country would be a flatter consumption tax, term limits on our politicians so there are not lifers down there and a loser pay clause. in the court systems, they did it in england. it would free the courts. i would like to know what mark zandi thinks about these three things. guest: of the three things that

the caller performer, let me focus on the thirsti first thing. i think he said we need a lower consumption tax. i think there is merit to that. we have obviously an income tax in states and localities. some states and localities have a sales tax kind of income tax. we are very odd when you look at our tax code relative to the rest the world. when you look anywhere else in the world, not only europe, but emerging economies, they have some sort of consumption tax. i think long-run, that would service better than the income tax. of course, there are a lot of issues regarding how to make that change. some of them revolve around who wins or who loses from making that change from an income tax system to a

more consumption tax system. at least in theory, that would be the way to go. it is a reasonable idea. not something that would happen anywhere in the near future. maybe in the long run, we can strive for it. host: how our real estate prices holding and sales? what is the forecast for this year and beyond? guest: not bad. the housing market has been a guest low recovery since the crash. the housing market crashed in the recession. it hit bottom in 2011 and ever since, it has been making a slow climb back. i think this year should be even better. mortgage rates are very low. the fha, which is ana very important source of loans, has recently cut insurance rates on

loans. with lower rates, a little bit better availability, a mortgage credit and the fact that there will be a lot of household forming over the next several years -- those little eels living with parents will start forming households, i think the housing market will continue to see an improvement. i think it will put a nice under pinning on houses. nationwide houses will grow for percent or 5% over the next several years. host: that is consistent with income growth and that is something that is sustainable. we have richard hear from philadelphia. independent. caller: good morning. i heard your discussion and i'm trying to make it simple for myself. our relationship to productivity. the man's side is weak, you agree with that?

the other question is the male participation rate, males between 23 years old and 54 years old, that rate in the job market is low. i wanted to get your review or feedback. host: thank you. final comment from our guest. guest: participation rates are down across the board. it is very noticeable among men of all ages. a lot of things going on. one is obviously the job market has been tough in recent years. if the job market does what i expected to do, and the labor market tightens up, i think we will see labor participation rates even out. you are right that has been a matter of concern, but it should improve. you asked a question about productivity just quickly, that is the one thing that i worry

about longer. productivity growth, our ability to produce things with less effort, that is a great thing. it impacts our standard of living. that has been very weak. there are a lot of potential reasons for that. if that does not pick up in the long run, that will be an issue for us. i am optimistic. i think the near term looks great. i do worry about productivity growth long run. it is something we need to watch. host: mark zandi's chief economist for woody's analytics. thanks so much for your insight. we will take another short timeout and then round out the program by talking more about student loans. the topic there the growth, the cost associated with loans and conditions on the market. we will be back to your calls. be right back. ♪

>> the political landscape has changed with the 114 congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 50 new democrats, there are also 108 women in congress, including the only african-american woman in the house and beef first veteran and the sentiment -- senate. keep track of the house using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the congressional chronicle has a lot of useful information. new congress, best access on c-span, c-span 2, c-span radio and c-span.org. tonight on "the communicators" we talked to two consumer executives.

they talk about their companies and the technology in which the internet, mobile phone, and cloud operate. >> we talk about the network society. the network society can benefit from having a connection. we put it forward in 2009 in barcelona. over 50 million conductivity devices. it has caught on very well. i think that open many people's minds that the mobile industry is not limited to the smartphone and devices that we carry around personally. it is also a great technology to connect so many other things and be able to build a better society. >> the internet started with this thing that people needed to have. we brought the internet to your

home, and then to every device you carry around. the next step with the internet is taking a from mobile devices to things, information. not just connecting people, but things with people, information with things. then we can create an internet of everything. i think we are at the early stages. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators." washington journal continues. host: now is the time. every monday, we have a segment called "your money." we looked at the effectiveness of federal programs. joining us to talk about federal loans is beth akers of the brookings institution. first of all, take a big book at federal loans. how many loans are out there now? what are the conditions of

loans? guest: there's a lot. $1.3 trillion is the number we have probably all heard and read about in the newspaper. it is important to remember that these are investments made in education that will pay off over the course of the lifetime of the borrowers. we should not be to alarms abide the number and not forget about the context. host: how much is the federal government involved in the student debt? guest: every student should be borrowing their first dollar for student loans from the federal government. they're getting the best rates there and protections like pay as you earn. host: pay as you earn is what we want to talk about here. it has been in existence for how long? guest: the idea of income based repayment -- pay as you

earn, basically means instead of having a set schedule of payments, the payments that students make each module is a function of how much they are making. this has been in existence roughly since the 90's, but started playing a bigger role in 2007. host: only available on direct loans from the government. it has lowered the cap of payments to 10% of income. what was it previously? guest: admixture that a student is not pay more than 10% of its disposable income. previous to that, it was 15%. students not in any sort of plan may have been paying whatever amount. host: it reduces the years of payment to 20 years. debt forgiveness is available under certain conditions. the program was expanded under

executive action back in june of 2014. at brookings, you cope wrote a report. "do not loans safety nets." what did you find? guest: we are try to get a sense of the cost of the program. there were a couple of components from the students per stuck in -- students perspective. there is this forgiveness component at the end of a 10 year. or 20 year. depending on your sector of employment. not surprisingly the forgiveness component is very expensive. host: let's invite viewers to share their questions and comments. we are talking student loans specifically the pay as you earn program. we have lines separated geographically on the screen. if you live in the eastern or

central time zones, (202) 748-8000. if you live out west, (202) 748-8001. and a separate line for people who currently have student loans, (202) 748-0003 is your line. we will get your calls in a moment. this program allows for debt forgiveness. how does that work. is it a good idea? guest: i does a good idea that we have safety nets for student borrowers. it is a tremendous investment and sometimes it is a bad investment. students will certainly end up in bad circumstances, and we want a safety valve for that. forgiveness is a part of that for some people. it is unfair if the provisions are not the right ones. host: what is it costing? guest: it is expensive, but it

is important to remember that is it is a critical program. it is not on the table that we will eliminate the cost of having forgiveness for students. host: one of the figures that we are rating is at 22 billion dollars. guest: that is how much the loans will cost in the federal budget. what happened there is the president in executive action increased eligibility. part of the cost is being german by increased eligibility. the other part is the increase of how people are taking up this benefit. students were under and rolling. there were people eligible who were not taking advantage. we think more people will be taking up advantages because of

the ability to do so. host: from "the new york times" -- "flipside of reducing student debt is increasing the federal deficit." guest: the burden is being shifted to taxpayers. it is not necessarily a bad thing. host: are these programs easing the pressure of student debt around the country? guest: absolutely. one of the real concerns of student debt is that they have to pay back quickly after graduation. a lot of them face fluctuating incomes because they are young or because there are fluctuations in the macroeconomy. providing an extension of that. of raiment -- period of repayment is critical. host: our first caller, surely, a loan holder. caller: thank you everyone who

is listening. i appreciate you for letting me express my opinion. i am a federal student loan holder. i am 63 years old. i am unable to work. i graduated as a funeral embalmer. however, i miss the national board by five points in alabama. i have not been able to pass it yet, retake it. my united states veteran elder brother -- older brother is disabled, vietnam era. i have been taking care of him since 1980. he needs 24 hour around-the-clock care. he is doing well. he has nine medications. he is a medical marijuana patient, and so am i. every time i tried to go get the disability form field filled out

by my physician they do not want to fill it out. it's as if they are scared to fill it out. they know that i am 100% disabled. i receive ssi from california because we have a rental property out there because of our legal status as marijuana patients. traditional medicine was not working for me. host: do you have a question for guest? caller: yes, how do i go about getting this way. i'm not able to pay. guest: surely, thank you for the question. unfortunately, this is not the right thing to be think about here. when you could do is go on the website and look at the options that exist for borrowers in your circumstances. there are some calculators online that may be a good place

to start to figure out which repayment plan may be the best option. host: let's go to wave from california. caller: i do not have a loan, but i want to know what best thinks of executive actions making these policies. should that be done by congress? shouldn't congress be taking care that business? it seems to me that too much is being done by executive order. when i read the constitution, it says there is a process that we need to adhere to when we do things in this country. host: thank you. what led the president initially to increase the number of people in this pay as you earn program? guest: i think we need to record highs that congress is not

particularly nimble in creating these programs we did have action in 2007 and 2000 11 to increase eligibility of the income-based repayment programs. the president expanded that in 2014. the result of this variety of action is a piecemeal program. it has created a lot of confusion for borrowers. i understand where the motivation for the executive action is coming from. really what we needed congressional action to clean up this mess of programs that we have so that we have something simple for borrowers. host: what is the prospect of that? guest: i will not even take a guess. host: let's go to marry from michigan. loan holder. caller: i want to know how i can get my federal loan paid off like the federal workers do. thank you. guest: sure. i think you may be talking about some of the public service loan

forgiveness programs that exist. we talk about pay as you earn borrowers eating eligible to have their loans forgiven after working for 20 are eligible to have their loans forgiven after 10 years. you have to be enrolled in one of these repayment programs to receive that benefit. host: columbus, ohio. caller: my daughter had a student loan. she made payments on it for a while and then she went bankrupt. the attorney applied $3000 to her student loans, which we are not sure was ever applied. the government turned her student loan program over to a loan agency or one of these outside contractors and demanded she make payments again.

she asked for accounting and they would not give her accounting. every time she asks, they stop calling her. apparently it was turned over to another agency. there is a $3000 fee for collecting on top of that. the federal government came along and took her social security -- or income tax refund. this is criminal activity. they will not answer you by letter she cannot get a recounting of her loan demands. this is criminal activity. tell me what do you think of this? guest: the practice you are

talking about is standard practice. i would encourage any borrower to continue to try to communicate with their service or and if that is not successful, reach out. host: we have been talking about student loans, specifically a pay as you earn. our income-based programs sustainable over time? guest: i think they are if they are done right. to me, and is something that is going to be costly to taxpayers. it costs money to subsidize loans.

i recognize that cost. we want to make sure we are doing it in an efficient manner. caller: i had a student loan that went into default from $30,000 went into $75,000. i do not know if it was the present program, but i was able to get my student loan reduced by a good portion. after 10 years, it seems like i will not pay anything based on my family size. they're going to reduce my loan from 75,000 to almost, i am not sure if it is zero.

it sounds like the program is working for people like me. guest: that is what it is designed for. they are not likely reducing the balance, but reducing the payments. there are a lot of people for whom the payments will be reduced to zero. e-mail to milley not pay anything back on that loan. -- you may not pay anything back on that loan. defaults are increasing. they are not at an all-time high . who is defaulting is a bit of an open question. students not finishing degrees are the most vulnerable. they have the obligation of paying the debt but not behind

income from finishing the degree. students who have the most debt tend not to be the ones defaulting. host: how much profit does the government reap on student loans? guest: there are a couple of different methods the government can do budget accounting. one suggests they are making these loans at a bit of a loss. host: brenda, greenville, north carolina. caller: i was wondering about i graduated in the 1970's. i have federal loans that i did pay back. figuring that up, i probably got

the same amount of money if we compare that. i paid that back. why are we paying back federal loans on people who are borrowing money at high rate colleges and cannot find the job when they get out because they are paying and an enormous amount for the graduate degree that they get? guest: one of the data points that came out of my research is a disparate or shouldn't amount of benefits are going to students attending high cost institutions. this is one of my concerns with the forgiveness provision to the extent we increase the generosity of the student loan programs where we are providing institutions the ability to raise fees. we are just subsidizing the

industry further by increasing generosity. host: william, hello. caller: i am a student loan holder. i am like the other caller. the job maker -- the job market sucks for the last 15 or 20 years. host: what kind of business are you trying to get into? caller: my degree is in corrections. you have to take a menial job to gain experience to get a job in the profession that i got my degree in. that is a hindrance to me when i have a small family and kids to raise. i have to support a family. i cannot work for seven dollars or eight dollars an hour. i don't understand why we can

bail out wall street, car dealerships student loans are to point something trillion dollars -- two point something trillion dollars. these programs you have to jump through hoops to qualify for, the majority of people do not know about them and the people that do know about them do not meet the requirements. if you want to do something for this country and the students, bailout the student loans. there is no way the students are going to pay these loans back. guest: why don't we just have a big bailout and white the debt out. i am sympathetic to that. what we are trying to think about is how to create a sustainable program. the more we wipe away the debts

the more we create incentives for institutions and borrowers. it is important to get a sustainable program to allow students to continue to make investments in higher education. host: it is a bad investment that will be paid for by tax payers. guest: i do not think income payment is a bad investment. in insurers students can feel safe in making investments to education and not be left high and dry. can we manage these effectively? absolutely. host: surely. caller: why haven't you gone into the fact that european kids graduate with little money owed because their government added tax pays for their education and

they pay for other things that we never get to hear about through our media or through the brookings institution. why aren't you talking about that and those same kids have health care furnished by the government supposedly through their value added tax. guest: the government is paying for the education with a value-added tax. the taxpayers are paying for their education. it is really more of a system of socialized education. in this country, and so -- it functions more like a market. there is an argument where the burden falls on the government, but it is not what we are playing with today. host: lena, hello.

caller: how do you come bad a student loan when you are a minor when you accepted the loan and that was 20 years ago and they are still taking my taxes and i have been trying to come bad it forever because i was underage and i did not finish high school. i was talked into it when i did not know any better. what do you do when you try to find out how to get the loan in the company that made the loan when they no longer exist? guest: the caller raises a concern a lot of people have about our system of financing higher education. people are young and inexperienced financially when they make these investments. that is a real concern and the caller was talking about a private student loan, but it is another reason why we have safety nets.

host: hello, stella. caller: i am a senior citizen. in order to pay for college and graduate school, i work three jobs. the larger issue, so i would not accrue debt, the larger issue is that every aspect of our nation has become a credit card nation. we have young people who oh homeowners who have been given homes that they cannot afford our government is on a credit card. we have every conceivable political representative who has to function like an indentured servant because they require a debt to the people who fund their campaign.

we have corporations who are using zero percent interest rate loans from the federal reserve while they are stacking their actual profits overseas. there is an absolute chaos. your previous guest was talking about the economy. we have no way of knowing what the economic conditions of this country are, what we really oh, but what we do know is no matter where you turn, there is debt instead of savings. host: let's move on to chris. caller: my daughter went to school and she is working as an

rn. she is 38 years old. her interest rate is 8.5% interest from the government. why is the interest rate so high on these student loans? guest: it is not high relative to what they would be paying from a private lender. it is a subsidized rate. there is a new innovation in the student loan market when they -- with private lenders. host: linda, what is your situation? caller: my husband has student loans. there are so many things being

said that are not true. we started out with $31,000 in student loan debt after having them since 2000, we are down to $54,000. we have been making a $340 payment for the last four years and only seen our balance go up. we are on the income or tengion payment plan. to say this -- we are on the income retention payment plan. we are battling with a student loan provider where it says in the contingent plan, it is capped at 10% of the original loan value. they had added an added and keep trying to say that is the way it goes. after 25 years, you say the loan is forgiven, it is not. you are turned around and taxed on it.

can you imagine paying taxes on $54,000? guest: she is highlighting a problem. borrowers will receive a tax bill if there is not congressional action to change that. as soon as those forgiveness start being made, we are going to see quick action by congress. host: jack, what would you like to ask or say? caller: what effect is bringing in foreigners under visa programs having on americans student loan holders? guest: these rules for immigration are intended to support economic growth. it is good for the economy and good for people having jobs, making larger incomes.

host: fran, quincy, massachusetts. caller: i have a alone and was thinking ongoing on the income-based program, which was supposed to be 20 years. there would be a chance of having to pay and being taxed. you said the forgiveness part is iffy. i think that is something people need to know. these service lenders try to convince you it is a great deal, but they do not go to the asked her where it is up in the air. he said congress is going to try to pass a bill that you do not have to forgive.

guest: the forgiveness provision is not iffy. it is part of legislation. people who are participating in these loans will have their debts forgiven. the question of the tax bill what happens when the loan is forgiven, it counts as income to the borrower. talking about getting a tax bill, it is going to be a tax bill on the piece of income that comes in the form of loan forgiveness. we have not gotten to the point where a lot of people are collecting on the forgiveness piece. what i imagine this is just a gamble, we are going to get to that time and there will be too much pressure for congress not to alleviate the tax burdens. host: the house has a head education -- the house has an education agenda, reauthorizing

the elementary and secondary education act. you can watch it live here on c-span. lynn, oregon, good morning. caller: there was a time in this country when education was practically free. you had to buy your books and pay for lodging. our founding fathers, thomas jefferson, on his headstone is not all of his legislative accomplishments. come on, why can't we go back to what we had before? it is an investment in our future. these students are so far in debt, they do not want to start families. host: mike, lebanon, new jersey.

share your situation. caller: i am one of those people from middle-class families who would not qualify for subsidized loans. we have to pay the full price of 7.8% or 7%. this is the middle class. it does not have wage labor increases in 15 years. they pay the taxes. they are in the financial void and why is it that this scam of charging 7% to the middle class, who are the ones who need it, they have no disposable money every money spent goes to operating costs as a family. they pay 7% when interest rates are 1% or 1.5% in the bank. this scam -- it is a myth about

who subsidizes these loans. it is the middle class. 7%, we subsidize, not the government. it is unfair and the first stars should be to drop the interest rates in half, at least to 3% so these kids can have a chance. host: interest rates hurting the middle class. guest: there is something to what he is saying. you see that when you get into the middle class. a lot of people suggest we need to expand programs into a higher income category and that may be true. the interest rate question, folks would benefit from lower interest rates, but at a cost. host: joseph, california. caller: i have a good idea.

look at it like this -- pay for the instructor cut everybody else off. and pay everybody else as you need them. college does not cost that much. guest: i wish that was the case that college was just chalk boards and talk. -- chalk boards and chalk. i tried to encourage policymakers and students like to think about how to get the degree at a lower cost, maybe through community college or being sensitive to the sticker price. i think we see tuition on an

upward trajectory. that is going to continue to drive it in time. we see more borrowers getting degrees who were not getting degrees in years past. host: our guest was educated at suny and has a phd from columbia. she is now with brookings. paul is on the line from cleveland. caller: how are you doing? host: good, how are you? caller: good.

why did sally may turn their loans over to this company? it seems like they are in a foreign country. my other question is, what is up with these other numbers that call you and say you can get your loan reduce store forgiven. what is up with that? guest: the first question, you are talking about sallie mae handing their loans over. what is happening there is something that happens over and over. the servicing of loans is being transferred from one company to another. that disrupts the service that borrowers face during repayment. that is probably a concern. i think one of the messages we have been getting over and over is we need to pay more attention

to the service borrowers are getting during repayment periods on their loans. host: does it pay significant role in the credit score? guest: it does. the credit score and the agencies have proprietary algorithms for credit score. it is fundamentally different. host: dave, westminster maryland. caller: i am watching us. i am 71 years old. my wife is 71. we work part time. i hear these people crying about paying them back.

if you don't think you can pay the loan back, don't take the loan out. no one is going to come by my house and drop 54 thousand dollars on me. it is upsetting to see these people -- stand up on your own feet. on the living, pay your loans. we pay our debts all the time. we got our dollar -- our daughter through college. everybody is paying for this stuff. pay for your own education. if you make a mistake, i am sorry. pay your loans back. host: it reminds me of an earlier caller who said she was young when she signed up for a loan and did not know what she was getting into. what do you say to that? guest: people make mistakes and sometimes the mistakes are

really no fault of their own. maybe it is because they are young or the institution they attended did a disservice to them. formulating the policy correctly has to be a balancing act between recognizing there are times when safety nets are necessary and recognizing individual responsibility enables the system to be efficient and effective. host: robert, imperial, pennsylvania. caller: i need do's and don'ts on getting loans. my son is going to george washington this year. starting in the fall. i am retired, my wife works and we are blind. we do not know where to go. thank you. guest: the fact that you are

asking the question is a good sign. some research shows that students, when you ask them in their first year of college they do not know how much they are borrowing. the point is to do your homework , whatever that looks like to you, make sure your student understands how much they are borrowing and that borrowing means they will pay it back in the future. a lot of borrowers do not recognize that loans are different from glance. making sure that your student understands the mechanics of what is happening is critical. host: michael, d.c. caller: she went into the tenure forgiveness, but she did not go to details about the twenty-year forgiveness. guest: it is the standard in the pay-as-you-go. 10 years is the sorter -- the shorter duration.

host: our guest is beth akers. talking about student loans, specifically the pay as you earn program. where can people find out more about that type of loan? guest: the department of education website. host: we appreciate your calls tweets, facebook postings. "washington journal close will will be back tomorrow. -- washington journal will be back tomorrow. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> president obama meeting with

governors from across the country during the national governors association winter meeting in washington, d.c. governors wrap up their meeting with a visit to the lighthouse p we expect to hear from some of the attendees around 12:30 eastern time. we'll bring you live coverage on c-span. congress returns from a weeklong break. the senate gaveling in at 3:00 eastern time for the reading of george washington's farewell address. the house returns tomorrow. expected to work on a college savings program as well as homeland security spending. live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. there are