♪ host: good morning. "the houston chronicle" confirming today that texas senator ted cruz will officially enter the presidential race tomorrow. we will have his remarks from liberty university in virginia. at the white house on tuesday, president obama will hold his first meeting with the afghani president who will be in town this week. on capitol hill, the budget process continues. i wednesday, we will hear from the fbi director. on thursday, home homeland security secretary is before a house committee.

we want to begin on the sunday morning with the question, should the u.s. require mandatory voting? for democrats, the number to call is (202) 748-8000. for republicans, the number is (202) 748-8001. we also have a line for independents. (202) 745-8002. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio and around the world. you can send us a tweet at @cspanwj. or join us on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. in yemen rebels call supporters to arms. there will be a special meeting with the un security council today in new york city. we want to get your opinion on

mandatory voting. should it be required. ? here is a story from "the hill" newspaper. this is part of a question in cleveland. both, the president floating the idea of mandatory voting as a strategy in the short term to counter money and politics. in australia and other countries, there is mandatory voting. remarks coming in response to the corrosive role of money and politics. the president says that his department of justice would defend voting rights. here's more from cleveland last week. [video clip] president obama: in australia and other countries there is mandatory voting. it would be transformative if everyone voted. that would counteract money more than anything.

if everybody voted that it would completely change the political map of this country. the people who tend not to vote our young, lower income, skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups. they are often a full to -- the folks who are scratching and climbing to get into the middle class. they are working hard. there's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls. we should want to try and get them in the polls. that may end up being a better strategy in the short term. host: the, said the president -- ofthe comments of the president at a town hall meeting in cleveland, ohio. here's the question.

should the u.s. require mandatory voting? again, you can join in on the conversation. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. as we said at the beginning of the program, ted cruz to enter what will be a very crowded field of republican presidential candidates. "the houston chronicle" confirming that story. cruz will announce at a complication taking place at liberty university in virginia. he spoke on the condition of anonymity in the primary. he hopes to be the second choice of a enough voters to be a

key player, and when some of the primary elections. he spoke in new hampshire last week. tomorrow's event will be on our network as well. he is expected to talk around 10:25 a.m. eastern time. our question is should the u.s. require mandatory voting? latoya is joining us. good morning, you're on the air. caller: good morning. i think it should be mandatory that everybody votes. it would make a difference. host: thank you very much for the call. let's go to brian and michigan. also on the democrats line. good morning, your take on this question? caller: my take on it is that president obama is absolutely right. the us trillions been doing it this way for 60 or 20 years. they have about 97% compliance

with voting. everything goes well down there. host: hey, brian, while i have you on the phone, the other news this week is that oregon governor k bay is brown is making it obligate toryory to register to vote when you register your car. when you think about? caller: i thought they are already doing that. also, have a national holiday for voting. host: jenny from ohio. good morning. caller: you know, i don't really like obama very much, but he has a good point. i totally agree with him. everybody should be required to vote. host: why is that? caller: you put people in

office, everyone should give their opinion. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. "bloomberg politics" also writing about this. why don't people take the time to register and show up on election day? oregon is poised to find out if automatic voter registration will lead to greater turnout. the department of motor vehicle registration will require people to register to vote. the president giving no indication if he will pursue such a plan. harold is next from illinois. democrats line. caller: i don't think we ought

to have mandatory voting. mandatory kind of sounds too restrictive actually. i would like to see it more readily available. maybe like when you fill out your taxes, you low on your tax form. that year, all of them are voted up, and maybe some term limits would be nice. that's my comment. host: bill is next. charlottesville, virginia. good morning. your take on this? caller: i'm in favor, but i know what the penalty is if you don't vote. that goes into the decision to them host:o. host: richard rogers has this -- mandatory voting, a sad comment on democracy? another says, we wouldn't be

america anymore. several nations have tried, but dropped the idea, it including chile, fiji. if times are good, and major parties are in agreement, a major turn out to be a sign of a healthy democracy. at times of discontent when parties are not providing a clear alternative, not voting is being question. mark is joining us from nebraska. good morning. caller: good morning. i thought this was a free country. if we are not a free country why make it mandatory? host: thank you for the comment. another viewer, jd reading says no one should be compelled to

vote but voting day should be made a holiday to make it easier to vote. you can send us a tweet @cspanwj. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. teresa from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. happy sunday. i want to state that i don't think it should be required, mandatory voting. if they had candidates out there who we don't want to vote for. will the independent also be required in mandatory voting? i know i comes down to actual voting, it comes down to democrat or republican. i want to know that, as well as the penalty which the man stated earlier. what will be the penalty of we don't vote? host: keep in mind that the

president didn't give a speech on this. he was given a question and it was the general comment. of course, it is sparking a lot of debate. there is this from msnbc. the homepage from rachel maddow saying no, the comments were an official endorsement. the president seems to have given this some thought reminding ohioans that australia has mandatory voting. the president unexpected comments nevertheless, raises a question worthy of debate. it is mandatory voting an idea with mary? next is joe says us from fort lauderdale, florida. caller: good morning. my comment is -- unfortunately,

my opinion is half the country is it well read or well informed on a lot of the issues, or even the candidates, to make them mandatory to go and vote. i would really not want them in the voting booth. you don't know what you would come up with. i would rather have someone informed, and knowing the issues in their picking who and what they want. host: jail from fort lauderdale. edward has this on her twitter page, i think it is a good idea, we are the only country with such a low vote turnout. next is jim from our independent line in tennessee. jim, good morning. caller: i don't think we should require voting. when somebody doesn't vote, they are abstaining. they don't like the choices that

the republicans and democrats, and other parties are giving them. host: next is a viewer from north carolina. is it just -- caller: correct. our forefathers died to give us the right to vote. i find a very sad that our young people don't realize it. i thought maybe if they would do some classes in school, high school, and push them issues on what's going on today, and presented to the kids and high school, so they can learn how to be better informed of their parents are not, if they are parents who don't vote. you understand what i'm saying? host: absolutely. caller: if this were presented in high school, they would realize the history behind it

and how we managed to get the right to vote. that's thanks to george washington, i do believe. i don't believe it should be mandatory. this is something that i don't understand why would have to be mandatory, i guess. host: thank you for the call from north carolina. also from north carolina, john says, mandatory voting would result in uncontested democratic victories. the ignorant and uninformed are the bread and butter of the left. from "inside the new york times" obama says he told netanyahu that campaign talk hurt the peace process.

[video clip] president obama: i had a chance to speak to benjamin netanyahu yesterday. i congratulate his party on its victory. i did indicate to him that we continue to believe that a two state solution is the only way for the long long-term security of israel. i indicated to him that given his statements prior to the election, it is going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing that negotiations are possible. we are evaluating what's taking place. i think prime minister netanyahu still has the form of government. we will be in close consultation with them. we will make sure, regardless of disagreements we have on policy,

that our military and intelligence corporation to keep the israeli people safe continues. that cooperation also helps the american people stay safe. we are going to continue to and insist that from our point of view, the status quo is unsustainable, and while taking into complete account israel security, we can't maintain the status quo and expand settlements. that is not a recipe for stability in the region. host: that interview with "having to is also available online. in "weekly standard" -- the best laid plans of obama. if anything, efforts to campaign

against netanyahu backfired. this morning, we are asking the question, should the u.s. require mandatory voting? our next caller joining us from bloomington, indiana. caller: i have a simple answer to this but also in interesting opinion. that answer is yes. the reason i believe that the requirement would be completely valid is when the united states was founded, there was the unanimous decision to the clare george washington president of the united states. under any conditions where of voting requirement would be mandated to the people the united states, that voting requirement would bring people who believe in some of the most dynamic positions that have made our country the best on earth. what would it mean? you were just go player check mark next to someone because you

like their policies. thank you. host: on our facebook page, a lot of you weighing in. this is from tracy saying, are we supposed to be a free country? stanley says, yes, make a national holiday. nikki shares this quote from abraham lincoln. this is from frank who says, it is a privilege, not a gun to the head saying like health care. williams says, no, the right to stay and is just as the right to vote. our next caller joining us from virginia. republican line. caller: i say no to mandatory voting. i should have that freedom if i want to vote or not. i shouldn't have someone dictate to me what i have to do when it

comes to voting. that should be my own choice. host: kevin is our next caller from arsenal, texas. republican line. should the u.s. require mandatory voting? caller: i would say no. i'm reminded that liberals are for people doing whatever they want as long as it is mandatory. that's how i feel about it. thank you. host: both the house and senate are in session this week. then, congress is out for two weeks for the easter-passover break. the question this week, will the set senate take up the nomination of the lynch? the senate had two things to do this week, pass the bill on sexual slavery, and vote

on the nomination of learner lynch. neither which they did. they portray the delay as tied -- some have portray the delay as tied to lynchs sex and gender. dick durbin saying she is having to say at the back of the bus for her nomination. a clear comparison with rosa parks. ed on the line from los angeles. caller: good morning, steve and washington journal. i'm not sure about that, i think they should get rid of the electoral and make the policies more clear to everybody. they should have a week and vote. host: floyd is next from south

carolina. democrats line. the morning. caller: good morning. i think mandatory voting is a good idea. it would encourage more people to be more informed. host: how's that, floyd? caller:what do you mean by that? caller: if you had to vote, you would be more informed as to whom you are voting for. host: thanks for the call. "the new york times" sunday magazine looking at the republican field. senator ted cruz announcing tomorrow. the piof peace on ben carson. and, "the weekly standard" is jeb bush. go morning.

-- good morning. your idea of mandatory voting what do you think? caller: i think it's not a bad idea. when people don't vote, and things don't work out right they tend to want to complain about it more. if they vote, they will have a say on what they had an involvement in. host: appreciate the call. next is robert. independent line. what do you think of the idea of mandatory voting? caller: i'm opposed. voting is a right. it is a privilege. it shouldn't be mandatory. what's interesting is we are seeing in certain states and our country that this type of program with the department motor vehicle -- what's interesting is people are given

licenses to people from other countries who are waiting to be citizens, and even in some cases, people who are here illegally. the right to vote is for citizens of the united states, not from people who have come here from the other countries, legally or illegally. host: thank you, robert. an obituary to pass along. the lawyer for john dean equate watergate figure, he was the person to tell john dean to tell the truth. he passed away in his home, he was 82. mr. shafer served as a justice department lawyer during the kennedy and johnson administrations, and the staff m member that investigated john f. kennedy.

during his tenure as john dean's lawyer, he told him to come clean on everything. john dean, of course famously warning the president that there was a cancer growing closely to the presidency. his obituary this morning inside "the washington post to." caller: good morning. i'm thinking the best example of compulsive voting is from the president himself. when he was a u.s. senator he voted presideent. i think that is a great example for compulsior mandatory voting. host: teresa, you are on the air. caller: hi, i think we should have mandatory voting.

in north carolina, when you get your drivers license, they may it very easy to register to vote. i don't know about the electoral college. i think we have technology now for popular vote. there's a lot of things that should be changed. i think our forefathers set and evolving document for an evolving democracy. host: thanks for the call. this is a piece saying, how do you solve a problem like ben carson? can mainstream republican stop him if they try? linda is joining his next from norman oklahoma. our line for independents. good morning. caller: i think we should have mandatory registration. and broad elective options like

a couple weekends before elections. not mandatory voting. host: why is that? caller: i think voting is a privilege and should be elected. mandatory registration is an obligation. host: how often do you vote when it comes to congressional elections, statewide races, or presidential elections? caller: every election i can. i've vote by absentee because i'm blind. host: thank you very much for the call. friday evening, we covered former governor martin o'malley. there is this story on martin o'malley -- the quintessential american dream is not dead. o'malley appears dead saidet to

deliver how he thinks the country can be improved. universal prekindergarten programs, and a growing social security program -- until we solve this, we cannot rest as a party or people. his address aired live on c-span. that is part of all of our "road to the white house" coverage. should the u.s. require mandatory voting? that is our question. we will go next to nancy from texas. caller: first of all, i have to say a few comments about what has been said. one, we are not a democracy. we were established as a republic. the like twhirl college, if they got rid of that, all the candidates would care about is

the most populous state. they would forget about everything else, own only focus on the most populous parts of the country. no, voting should it be mandatory. most of the american people these days, sadly enough, just listen to what the talking heads tell them in the mass media. we don't have this in the peanut -- independent media like we had when i was growing up. it's all bought up. people aren't researching on their own. so no, we don't need mandatory voting. we need people who have studied the issues and the facts, and not just listening to what the candidates are saying. often they stretch the truth. you have to go and investigate and say, that is not what you did. that is not reality. that's my opinion. host: thank you for the call. if you're listening to c-span

radio, we welcome your calls as well. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. this morning, a front page -- unstated factor in iran talks threat of nuclear tampering. secretary of state carrey was in switzerland yesterday. he is excited back in switzerland later this week. the deadline for an agreement at least a political agreement is later this month. the details would be hammered out over the next couple of months. we of a segment coming up looking more at what is happening with the u.s. and a iran. we will go next to mark from

huntsville, alabama. caller: two quick points. i don't think it should be mandatory. too real quick points. first of all, if you don't believe in your parties politics, and the policies, who are you supposed to vote for? second of all, if they don't make it a mandatory holiday what's going to happen to the american work force is its mandatory and everybody has to go and vote? what happens to the workforce? that's it. host: thank you for the call. there is this from "the washington times" -- senator marco rubio saying not voting is also a legitimate choice. "then your times -- the new york times" -- monica lewinsky,

back in the spotlight, but this time it is on her terms. caller: good morning. i just want to say this is kind of ridiculous. a mandatory voting id is racist yet you would need a mandatory voting id to have mandatory voting. they don't know what they're talking about. that's all. host: thank you for the call. clyde is next from baton rouge. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm for mandatory voting. republicans -- it would deny republicans the ability to deny people voting rights. i live in louisiana and this is a republican state. it wouldn't change anything.

all you have to do is have a republican name behind you and you will win. that's one reason why we are one of the most illiterate states in the nation because of our ignorance level. host: if it were required, do you think that would change the results in louisiana, in terms of democrats? with his help democrats more the republicans? caller: no, it wouldn't change anything. the demographics what a change. it's still a majority of republican state. it wouldn't change anything. for national elections, the votes -- they have to get rid of the electoral vote and count every vote of the individual, that would make a change. host: i think we have another question on the electoral college. a lot of you weighing in on that as well. another viewer saying, take all the national holidays and let

the voter have the day off. caller: i'm calling to correct som some information. we live in a democratic republic. that line has been coming from rush limbaugh. it sounds to me like that is the source of misinformation that a lot of your right-leaning voters are calling about. i wish they would expand their horizons a little bit to be better informed. host: another story about the wife of former governor jeb bush and likely presidential candidate. on her fairytale, holding a story line of trauma. on growing up in guatemala. the wife of jeb bush. caller: if you want to have that

-- go ahead, but you will have trouble when it starts. host: thank you for the call. another excerpt from the interview with the president by opening "having to huffington post." [video clip] president obama: i will tell you when we announce it. you are making important point generally. what we have seen an increase in the is companies skirting basic overtime laws. colin -- calling someone a manager when they're stocking groceries and getting paid $30,000 per year. those people again cheated. what we want to make sure all is and we are working with our

secretary of labor is to set a standard that is there and it knowledge is the history of people getting paid their fair overtime wages. >> anytime we can expect that announcement? president obama: it should be relatively soon. host: julius from greensboro, north carolina. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think mandatory voting should be regulated. that would keep ted cruz, and all those from the elections. think you. having a day. host: next is angela from macon georgia. republican line. caller: i'm not a republican. i just called on the fly because i thought you would answer it. i don't think anyone should have to vote.

host: we do ask those of you to call on the right line. aaron schock, elected at the age of 27, seemed far more interested in documenting his trips on instagram, than actually doing his job. he has 18,200 more followers on instagram that he had successful bills. what no one realized until a past few months is that shock now 33, was apparently mooching off donors and taxpayers all along. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.

regarding voting, i do believe that mandatory voting should be something we should at least consider in this country. we have to remember that an individual -- anyone can look on youtube for this video. paul ryan wick when he worked for reagan talked about how republicans win when fewer people vote. that's why the president suggested it in his talk yesterday. he is the mother of the american legislative exchange council, which is working to destroy our democracy, in tandem with corporations here in america. we have to work against that. the president suggested it only because it would be ahead

against citizens united, which is also destroying our democracy. host: thank you for the call. this point is available online at atlantic.com, the u.s. should require all citizens to vote. here's the incentive, a megamillion lottery ticket. caller: good morning. the thing is i don't want mandatory voting, i want educated voters. i think something lacking in this country is civics in the public education system. people don't know how the government works, what it does and why they should vote. host: you are the second person to make the comment about high school civics. what should we be doing that we are not? caller: our civics program should be broa a broad program.

civics was a large part of being a citizen. you learn civic duties. therefore, voting wasn't this abstract idea. you actually fell you made a difference. now, with the way the world is, everything goes so fast that no one knows what's going on in government. we are apathetic. we just don't care. host: if it were apathetic would it make a difference? could you in for something like that? caller: no, it wouldn't make a difference. you would just be training and on educated -- uneducated populace to vote. i would rather the leadership to reflect the educated mass, rather than people knowing what's going on. whether that is democrat were republican. whatever your views are. i think once you learn that your

vote matters, especially when coming to electing your representatives, then it makes a difference. if you don't make a difference, why vote? i want people to be educated in what they are actually doing. it's the same thing by eliminating the primaries in the dnc and rnc, which are private corporations. why should we have to fund the primary system? they should able to pick their candidates, and give us a broad spectrum to vote from. not to parties. host: we will go next to our caller from alexandria virginia. mandatory voting. what do you think? caller: to get to a point -- this should be required. it's also letting the representatives -- you want to

have a direction of what is proper, and disseminate truth of issues. whether it is defense spending, or health care. when you have the civil rights movement, it was the basis of voting. that was the whole of lake serve for everybody to stand up for their rights. the protest is shoes that might be raised to us. rachel carson going to war. these are issues that you have representatives, but they are representing our thoughts and our votes. if you don't go to practice for

basmati, by want to play, you are putting your talent into whether you play on the team or not. whether you are playing. that is very important. that is the basic issue of standing up for your rights to vote. host: ok. is that your final point? he hung up. thanks for the call. late last week, white house secretary josh earnest walking back a little bit of a statement by the president at the town hall meeting on wednesday. press secretary earnest saying he wasn't making a policy statement, just a comment on a question from a town hall participant in cleveland, ohio. william from tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning.

as far as, i think it was benjamin franklin who said and realized as soon as the people realize that they can vote, then the democrats will vote for more and more funding for their private purposes. if we are going to do mandatory voting, i think everybody should have to pass a history -- world history and american history test. i think people should have to pass a test and get a license before having children. host: that's a lot of testing. caller: especially the children part. when you realize you get a check for child, that brings us to 80 august a. host: -- 80 augustidiocracy.

host: our next call is just from indiana. good morning. caller: i think it is wrong on so many levels. is voting a right or an obligation? host: that really is the fundamental question, isn't it? caller: it is. there are a lot of other factors as well. first off, we haven't age limit 35 in order to be president because someone needs a certain amount of life experience and maturity. why would we want to encourage 18-year-olds to come out and vote who have very little life experience and maturity. i think think the voting age should be raised. host: let me ask you about that. if you're old enough to serve

the country, you are given the right to vote. caller: and you have to wait till you are 20 12 drake. they're different ages for different things. and having a national holiday to vote, that would encourage people to vote. having a national holiday doesn't guarantee anyone will come up to vote. also, talking about people who are poor and dependent on the government for assistance. you don't want to bring more them into the vote. they have a reason to skew their vote and particular way -- in a particular way, and that is whoever will help them with that handout. i don't think you want to open this up and say it's mandatory. i think that would be a mistake. host: thank you, and all of you thank you for your calls and comments. the conversation continues online. you can send us a tweet, @cspanwj.

many of you weighing in on our facebook page, it's facebook.com/cspan. coming up, more on iran and we will check in with doug shaw. then, we will turn our attention to the republicans and the white house budget proposal. thomas hungerford of the economic policy institute and romina boccia will discuss the 2016 budget process. but first, represented adam schiff joins us on our "newsmakers" program. here is a portion. [video clip] representative shiffchiff: the iraqi government once to

reclaim their cities, and they want to do it sooner rather than later. while i understand the impulse at the same time, if they go rushing in to places like mosul, and it want to substitute real readiness in the form of an iraqi armed force that has a strong soon i compliment, as well as shiite, they may end up winning the battle but losing the war. if you have iranian dominated militias going into sunni towns and after battle is one ethnically cleansing them, or hauling people out on a list and shooting them, as we have allegations, they are going to drive the sunni tribes into further league with isil. that would be a terrible course of events. in terms of defeating isil, i worry about it. i worry about it in terms of the

long-term situation in iraq, if it is becoming the satellite of iran. i think what is happening is turning some speculations on their head that people had with the iraq war, saying that these are judicial enemies, you have the iraqis and persians, they don't speak the same language they're not part of the same at the group, and yet we have seen how dominant iran has become in iraq. and that is of great concern to us. host: we hope you tune into the "newsmakers" program at 10:00. we want to turn our attention to iran. joining us here at the table is doug shaw. he is the former special assistant for arms control. he is now with george washington university. thank you for being with us.

i also want to check in with michael gordon, who has been following the negotiations with secretary of state john kerry. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: let me begin with the very latest. we're hearing this morning from secretary of state john kerry that a deal is within reach. what does the framework of a deal look like? guest: i just got back last night. a few hours ago really. with secretary kerry. they are planning to return next week. i think the talks will resume again i caries level on thursday. they're really hoping that this next round will be the last round for this agreement. i just want to remind you that what they're trying to get now by the end of march, is the outlines of the parameters, or the main principles of an agreement. not the total, complete finished text, which won't come

until the end of june. what it would do is constrained iran's capability to uranium. it would try to block their path to a bond using plutonium. an important feature of the agreement is that it wouldn't last forever. it would be limited in time. once it expired, iran would be subject to the nonproliferation treaty and still not able to make a bomb, but have a much greater capability. there's a lot of debate about the agreement. not only outside government, but among the negotiating parties there has been some tension between the united states and the french over it. it's coming close, but not quite there yet. host: on the front page of "the new york times" this is the headline -- unstated factor in

iran talks, threat of nuclear tampering. he sums up that region in accord is not reaching a state of trust. guest: the agreements has never been based on trust. an important aspect of agreement -- i would say the remaining issues are verification. there is the u.s. as allies in the talk, ask you for verification, which is beyond what any country has been subjected to. that is one of the remaining obstacles. in iran, for example, the revolutionary guard doesn't really want inspections of military sites.

it's never going to be based on trust. it has to involved verification. that is a big issue. another big issue is the pace as to which sanctions are released. since the agreement is that based on trust, the united states and its partners want to remove sanctions gradually, only as i read performs under its accord. i ran once the sanctions lifted all at once. the economic pressure -- so that the economic pressure on its economy would be reduced. those are the remaining issues to grapple with. host: we appreciate you being with us early this morning especially after flying across the atlantic with the secretary of state and switzerland. i just want to show some comments from secretary of state kerry yesterday. [video clip] secretary kerry: we have not reached the that is like but make no mistake, we have the opportunity to get this right.

it is a matter of political will and tough decision making. it's a matter of choices. we must all choose wisely in the days ahead. host: michael gordon, assuming there is an agreement, where does it go next, especially in light of the sentiment from the hearing with congressional republicans over this reported deal? guest: i was sitting right in front of secretary kerry when he said that in switzerland yesterday. those comments about it's time to make the decision were aimed not only at the iranians, but at the french. the french have been raising concerns that the united states and other countries involved in this agreement six world powers plus iran, are rushing to fast to get a deal. the french have been concerned. they said this publicly. their master to the united states tweeted this. in the rush to get an accord, a

framework accord by the end of the month the e agreement may not be as good as it needs to be. by setting a deadline, the u.s. is undermining its leverage to get an agreement. this is a debate between the united states and its own allies. right after saying that, we movede flew to london, and he met with the french and the british on that very question. the reason secretary kerry is saying that is because people -- they are really worried about congress. they worry that unless they show visible progress, something tangible, specific limits, verification provisions, that congress may move ahead and the more stringent economic sanctions that could hurt the

atmosphere for the talks. kerry is in a very delicate situation. he is trying to deal with iran on the one hand, and congress on the other and balance off those two factors. that's what's leading the united states to seek a framework accord by march 31. host: michael gordon writes for "new york times." thank you for being with us. we will turn out to doug shaw, an expert in this area. he's therefore the clinton administration, and is now associated with george washington university. good morning. thank you for being with us. take us to your expertise as a special assistant for the arms control. as we heard from michael gordon, this is just a framework for the deal the details will be worked

out in the following months. what's wrong with that? guest: i don't think there's anything wrong with that. what's important is to know go she and maintain -- negotiate and maintain inspection of iranian behavior. that's the case key here. this is not a trust-based exercise. we don't negotiate agreements because we trust another party. we negotiate to -- that's what -- we want to make sure we understand where their capabilities are. host: the larger story is what's happening in iran and around the region. this is a story from "washington post" on david the traders, who is now -- david the

patraeus, who is now speak out on iraq. this goes back to your comment on the geopolitical situation? guest: iran is not helpful actor for the u.s. interest, either regionally or locally. this was particularly true when i was in government. the iranians are pioneering new uses of nuclear technology that they characterize as peaceful but other nonnuclear states are using. what's important is we maintain an effective verification system over their capabilities. that's what this potential agreement gives us the capability to do. host: from "weekly standard" this morning -- obama's iran

agenda. saying that obama has repeatedly expressed his eagerness to welcome iran. iran has a choice to make. their acceptance into this mythical community depends in some way on their behavior. obama is willing to gamble of the security of the u.s. on a blind and irrational hope that iran will someday change for the better. is that a fair editorial? guest: optimism or pessimism set aside, an agreement with iran is good for american and global security. having inspectors on the ground is much preferable to other alternatives for trying to degrade the capability. negotiated limits are in our

interest. verified limits are in our interest. host: the t5 plus one includes the u.s. france, russia, united kingdom, china, and germany. in a tweet, javad zarif says that iranians already made their choice, engage with dignity. guest: i think that is a constant feature. president reagan faced negative comments and critiques of his negotiation of the nuclear agreement with the soviet union. that's a feature of attempts to increase our security through negotiation. it's not the end of the world that we speak with many voices. it will not necessarily derail a

deal. congress and the senate have played historic roles. i think the door still open to the possibility. host: our lines are open. you can also send us a tweet. or visit our facebook page. the president, on the persian new year, had this to say . obama: both sides have kept our commitments. iran has halted progress on their nuclear program, and even rolled back in some respects. the united states and the international community has provided some relief some sanctions.

now we were to find a comprehensive deal that will provide a way forward. my message to you, the people of iran as that together we have to speak up for the future we seek. as i've said many times rp, i believe that our country should be able to resolve this issue peacefully with diplomacy. iran supreme leader has issued against nuclear weapons. together with the international community, the united states is said that iran should have access to peaceful nuclear energy, consistent with their progress.

in this sense, the leaders have a choice between tito paths -- tito paths. -- two paths. host: can you summarize the parameters, what you know? the details are still being worked out, the deadline is the end of this month, but when we looking at in terms of an agreement? guest: we are trying to do something novel with iran. we are initiating additional obligations let go we on what happened imposed on other states. -- then what we have imposed on other states. it is now 45 years old, it did

not anticipate iran's actions, and they have been pushing the boundaries of allowed behavior for more than two decades. it is important that we widen the framework of on-site inspection and international verification to constrain iran's nuclear activities. this agreement limits the number of centrifuges for enriching uranium. it also limits the stockpiles of enriched uranium and the specific all technical limits, of alicia negotiators, but what is most important is that it provides for on-site inspection for verification of their capabilities. this is vastly superior. host: you have been in meetings with the foreign minister from iran, when he had a deputy

position. what is your take? guest: they have an extremely capable and diplomatic corps. they are very aggressive and pursuit of the national interest and wide latitude. they have adopted new practices that other states have not. they have asserted rights to technologies as peaceful uses that other states have not. and that is challenging the nonproliferation treaty regime. that is why this agreement is so important. iran if they change the nature of that regime and cause more states to feel that they can adopt these technologies, then we will be in a difficult situation restraining proliferation moving forward. host: our guest got his degree

from georgetown university, he worked in the office of the united states of disarmament and arms control. he is now at george washington university and we will take your phone calls. mark, new castle, pennsylvania republican line. caller: i hear a lot during this process about whether or not the united states can trust iran. i am just wondering, to what degree your guest thinks iran fears from israel or a u.s. republican administration a factor in the negotiations? to what degree that would be an obstacle to an agreement? guest: thank you for your

question. i think it is important to emphasize the point that this agreement is not about trust. iran's fears of continued sanctions of and prospective military action play a role. the fact that the incredible use of force underpins these negotiations does stand behind them. i think it is a necessary element of the conversation. i think it would be an eventuality that which not serve our security interests to be in and armed conflict with iran, but this is a high-stakes discussion. in his about critical national security capabilities that we need to constrain in a wrong -- in iran. host: democrats line. caller: thank you for the show. many of the iranian

higher intelligence officials are western educated. host: and your point is? caller: they do have some insight as to what our thinking is. host: thank you. guest: thank you. i would observe that the arabian negotiators -- iranian negotiaters are extremely well organized and are sensitive to the understanding. i would discourage linkages in the discussion of such great importance. what is most important is that they lead to verified

constraint of iran's nuclear weapons capability. i would emphasize that that is the most important feature of these negotiations. host: the impersonal -- the personal relationship between is president and the israeli prime minister is frosty is best . will that impact the agreement with iran? guest: israel is an important ally of united states, and our relationship with israel is extremely valuable and israeli security needs to be considered as the united states move forward in this trust has. i would emphasize that this is not about particular political dynamics, it is a on-site inspection for verification and restraint of the arabian -- iranian nuclear

program. i believe that we can achieve that effectively, it will serve both united states and israel. host: in the washington post, iranian backed shiite fighters are as much of a threat to the islamic state. i have pursued a brutal scorched-earth policy in areas already liberated from islamic state. after u.s. airstrikes drove islamic state forces out of the town in northeatstern iraq late last summer, the militias went on a rampage burning the villages. the intent was to underscore.

guest: the u.s.-iranian relationship is a necessary scene for the discussion. i would emphasize that we did not enter into arms control negotiations with soviet union during the cold war because the soviet union was a good actor. we understood them to be a bad actor in international relations, and iran is the bad actor in negotiations today. we are entering into this because they are seeking nuclear weapons capability, and lead to constrain the capacity to acquire the capability. host: jason, from arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. i am very concerned with this intercontinental holistic missile situation that is not

just about the israelis, but other portions of the world and ourselves. how do we know that president obama is not going to make a decision that congress does not know about given what he is done in the ukraine libya, egypt, and what those parts of the world what people are dying and getting tortured? caller: iguest: i have understanding your rest and to be about iran's missile capabilities. and i would emphasize that a nuclear warhead is what transforms a missile threat from a weapon of terror to a more of mass destruction. constraining a ron's access to a nuclear weapon is absolutely essential to the security of the region and the united states. host: if we do not reach an agreement, then what?

do the sanctions continue to stay in place? caller: that would be my expectation. the sanctions would not only stabilize but we might even see the become more crippling. we do not have a great record for sanctions generating changes in behavior and target date. what i would emphasize is that the sanctions and the threat of the use of force create a context for negotiations. that is hopefully what that will be able to achieve. there are some very bad potential outcomes of the decision tree not reach an agreement the prospect of an agreement is better now than it has been in the past. i think were well served to seek it aggressively. host: mitch, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. i also wanted to call about iran

making intercontinental ballistic missiles. it scares the heck out of me. as far as verification goes, they believe that it is ok to lie to people that they consider their enemy. how do you deal with people like that and trust them enough that they will even let you in the country, and all places where they have secret things going on? a lot of their stuff is underground. i worked in a nuclear plant as a construction worker, and a lot of the engineers came from iran. they have a lot of knowledge. that does not sit well with me. i just wanted the man to answer those questions. host: thank you. guest: i think that is very

important. that emphasizes why we need negotiated access to their r facilities. a lot of this has boiled down to their intransigence over the protocol. when we discovered the secret program after the first gulf wore it led to greater scrutiny of the international security. it led to a protocol that would not only verify the nonproliferation of those materials, but give a subtraction over what might be going on a non-declared sites -- some traction over what might be going on a non-declared sites. been measures design or the iranian case that are there on the table now. we do have experience in dealing

with the soviets during the cold war, that were on their menu of options. we are not dealing with a regime we can trust, we are dealing with the opportunity to negotiate some restraints and on-site verification. host: secretary of state john kerry back in switzerland later this week where he continues to meet with its conference across europe. -- his counterparts across europe. douglas shaw, working at george washington university is our guest. now we have a caller from the democrat line. caller: mr. shaw, as you just answered, some of what i was wondering about, the agreement

we had with saddam hussein in iraq, and it turned out that they did not have weapons of mass destruction, but we went in there anyway. isn't that the inspectors have fulfilled their agreement, left and then we just assume that they continue to do these things? is this something that could happen with iraq? guest: thank you. what i would emphasize in the iraqi cases that -- case is that i would not characterize his performance as compliance. the iraqis were extremely difficult in a variety of contexts. but i would emphasize that the use of military force to prevent

nuclear weapons acquisition is challenging, for a variety of reasons. it is not our best option as the iraqi case demonstrates. we are much better served to negotiate an effective and verification regime without the use of force. host: the next deadline would be june 24. how likely is that based on your own expertise? guest: deadlines have a useful purpose in international negotiation prevails to folks in mind and focus leaders on getting something done. sooner is better than later in achieving agreement, but remains to be seen. host: republican line, good morning. caller: good morning.

the people of the united states often wonder, i've asked many of them, why are we so intent on keeping the middle east safe? many of us think that it is for oil. i have listened to the state of the union address back in the 1970's with jimmy carter, and i think he stated it then -- namely, that we will protect you, if in fact you will provide a favorable oil supply to us. have we been fulfilling that

promise, and is president obama trying to reverse that? that is basically the subject i wanted to talk about. i hope you will. host: thank you for the question. guest: i would emphasize that the united states has important allies and interests in the middle east, but the negotiations at hand are about iran's nuclear weapons capability. and that friends not only the region but the united states and our allies as well. of the iranian nuclear weapon would not only create the possibility of the use of that weapon, it would erode the global nromorm and regime that history is nuclear that -- restrains nuclear weapons

globally. host: our next caller is from pittsburgh pennsylvania. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. i want to make three or four points. number one, the threat of the use of force in negotiations turns on its head a thousand years of just war theory. it creates the scenario that if you do not do what we want you to do, just as we want you to do it, we will attack you. i think that is wrong. number two in 1995 iran and the other arab states in the middle east side of the table to extend the nonproliferation treaty.

they agreed to extend the treaty with the promise that a conference would be held to create a nuclear free zone in the region. that promise has not been cap. i would suggest that a c-span contact, dan joyner, who has extensivelye expertise. on his blog the other day, he noted that the iaea is leaking massive amounts of data that they have obtained from their inspections in iraq. they have linked this to the united states and they are using it to build mockup civilities of the iranian plants -- facilities

of the iranian plants. guest: thank you. with gratitude and respect, i think just war theory is not the only context weird young with today. the prospect of use of force against iran and nuclear weapons capabilities has been left on the table by linda leaders of multiple states. we do not live in the world we wish we did, we live in a world in which military force is used. this agreement that is on the table offers us the best possibility of avoiding future military conflict. i was actually in the room in 1995 for that extension decision. i would emphasize that the conference you're talking about was actually agreed in 2010, some years later. 15 years later. but the extension decision was

not just constraining on the united states. there are multiple ways in which the united states has not met the expectations of our negotiating partners in making the new nuclear nonproliferation treaty successful. not the same is true of a wrong they're not filling their obligations. this treaty that is under negotiation now is the best mechanism we have for reading the back into compliance and for demonstrating to the international community that their nuclear program is constrained from acquisition of a weapon. and in terms of the international atomic energy agency leaking information, i would emphasize that obviously the confidentiality is important for trust of the affected states, but at the same time the circumstance of trust is

eroding, particularly with the united states and iran. the best case for both the united states and iran and the international atomic agency is the conclusion of agreements that create stable framework for inspections over the near future. host: atlantic city, new jersey republican line. good morning. you are on the air. ok, we will move on to pennsylvania, independent line. caller: i have two comments. there was a lot made about the congressman to iran. how is that any different from president obama using his greetings to address the iranian

people directly? host: stay on the line. guest: these are optic and atmosphere interventions. i do not think they are critical to the negotiations. we have some very technical negotiations underway. i think that political statements are items to them. host: your second point? caller: the militaristic expansion in the middle east with iran helping to fight against isis. is that in any way part of the nuclear negotiation going on? i do not see them as would truly exclusive that mutually exclusive -- i do not see them as mutually exclusive. guest: certainly, they sat

atmospheric conditions for the negotiation, but what is important about these negotiations is constraining a critical capability and demonstrating to us effective verification that these are constrained. host: jacksonville, florida democratic line. caller: good morning. my question is how can we trust the u.s. government, based on our analysis of the weapons of mass destruction? how can you trust the analysis we perform, because we base our invasion on lies. secondly, we gave saddam hussein

mustered gas, and intelligence on where the troops were located, created war crimes, and we have not taken responsibility. host: do you trust your own government? caller: not totally, no. as i said, going over the world, changing government that will -- governments at will, i do not. guest: i think the american experiment is gone going -- ongoing. these are challenging issues. our historical performance is not been perfect. but we are facing a real danger in the iranian behavior, and we

have an opportunity to constrain it now. i have great confidence in those working in government that they are motivated by the intent and a roadmap given to us during the cold war to seek greater security for the united states and the world through negotiated agreement. i think that is the direction we are on in this agreement. host: i would like to go back to what michael gordon told us in the new york times. francis taking a tough line on these english nuclear negotiations. why the res resistance? guest: i think every state party has internal politics and has differential emphasis on different issues.

i think when you enter into negotiations as complex as this, p5 plus one indicate that there are six parties on one side which probably get the discussion. that is not necessarily a bad thing. that creates a context for greater leverage conceivably in the discussions with the iranian side. i would consider the objects that are being given off to be a detriment to the discussion. host: secretary of state john kerry indicating that a deal with iran is within reach. marietta, georgia, independent line. good morning. caller: it is interesting to me that when we talk about iran, we

never talk about it in the context we always talk about we don't trust them. why should they trust us when we overthrew their democratically elected government? and what is so hypocritical to me is that these p5 plus one most of these countries have nuclear weapons, and america is the only country that has ever use them. so why should we be afraid of around, when they should be afraid of us? we are the only one to have him used in nuclear weapon to solve our problem. guest: this emphasized that it is not about trust it is about constraining nuclear weapons capability been when the international community to two -- undertook to limit

nuclear capabilities, it was a groundbreaking agreement that drew a line in 1970 that said additional nuclear weapon states would not be better. iran has agreed to participate in that international agreement that constrains them from acquire nuclear weapons, and that is what we are seeking to clarify. their compliance with their freely except obligation -- accepted obligation. host: can we trust iran, based on everything you have seen in these negotiations? if a 10 year deal is worked out if there is a verification process in place, can we still trust the country and its regime? guest: it is not about trust. host: you have to trust your partners. guest: i disagree. trust but verify was reagan's approach. we want inspectors on the ground

at the facilities, we want the inspection regime to give us greater confidence that we know what is going on across iran, and negotiate the best opportunity to constrain nuclear weapons capability. host: can we trust the verification process that the iranian government will show us everything that these inspectors need and must see? guest: we cannot trust that they will show was everything, we need to negotiate an aggressive regime that will give us the greatest possible confidence that we know what is going on. host: a veteran of the clinton administration, thank you for sharing your expertise this morning. guest: thank you for having me on. host: now to the budget and politics on capitol hill. thomas hungerford and room

omina boccia joining me. but first, all weekend we continue our look on c-span twos tv and c-span3 american history tv on the civil war. they will tour a civil war ironclad built in 1864. here is a portion. >> we are in a unique place right here inside the museum. it is the remains of a confederate ironclad, the jackson. it was built here in columbus during the war. from this vantage point we are able to look down on the jackson. we are at the fourth deck

level. we are looking at the main case. those of all shapes are actually begun ports of the jackson -- the gun ports of the jackson. the particular rifle we are firing today was built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the sellable enable works in alabama. it completed in january of 1865. you have the explosion, it is simple. it is so effective. the real claim to fame is strictly connected to the fact that there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can that be right now. -- study right now. it jackson is right here. that is why this facility is here. it is first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad, and to show people that there are more than just

one or two ironclads, there were many. we are one of the best examples of that right here. host: we traveled to columbus, georgia this weekend on c-span two booktv, and c-span3 american hasistory tv. that is available online at any time. >> monday night on the communicators, we met up with wired magazine reporter tim moynihan, who gave us a tuoour of the latest technology. organic light emitting diode. it is a backlight system. it caller's liquid crystal displays, and then this one is actually using the individual

particles as a source of life. and they can be turned on and turned off independently. with an led set me always going to see some light leaking through. to my eyes this is pretty amazing. this is the two big buzzwords of this show. this is the holy grail of tv. >> monday night, on the communicators, on c-span2. washington journal continues. host: our focus, the budget as outlined this past week by house and senate republicans. romina boccia and thomas hungerford joining us. you have seen the outlines of this budget proposal, it is just that, a proposal. what is your reaction? guest: i think the budget

proposal failed of several accounts everyone is it continues the short run austerity measures from the budget control act, and it does have some negative consequences for the economy over the next three fiscal years. i think it shortchanges the economy in the long run. cutting back on public investments in the insurance and on the government, and just drive down any street in washington dc and any other place, we need some more public investments, especially on basically, roads bridges. we need to be spending a little bit more money on railroads -- host: higher taxes? guest: in the short-term, no.

i do not think we need to raise taxes in the short run, but in the long run, yes. guest: i would say that what is really key about this budget is that with spending on a path. it reduces the debt and the percentage of gdp to about 55% of the economy. it balances and it did that on a downward trend. it addresses the key drivers of spending growth, which are health care programs. in repeals obamacare, and makes important reforms. those programs alone are driving nearly half of the growth in projected spending of the next decade. any budget that is serious address the health care programs. host: we carried the markups live.

>> the tax reform we have identified, and the proposals we have put forward will create significant growth. the congressional budget office has decreased its estimate on growth in this country from 3% to 2.3% annually over the next 10 years. 2.3%. the average for the last 40 years has been 3.3% growth. what does that difference mean? that means over $3 trillion over that time in greater represent the federal government because of the greater increase in economic productivity. host: is it realistic? is this budget plan realistic in our divine government today? -- divided government today? guest: i think it will pass the house, and possibly the senate but i do not the president will take it very seriously.

it stands in stark contrast to the president's budget. they do not get signed with president, but with does get signed is legislation that follows the budget resolution like the instructions to repeal obama care. i would be very surprised to see the president silos into law -- sign that into law. host: secretary ashton carter was pleading with congress to and sequestration. what is your view on this? guest: i do think we should and sequestration. the president proposed ending sequestration, and i think most democrats are for ending the budget caps. host: let's go back and understand why we're sequestration from 2011, because of the inability of democrats republicans to react a cuts, so there are automatic cuts put in

place -- democrats and republicans to put in any cuts so there are automatic cuts in place. guest: and reduce the increase in discretionary spending, and then there was the sequestration, which ended up resulting from the inability to agree on cuts in mandatory spending. host: here's the exchange as he testified before the armed services committee. >> under sequestration, which is set to return in 197 days, our nation will be left secure -- less secure. and threatens our military's readiness, it threatens the size of our work ready forces.

the capabilities of our hair and naval fleets of and the lives of our men and women in uniform. the joint chiefs have said the same. the great tragedy is that this corrosive damage to our national security is not a result of objective factors, logic, reason instead sequester is purely the fallout of political gridlock. host: that was the new defense secretary as he testified before the house committee. the big winner is the pentagon, but what about other spending areas that could face budget cuts? guest: on the discretionary s ide, is basically ends up in the next fiscal year, or fiscal year 2016, they just stick with the

caps and the sequester, and then the budget does decrease spending relative to the sequester in the out years, starting in 2017, all the way up to 2025. another hit is taken is in mandatory spending. the cuts were not spelled out in the budget, but they do mention cutting snap, or food stamps medicaid, unemployment insurance, and so on. these are the biggest hits if you take out the obamacare parts, in the insurance function of government, and of the public investment function of government. host: this is from the wall street journal, it gives you a sense of 2025. this is the spending as part of

the white house budget proposal. you might argue that it is rather modest increases in the next decade. the house republican plan would mark a deep decrease in spending. to mr. hungerford's point about roads and bridges, and infrastructure, how do you pay for that if you do not raise more revenue? guest: that you have the highway trust fund, which is filled with gas tax revenue. about 25% of spending on that goes to concerns the purely local -- that are purely local. i do not think you should forget the impact that state and local governments have to the people. washington has made a lot of these projects much more costly both the environmental review

process, as well as rules that give handouts to labor unions making projects up to 25 percent more expensive than they should be. washington is getting too involved in concerns that are purely state and local. we need to give those functions back to say and local government while focusing highway tax dollars on highways which is what the federal government should be doing. host: our phone lines are open. send us a tweet, or join us on facebook. jim is joining us from florida our line for independents. good morning. welcome conversation. caller: good morning.

i would just like to draw a general idea. it would concern roads and bridges. i am saying price fixed, no arbitrary number -- i am not saying price fix but if gasoline goes down to two dollars, the government gets that differential between two dollars and $2.50. what it does is incentivize the government to keep prices low, and a stable working price. and if all of a sudden the cost goes way up, they just do not get that amount. if you understand the concept, i would like you to comment.

host: did you want to respond? guest: the key principle on why we had gas tax is what the user pays. so many of those dollars are being diverted to things like ipads, urban beautification projects which are not bad things, but we do need to question how we pay for them and at what level of government. the gas tax at the federal level should be refocused to highways, and major bridges which the federal government is responsible for and not paying for local concerns. i want to hear with tom has to say as well. guest: well, to talk about the proposal, one of the problems with the price of gasoline news it is based on supply and demand. the government and fiddle around a little bit but not too much with the price of gasoline.

there is a problem the government cannot put downward pressure on the price of gas. i just do not think that the proposal would be workable. i do not think that there is that much waste, fraud, and abuse in the highway trust fund. i think it is important that the workers are paid fairly, and those that are repairing roads and bridges, i do not think pressure should be on placed on trying to drive down wages of construction workers. we do have a shortfall in the highway trust fund, and i think

taxes need to increase. i do agree that the gasoline tax is one way to make the users -- we may want to expand it a little bit because everyone benefits from good roads. that is how people get to works, that is how to get to the market. we may want to have a broader taxation. host: a budget is a political document to it is a chance for each party to sell its priorities. i would ask you about the republican budget plan that calls for the repeal of obamacare that everyone knows will not happen while obama is in office. let me get your reaction. >> for more than 40 years, i am

pleased to tell you that this budget repeals all of obamacare. we additionally and obamacare's $700 million rayaid on medicare. further, our budget in flower's state giving them the flexibility that is needed -- empowers states by giving them the flexibility that is needed to meet the unique needs of their own populations. we also call of policymakers to start over with howard care reform that puts patients, families, and doctors in charge, not washington bureaucrats. host: that is of course, where the republicans drew the line in the sand. it is not going to go anywhere so where that lead to compromise ? guest: it is important the newly

elected officials have a chance to show that they are committed to repealing obamacare. it is only one first step in order to bring about a health care system that is more market-based and patient centered. that involves reforming medicare and medicaid and getting the private sector involved a government programs. but also addressing some of the problems that obamacare sought to address. everyone, regardless of pre-existing condition, would be able to purchase affordable health insurance. that is a common goal for both sides, but it is difficult to do with this president because obamacare is his legacy achievement. all he did was add additional entitlement, and we

project 44% growth in entitlement spending. we have to think about how to reform the health care system so it is more affordable and more individuals are able to get high-quality health care, but at lower cost. host: what the supreme court will do in the case is the next question. guest: i agree, and i am annoyed idea how the supreme court will come down on the issue. that's and i have no idea how the supreme court will come down on the issue. host: chuck, on our independent line. caller: good morning. my question is about nation building. where does that money come from? i just do not understand. we say we only spend 2% on foreign need nation building

they still of 100 $14 billion they have not spent in afghanistan as of yet building highways and infrastructure. how much is spent on nationbuilding? we do not have a highway trust fund here, and there we do spend $140 billion a highway spending there? do you know what percent is spent on nationbuilding? guest: i do not know a specific dollar amount. i know that our foreign aid budget is relatively small compared to a $3 trillion budget. host: between iraq and afghanistan with but over a trillion dollars, does that some right?

-- we have spent over a trillion dollars, does that sound right? caller: good morning. my question is very simple the gop budget proposal, when the want to make adjustments to medicare and medicaid, one of the specifics -- what are the specifics? guest: they are phased in very slowly. the premium support system which is the key change to build on market-based reforms that are already taking place, allowing more seniors to buy insurance in the private market and have private insurance bring down the cost of health insurance so we can provide seniors with greater care at lower cost that is the savings for the taxpayer and that would not phase-in until eight years after the budget takes effect.

the medicaid reform takes place sooner, and it would put a cap on federal medicaid spending, so the state can decide how to best allocate those dollars. we have a model that encourages is to continuously expand services available through the spending but putting a cap on it allows them more flexibility and innovation with different proposals, allowing families that are currently benefiting from the program to buy health insurance in the private market because medicaid patients are getting some of the worst care in the nation. the rates at which doctors are being reimbursed are so low. host: romnia boccia is now

affiliated with the heritage foundation, serving as a fellow focusing on funding issues and spending. thomas hungerford is a professor at the number of universities. he is now a senior economist at the economic policy institute. he is now also a director at the tax and budget policy in that area. republican line, good morning. caller: as far as the roads and bridges being taken care of, in south carolina, i observed it every day i'll give you an example. they planted two crêpe myrtle trees on the highway and with five workers in three different trucks, they were dead the next

year, and the weeds grew up around them. we need to give that to the private sector. as far as health care, i have been healthy my whole life, and i will be horse to do nothing but a pen --penalty. guest: i think it is unfortunate that we are not maintaining our roads. these are public roads, and a figure is best left to the public sector to take care of them. everyone takes your of them. everyone should take care of them. there are some people who pay premiums, and some people never see a dime of that.

if something happens, there is something there to help them get over to be a catastrophic health problem. that is one of the things about insurance for everybody pays a little bit there are risk there, you may end up experiencing a problem, you may not. if you don't, that is great. host: leonard, from new york, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a question for the young woman, regarding her organization. i would like to know when is the heritage foundation going to finally take responsibility for the design and model of the affordable care act? president george h w bush commissioned the heritage foundation to come up with a design for a market-based proposal for the health care. the republicans brought this design and model out when hillary clinton came up in the early 1990's with her husband

for a plan for a single-payer system, and the republicans used the heritage foundation model and designed to counteract that proposal. then obama used this model for the affordable care act. it is not the time heritage foundation came to grips with their design of this particular program. it is a guest: well, thank you for your question. i would direct you to the heritage foundation saving the american dream plan where we lay out the details of our health care reform plan. i think there was a great misunderstanding that obamacare in any way reflects the heritage foundation's proposal. it does not. i think where we do share common concerns is that all americans are able to purchase health insurance at an affordable price to them and their families,

especially when it comes to being protected. anybody who has a horrible disease or get hit by a car, they stood -- they should have coverage to take care. we don't want a system where consumers take a backseat and insurance companies and doctors who decide exactly what happens and what to charge for just the services. we want a more market-based system, so taking care of the catastrophic care level but then a blink consumers a to make those chancellors -- make those choices. host: eric is next in ohio. good morning and welcome to the program. caller: good morning. my question is for both of your guests. what i want to know is when you see the ruling class in washington going -- get out of the weeds a look at the bigger picture, and by that, i mean the

nation already has over in $18 trillion debt and that does not include the unfunded mandates that i have heard anywhere from $100 trillion. the fact of the matter is that we don't have the money anymore to spend. i've never heard a democrat come across a spending process they do not love. i guess my question is, when is the government going to start cutting taxes, growing the economy, and cutting spending to get the federal budget down to something that is manageable? again, as i said, we do not have the money anymore and if we keep going in the direction that the democrats want to go, we are going to end up like weeks. -- like greece. host: thank you for the call. guest: we do have money. we are the richest nation on

earth. our income per capita has been steadily going up. if you were to increase taxes by 3% of gdp, it would still be going up. so we can certainly afford it now. going back to the budget, i am concerned about unsustainable debt in the long run and i think cbo and some of the long-run projections is talking about getting up to a debt of 100% of gdp by 2040, 2045. which i certainly don't want to be up there unless we end up in another war, and let's hope not. so i think that by raising taxes, we can maintain our

spending in public investment our insurance system, and defense spending. it is a just we need to raise taxes and we as a nation can afford that. host: medicare, medicaid, social security. those will be the big spike in the federal budget over the next 10 to 12 years, how do you deal with that? guest: medicare and medicaid you can apply a similar approach because we are talking health care, health insurance just different populations. the elderly versus low income individuals and the disabled. and then obamacare of course expanse that definition. i think the key here is to implement market-based reforms. get the private sector more involved. it's every year the government accountability office reports in proper payment rates, then by far the largest rates are medicare and medicaid. certainly those are some of the biggest programs. to some degree, you do expect that, but i think that to expect the federal government to run a

health care system for a nation of 300 million individuals is just too much. congress can't possibly exercise oversight over this and i think we are seeing this in those numbers. host: the white house is going to argue they are not operating the health care system, they are ensuring you have private health care to get the care where you will go. guest: for medicare and medicaid, the government actually runs most of it. medicaid is on the state level but medicare produces centers for medical services and they handle those payments. there are some seniors that have private plans, either in addition to traditional medicare or medicare vantage. that is a we want to extend because you do see real savings. i want to come to social security as well. it is paid for by payroll taxes, has its own designated set -- funding source, we should look at that program on its own and make sure that is solved because what it should do first and foremost is protect seniors from property and old age.

-- in old age. it does not actually accomplish that as well as a good, so i would like to discuss bipartisan reforms that strengthen benefits for those seniors who truly need those benefits and we can pay for that by doing more testing. millionaires who really don't need those benefits can receive less so we can make sure that others are taken care of, but what we should avoid is raising payroll taxes because they already conceal more than 12% of labor incomes. that is a very high rate and very difficult, especially for low-wage workers to save on their own for cars, home purchases, college education, or their own retirements. to the extent that we can give workers more control over their own health care and retirement dollars will be better off as a nation and they will be better off as individuals. host: one idea that has been talked about extensively -- extensively over a period of

time slowly increasing the retirement age to 67 or 69. people are living longer, should we do that? guest: no. i say that you are right on average -- on average, people are living longer. people in the bottom half of the income distribution are not living longer than they were as people in the top half. by increasing the retirement age, it is going up to 67, well it was to be phased in to go from 65 to 67 over a period of 22 years. it is now 66 and will be going up to 67. i think one of the problems is if you end up increasing the retirement age, it is going to hurt people in the bottom part of the income distribution. host: let's go to pat in

huntington, west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. this is the best show on tv. there's three issues in the budget that everyone is concerned with. that is road ridges, infrastructure, military, and the deficit. we have packed that with revenue and there are two don't of revenue, passive income that people take axis on which there is no labor extended for an active. income that people are taxed on that people are in by the sweat on their brow and pay their taxes. in our country, the passive income is taxed the least. i live in a town called huntington, and it has been distorted three times by floods. in 1937, the corps of engineers built a flood that has protected us since then and floods have been in the news here lately. i will leave you with this

little parable -- there was a little settlement on a riverbank and an entrepreneur came to that town and built a big business. he employed a lot of friends relatives, and how people. but then there was a long waged weather forecast that said there would be flooding, and the people decided that they needed and access levy to get materials to protect themselves from the wall. so they came to the business man and asked him for a little more than his 15% and he said i will not. because i already pay more than your share on my lower tax rate during so the rain came and the flood descended, the town was destroyed, and they all fled to the bluffs beside the little town and watched as their city was destroyed. i asked you, who had the most to lose? thank you, sir.

host: thank you for the call. guest: the income tax is highly progressive about the top 10% to about 60% of income taxes -- 68% of income taxes and are about 45% of income earned. you have the payroll tax that falls disproportionately on workers and that is about 15% when you look at medicare and social security share. in terms of passive income, perhaps the caller is thinking about capital gains, dividends, that type of income. i would just like to remind everyone that we do tax that money twice. first at the corporate level and then again once it comes to the shareholders. so the 15% rate and attire for certain higher income individuals, that is a second layer of taxation after taxing that income at the highest in the world, corporate rate combine the federal and state level, it is over 39%.

so when warren buffett says he pays less in taxes than his secretary, that is simply not true. it is misleading by looking only at one layer of taxation when we ought to combine the two. host: we will go to top in new jersey on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i love your show. i have a general question regarding trust funds generally. correct me if i am wrong, but i went over the years that including medicare and medicaid trust funds, i have learned and i have read over the years that democrats and republicans both have taken money from these funds and use them for other things other than what they are supposed to be using them for. if this is correct, will you let me know. and if it is still happening, why are there not lost from preventing this from happening. i don't mind paying taxes, but not of my tax money is going for things it is not supposed to go for. guest: yeah, so there are two types of government debt. a public debt born in credit markets that makes up about 13

trillion of the 18 trillion national debt. the other 5 trillion are called intergovernmental debt. that is what the caller was referring to. where government agencies have borrowed from trust funds for other spending. the biggest share of that $5 trillion is the social security trust fund, about 2.82 in dollars. so during the time where payroll taxes where greater than what was needed to cap benefits congress borrowed from social security to pay for other priorities. now we are at a point where payroll taxes are falling short of what is needed to pay, so congress has to find money from either other areas of the budget or unfortunately, it tends to be the case for often by borrowing money to repay those special issue treasuries that have been borrowed from the social security trust funds. host: the white house has said with the unveiling of the republican budget to congressional and i am paraphrasing, basically, don't

even think about raising sequestration levels for the defense department without focusing on domestic programs as well. guest: well, i'm am glad the white house ended up doing that. they ended up increasing budget authority for discretionary spending by $70 billion, half would be for defense spending, the other half would be for nondefense discretionary spending. guest: there is no sensible link between domestic and defense spending other than a political link. that is the idea that you try to build a coalition to expand government to get both sides to agree to a spending increase. that is exactly why we have the budget control act and sequestration. to put pressure on that dynamic and say, it is not right to continue to all this -- to do all this deficit spending so you can pay off our -- your friends and we get there are friends.

ideas that national defense should be based on security obligations and are on our national defense strategy. domestic spending, a lot of it should be done state and local levels, which is what the house budget is trying to do. steve all those functions back to their appropriate levels. in fact, defense spending has been falling. it is now below its average historical level and domestic spending both on entitlement and other domestic programs, has been going up. that type is purely political. there was no reason that to need to go up or down together. host: our focus is on the republican budget plan and reaction from the white house. we are here with the heritage foundation and tom herod -- tom hungerford. karen is joining us. good morning. caller: good morning. nobody is discussing entitlements. we can talk about potholes, we can talk about medicare, but nobody is talking about entitlements.

nobody -- there are no politicians who have the courage to address the entitlement budget. there are people on social security who are disabled from age 38 for a bad back and there are people on social security who never contributed. never contributed. there has been people who put money in and there -- and they put in twice and they're collecting social security. there is nobody that is leading there is a nobody that is having the courage, all the cure about in the congress is being reelected. they care about their wealthy funders to fund campaigns and there is absolutely nobody talking about entitlements. pretty soon, that is all the budget will be about. entitlements and defense. the potholes will not get filled and no other part of government will be done because all we will have our entitlements. they are not addressing and i think it's dishonest for them to not talk about it.

host: karen, thank you for the, and we will get a response. mr. hungerford? guest: well, we need to do something about the potholes. that is definite. i agree that members of congress are not talking about some entitlements. social security is not going to be taking over the budget. it will end up going -- growing a little bit as the baby boomers kind of move through the system. it's certainly a manageable program to take care of. i think one of the things that everybody realizes is that with the growth and entitlement spending, mostly in the health care. i -- i think what we need is health reform. not health -- not government health reform or private sector health reform, we need health reform that we spend an awful lot of money for health care in this country. almost double what many other countries do out of per capita basis and are household outcomes

are not as good. people live longer in italy. they have a more doctors and more hospital beds. per hundred thousand people living in italy. they have lower child mortality rates, so we put a lot of money into health care and we could probably cut that back. how much the nation spends for health care. it would involve health care reform if you just end up squeezing medicare and medicaid ok, it will pop up somewhere else. either it will be increase cost on the private side, increase out of pocket expenditures or people going without health care. host: do you want to respond? guest: yeah, overall 51% of the budget went to the major entitlement programs and those are the health care programs, medicare, medicaid, and social security. what if you added other government benefits.

you are looking at 70% of spending going to some fort of transfer program -- to some form of transfer program. national priorities are shrinking. i disagree that social security does not pose a problem for the budget. last year alone, the payroll tax shortfall was $70 billion. over the next 20 years, that will rise to $350 billion in annual deficit financing that will be necessary to be -- to pay benefits. plus, the disability program its trust fund will be exhausted before the end of 2016. congress has to look at this program and has to consider reforms. today, one in 20 americans in the working age population are receiving disability benefits and unfortunately, many who enter the program with marginal disabilities during an economic downturn get trapped in the system and never returned to the workforce. we should focus on people who can work helping them return to work. host: budget meetings will

continue. wednesday, the fbi director will be before the house appropriations and subcommittee. thursday, we will hear from jeh johnson, the homeland security secretary as he testifies on capitol hill. this past week, i shared an extension with ashton carter the defense and congressman randy four. >> what did me back is when you said you supported the president position to veto any bill that did not do away with sequestration because you do understand that the president's position is that he would be -- he would veto any bill that does not do away with the position not just for national defense, but for everything else. do you understand that is the presence position? >> i do. >> so what you are telling as secretary of defense, you would be prepared to support a veto that would end up to devastating national defense to which the president could also give all the funding he needs for epa, irs, and all other

non-defense items that he is proposing a budget. is that your position? >> what we need for defense, congressman ford is truth is we need stability -- >> i don't mean to cut you off but that is not a question. i just need to have you tell this committee that as the secretary of defense you coming in here today and saying that unless the president gets a full sequestration taking off the limits of spending that he had on epa, irs, and public nondefense matters, you would rather have a crisis when it comes to national defense funding? >> no. >> then would you support a bill that this committee would pass that would do away with sequestration for national defense only? >> no, i would not. i will till you why. we need relief from sequestration across the board. every other manager of an agency in the government -- >> you are not managing these

other agencies. you are coming in here today telling us that you would be prepared to accept a crisis for national defense unless the president gets the funding he needs for epa or the internal revenue service or all these other programs he has across the country? host: ashton carter testifying on his budget plan. tom hungerford, what is your reaction? guest: i found it rather interesting. when the appropriations bill comes to the president, they will come -- i mean, there will be several appropriations bills unless they wrap it all into one large under bus. if they fail to pass a budget by october 1 of this year. defense spending or the defense appropriations bill usually goes through on its own and then the

others are considered separately, so no. it's unlikely that the president will be sitting in till everything comes in and then says he will veto them all because he did not get something here. i don't think he will do that. he will be deciding to sign or veto the bill's as they come in. no, i happen to agree with the president to eliminate sequestration. host: let me ask about social security taxes because as you know, you are capped out at a certain point and for which americans, it could be their first or second paycheck. one of our viewers a sane remove the cap for social security payments and make the rich a port told month out of the year and not just one week. with that help solve the issue for funding for social security? i think it is like 114,000 --

guest: it is 118,000, you are close. we have to cap and because there was a direct link from what people pay on payroll taxes and what they receive in retirement fund from the program. there are two proposals to remove the cap. one would say, let's just make people who have income greater than $118,000 pay those taxes on all of their income and not give them any greater benefits. so then you are directly untying that link and saying, we are turning this morning to a welfare program and that fundamentally changes the program structure. i think if we are talking about turning social security into a welfare program, we need to look at areas of who should receive the benefits as well. other proposal would give higher income earners unreasonably high social security benefits. $150,000 a year for some high income earners. currently, the max is that $40,000 as to what somebody can receive from social security.

i don't think we should be doing that, giving these excessive benefits. last, on the privacy site, it is only -- italy only papers over the social security financing problem and it alone will not resolve the policy issue, especially over the long run. that would be a small band-aid but if we are changing benefits we are looking at massively higher taxes on all americans to pay for social security benefits and not just on higher income earners. host: a quick comment on your earlier point from the affordable care act from a viewer, saying we had a market-based health insurance before aca and most people cannot afford -- most people could not afford insurance. guest: that is a real problem and the federal government controls about half of all health spending in the country. there are great distortions that result from that. in particular, hospitals will be very clear that they are charging private health companies greater rates in order to make up for the low rates

that they receive from government programs, in particular, for medicaid. when you have the private sector subsidizing health spending which controls such a long sure of the health care market, you end up paying higher prices than you should. that makes health care less affordable for the average american. that is why we need health reform. host: we will go to bill joining us from new york. thank you for waiting on the republican line. caller: thank you. great show this morning. you know, unfortunately, we have become a country of special interests. as somebody who pays my own insurance -- paid by insurance for 20 years, i got the infamous letter two years ago during the off my insurance, which i really felt was very adequate for myself and my family and moved onto obamacare, which resulted in a tripling of all of my costs. and not necessarily bringing down my premium.

what we really have to look at is not how do we squeeze millions of people into a corrupt, overpriced system. the question is how do we lower the cost of health care in this country? there is so much corruption in the charges that we are paying here. you know, in western europe, i looked into this is now i have it. her. i found out that in western europe, the average cost of an mi -- mri is just under $300. the average cost here is a little about $1200. we literally are paying to take times more for everything related to our health insurance. -- two to eight times more for everything related to our health insurance. it is the actual cost of the services. host: bill, thank you for the call. tom hungerford? guest: actually, most of the health plans in europe are

public health plans. somewhere along the lines of medicare and medicaid. host: which system is better? guest: well, let's see. i mean, it is hard to say which system is better. i think i like many of the european systems because i like the idea of the lower cost. one of the things to keep in mind is their costs are also going up. technology is changing in health. even the health market in the united states is changing dramatically. it is becoming more and more concentrated. i was just -- i live just down the street from georgetown university and georgetown university hospital is now run by georgetown -- not run by georgetown, it is run by medstar. and medstar runs many other hospitals in the washington area. so what you see is a concentration. it is hard to find a doctor in

private practice. they seem to be -- my doctor is part of medstar. he is not -- he is an employee of medstar. not in private practice. health care is one of these things that there are a lot of proposals out there, and i think we don't know how to solve the problem. i mean everybody thinks they do and there are very different ideas. we have every different ideas on this, and i think we are focusing -- health care is a problem. we need health care reform in this country. it is just that we are not sure exactly what works. our attention goes elsewhere. host: to my question earlier about raising retirement age, a reaction from a tweet saying, there are so many people like

waitresses who work 25 years and cannot work any longer construction workers, what happens to them? what about the issue of a long-term increase. maybe making it to 68, 70 in the next 20 to 25 years. guest: i think we should index of the retirement age to life expectancy. it is currently going up slightly in the social security program. keeping pace with what has been happening to longevity. the medicare program is still stuck at 65, but we should increase that age at least two magic social security retirement age. -- two magic social security retirement age. after the question of what happens with people with labor-intensive jobs, i think we should be concerned about that and we are. that is why we have a disability program. and individuals who are currently cannot work until 62 or 66, they are supposed to be able to get benefits.

the benefits they need and deserve from the disability program, which they also pay for. but that means we need to make sure that those benefits are available for those who truly need them. we also should reform disability program because too many individuals are waiting and very long lines and unfortunately some of them die before they can ever receive those benefits, so we need to reform the disability program, but that should not stop us from a dusting the retirement age -- adjusting the retirement age to keep up with longevity because recently cannot afford to pay ever-increasing benefits as people are living longer and keep the agent stuck. host: another viewer saying the retirement age as arctic on it. -- has already gone up. guest: in 1983, it did not faze and until 40 years later and that increased the retirement age from social security from 65 to 66. it will go up to 67 i the end of the decade. even so, we have workers today

who will spend 40 years working and 20 years or more collective retirement benefits. when social security was first set up, that was not the case. life expectancy at 65 was 13 years for males and longer for females. now life expectancy continues to go up and what we are seeing are people spending a larger portion of their lives collecting those benefits than was ever intended and the program since he cannot finance these long-lasting retirement. host: final point for both of you, do you think, tom hungerford, that this republican commerce will have a budget in place by october the first? guest: no. well, one of the things this just passing this budget resolution which is not long, on the house side, there are some more serious problems. there are doubts that it will get out of the budget committee

because there is this tension between the defense hawks and the deficit hawks. in may spillover in the next week when the house resolution does hit the floor of the house. if they can't even agree on that, and then there is some differences and maybe some differences between the house and the senate. this is all going to spillover into the appropriations bill. my guess is we will do what we have done in every other year. we will have a continuing resolution and may have one appropriations bill passed by october 1 or shortly thereafter. i think a lot of them, it's going to be between october 1 and the first of the year. host: i will give you the last word. guest: so the house budgeted pass the budget committee, but there are some challenges as a comes to dealing with national defense. there are great to -- concerns that the low levels are

underfunding military capabilities and will make it more costly in the long into address security risk. but there is a war funding account which is being exploited to get around the budget caps. for political reasons because the president is holding the line on keeping spending low so he can get domestic spending priorities. how will this affect the budget cycle going forward? it will be interesting to watch. i do know there are great interest in passing individual appropriation bills, but i am also not confident that we want to end up with an omnibus or entering resolution at the end of the fiscal year. host: to both of you, to i first sharing your expertise. -- thank you for sharing your expertise. enjoy the rest of your sunday. thank you. carl meacham will be joining us in a moment. the president saying that venezuela is a national security threat. is it? what does that mean for foreign policy in that part of the world? you are watching and listening to c-span's "washington journal"

on this sunday, march 22. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> now isis rears their ugly head and this army is very shaky. we should not be surprised by that. you can't undo decades of soviet air and saddam era stuff with eight years. especially when you taught them on nevada where they will have u.s. advisors and partners with them. afghanistan, according to the president's announcement, we currently have about 10,000 troops there in a training and advising will, but we will draw down to 5000 down to almost zero the year after that. i would warn that we will probably see a similar result to

what we saw in iraq when isis attacked. the army will be very shaky without u.s. help. >> tonight retired army lieutenant on the failed u.s. strategies in iraq and afghanistan and what we should have done differently. tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span "q&a." >> monday night on "the communicators," we met up with a reporter at the consumer electronics show. what is led stand for? >> organic light emitting diode. oh led and led refers to the backlight system. using the backlight to color liquid crystal displays and this one is actually using the individual oled particles as a source of light. they can be turned off and

turned on independently. with an led, you always see some kind of light sweeping through. to my eyes, this is pretty amazing, right? this is ok and oled which is to buzz was at the show and have been for a few years. this is sort of the holy grail of tvs. monday night at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to turn our attention to venezuela and joining us is carl meacham who spent 10 years on the staff of senator richard lugar. graduate in new york and columbia university and now with csis the center for strategic and international studies. let's and lets agents put in place by the president, why? guest: i think there were a

series of issues that led to this. over the years, you have had protest, violations of human rights. you have had issues having to do with famous women not being cooperative with regards to narco trafficking with the united states, and you have had, in general, the economy in venezuela is spiraling. the political situation is spiraling as well. i think there is a fear that without that deteriorating situation, the upper countries that rely on venezuelan assistance are also likely to collapse if the venezuelan situation worsens. host: what impact -- did the late president hugo chavez have on the impact of venezuela? guest: he was one of those iconic figures who was larger-than-life as far as his charisma. he had a vision of a country that basically was established

to provide an alternative to the united states. the relationship between the two the countries was that -- was an aggressive one. he needed the united states and the united states had his imperial country to sort of demonstrate that he was different from the u.s. i think that without that sort of relationship it was an adversarial one. he is not as relevant, so hugo chavez basically wanted to be sort of the outgrowth of fidel castro. the evolution of fidel castro. in today's world, and he needed the united states as the bogeyman to be the bad guy to define himself in that situation. host: his successor, president maduro, what can you tell us about him? guest: very different from hugo chavez. he does not have the charisma

nor the support that hugo chavez had within his coalition, as well as with the venezuelan people. he is struggling to keep his coalition together. you are seeing that now with what he is trying to do in order to maintain some sort of order. and that comes with issues having to do with patronage -- for instance, the military. there are more members of the venezuelan military in this government than the has ever been and this is a way of keeping the military close and keeping it under control, so he can keep his power. host: we will get to calls and comets in a moment. our phone lines are open. 202 is the area code. 70 48 8000 for democrats. 748 8001 for republicans. carl meacham is here for the top of the hour. tells about the country. oil is the leading expert, but what else does it produce? it was the demographic. guest: oil is probably the biggest sort of export that it

has. it also produces a different products, agricultural products, as well as other products that have to do with other commodities but i would say that energy is the biggest export and the economy is pretty much linked to that export. you are seeing right now how linked it is because of the price of oil has a decrease in a major way. with it, the economy of venezuela. it has contracted by the present. and in that situation, it is getting worse and worse. it is not a diversified economy. evidence of that is what you are seen with economy collapse. host: the latest round of sanctions aimed at venezuelan officials announced by the white house this past week and the politics of sanctions against countries became part of the debate here in our nations capital. here is senator marco rubio, republican from floor to. marco rubio: last -- late last

from the president signed a law allowing the united states to deny visas and freeze assets of human rights violators of venezuela. lastly the president apply the sanctions to several human rights violators. these sanctions are not against the government of venezuela. these sanctions are not against the people of venezuela, nor did it aimed to deny the people of venezuela any thing. these tensions that the president has imposed tonight no human rights -- known human rights violators a chance to use the money they have stolen from the people of venezuela to enjoy luxuries here in the united states. these are sanctions also deny human rights violators the chance to travel freely to the united states. faced with an economic contrast of the and do public support woodrow has tried to use the sanctions to deflect from problems and aly people around anti-americanism and nationalism. he has gotten as far as to assert a claim that the united states is preparing an invasion of venezuela. he has tried to play -- place

the opposition in a position of either supporting him are being labeled as traders. let me be very clear. the future of venezuela belongs to the people of venezuela to decide to be with free and fair elections. the u.s. has no interest or plans of imposing of what direction the free people of venezuela freely choose. the purpose of the sanctions is only to deny corrupt officials and human rights violators opportunity to buy homes, make investments, and vacation in the united states with the money they have stolen from the people of venezuela. host: the comments of senator mark o -- marco rubio. he saying the sanctions don't go far enough and they need to be deeper and broader. guest: there is a lot of discussion in regard to that right now. the use of the sanctions has -- as a scalpel versus the use of the sanctions with a machete. the right way to approach this, i believe, the way the administration has talked about this, they are targeting

specific individuals that are accountable and liable for the human right abuses that occurred during the protests last year and had great. -- last year in february. i think this is the right approach and the senator was very good so far as singling out these are not sanctions that are occurring against the country of venezuela. there's a lot in so far as folks reactions about the use of these sanctions. mr. madero is trying to use the sanctions saying that united states is sectioning the country and the response should be to feel as if the united states is basically attacking the country when this is the furthest thing from the truth. he isn't using this to sort of distract venezuelans away from the problems they have with economy, with the political situation. to try to unify them behind when enemy and the enemy being the united states. host: i guess is american programs director for the center

for strategic international studies. in addition to his work at the center of formulation committee on capitol hill, he is a veteran of the commerce department. let's bring in our viewers and listeners. tim is joining us from rhonda. good morning and welcome to the program. caller: thank you particular call. i am generally against sanctions. i hope the president is applying these sanctions to certain individuals, but sanctions -- they were started by george bush's father. when they sanctioned said on and then they sanctioned this country in this country, but it is usually just has a bad effect on the people. we were against sanctions -- we had sections against cuba and it had did no good. -- and it has done a bit. sanctions are something that it just don't work. it just leaves other things and the, it will be putting troops there and next it will be this.

and we can't control other countries. i think we need to focus a lot more on money that is being stolen from the american people. the health care system, let me finish, please. in the health care system, there are so many ways that they are taking our money. you have rich people who are getting superrich and they're not paying their fair share. we control one fourth of the world's wealth. we have one fourth of the world's opposition. we are a very rich country. if we allow people to come over here and get away with not paying taxes -- host: you were getting off track, but you made interesting points early on and we will give our guests a chance to respond. qr for calling in from wilson north carolina. guest: i think that whenever our country decides to impose a

consequence on some violation in this case, human rights violation. people come out and ask if the way we are behaving is the most effective or not. sometimes it sanctions work and sometimes sanctions don't work. in this case, given that really nobody has said anything in the region, other countries in the region have not taking a stand as far as what is happening in venezuela. and really what is happening in venezuela #3000 arrest luster 43 deaths, -- 3000 arrest last year, 43 death, the you and high commissioner for human rights has urged the release of political prisoners, one of them being a gentleman by the name of lopez who has been in jail and made an important portion of caracas. i think we have reached a point where silence is really not an option anymore and since countries in the region are not talking about this and it is not

being dealt with him but is rather it is consistent with who we are at the country to take a stand and to try and come up with a way of dealing with this issue. host: tim's earlier point about relationship. a close relationship between fidel castro and raul castro and president maduro and before that hugo chavez, as we try to resume more normalized diplomatic relations with cuba, does what happened in venezuela impact that i don't? -- impact that at all? guest: it does. there is something that is happening in april 10 and 11 -- host: the president will be there in panel. guest: that's right. i think he wanted to go in and turn the page on this cold war approach to the region. the sanctions against cuba and that cold war approach. he wanted to go in being able to showcase that this normalization

that they had decided to go on is really the turning of that page. the sanctions on venezuela make that a little harder and i think having to justify that sort of muddy water is with regards to a message that he wanted to show going into it. host: let's go to michigan. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i'm interested in asking carl if he has any knowledge on whether the current president of venezuela, maduro, is in fact a citizen of the country or is he from another country, in which case, does the constitution of venezuela support that view? guest: there has been a lot of circulation with regard to his origin. i do not have specific information that would conclude one way or another if he is colombian because i think that

is the allegation. that he is a colombian and that he was born in columbia. i would note that a lot of the issues -- and this is a very personal list of situations with venezuela --, because people are really sort of very polarized in venezuela about this. it could be that he is not venezuelan, but i don't think there has been any specific information, not that i know of, that supports that contention. host: from springfield, missouri, daniel is next. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my concern is to military relations. earlier you had mentioned something and i was not aware, so inc. you, that there are more military forces in the civilian government than ever in venezuela. it host: is that true? guest: yeah, there has been an increase of not just promotions

from military into government, but also the system of patronage that exists right now in venezuela is really focused on maintaining the folks that have been brought in, loyal to president maduro. the head of the congress is tight with the military and he is one of the leaders of the government and he has sort of been a key member, making sure or advocating that approach. medeiros had to keep these guys close so he can feel that his coalition is strong and that is a string -- a dangerous proposition because of things don't go well, there is an alternative power structure within the government that is dominated by the military. a lot of people are fearful of what could happen if medeiros government is to collapse. with the military take his place? host: the national security threat this passage was announced on venezuela.

jose joins us from bakersfield california. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is why is it that when it comes to venezuela and mexico, everybody knows there is a lot of things happening in mexico and there is a double standard. if you could answer the question, thank you so much for taking my call. host: thank you, sir. guest: mexico and the united states have a very different relationship than that of venezuela in the united states. with mexico, we have a clear framework for relations nafta an initiative that is a joint framework to combat drug trafficking. it is an initiative that it there to strengthen the mexican government's capability to fight against transnational crime.

we share a lot of cold rules -- coldrolled similarities as well. the highest number of hispanics in this country is mexican, over 60%. it is a big difference on the situation from venezuela. on the other hand, venezuela is not here on human rights issues, issues with counterterrorism, narco trafficking, and we are in an adversarial stand up with venezuela. oil has sort of been an important part of that relationship for many years, but with the fracking revolution that we have had in this country and the increase of hydrocarbons being produced in north america that relationship has decreased as well. host: in addition to his work at the department of congress, carl meacham also worked at the cuban affairs bureau at the department of state. john from new york city, good morning. caller: hi, i want to know what the problem with venezuelan oil

will have on other parts of the country that venezuela subsidizes through their oil discounts, such as cuba nicaragua, some of the caribbean countries. what effect is that going to have on these countries? guest: i think that is a great question. venezuela has been able to provide discounted oil and other financial assistance to countries in the caribbean and central america through something called -- i think the big fear and a lot of the concern that exists in the u.s. government is that the venezuelan government may not be able to continue its commitments , to keep its commitments to these countries. and if they are not able to provide these countries with the discounted oil and other sort of financial assistance that these countries may sort of feel the brunt economically and be in a very difficult situation.

that is a very real concern. cuba has been venezuela's latest sort of -- biggest sort of a grilli they have benefited from the large -- they have benefited from them. many believe cuba's interest in normalizing relations with the u.s. had to do with the fact that it no longer feels comfortable or trust that venezuela is going to continue playing the role that it has played for some time in the venezuelan and the cubans felt they needed to diversify the relationship with united take and not to end in the same relationship needed in the 1990's when the soviet union could not pay for cuba's building more. host: i will follow-up on russia in a moment. first, ronnie from new haven, connecticut. good morning. caller: i think it is

instructive that people know that the united states orchestrated a coup against venezuela under chavez. i think that is where their fear comes from u.s. establishment. also, chavez was very good to the people. he raised the poverty standards used oil revenues to help the people. i did see three panelists on charlie rose, for experts, and they were not necessarily chavez supporters, but they all said that the human rights issues there were very minimal and actually not even related to the establishment, so i went to point that out. host: thank you for the call and the comment. caller: in regards to the economy, inflation in venezuela is 50% and scarcity is very high. there are lines to go into supermarkets and when people get into supermarkets, there is in food on the shelves. so far as the crime situation it is really gotten worse. 25,000 murders a year on average. it is viewed as the most corrupt

country, according to transparency international, the most corrupt country in latin america. and with regards to human rights, political prisoners are there, and and this is the u.n. commissioner on human rights coming out with this determination. it is not the united states. these are just the figures. so when you look at the facts, it is very difficult to sort of not even get into the conversation about how poor the situation is. you might have had a situation early on -- and i think hugo chavez did include people in the process that were not in the process, but the administration of the country and it was, you know, thrust into this very poor economic situation. the country's oil industry was driven into the ground. so you have for sure a conversation that needs to be had about what it was like before chavez and maduro and

what it is like after them. host: our last call comes from connecticut. eric, good morning. you got the last word. go ahead, please. caller: the top percent of american wealth is by the 1% ours and since our human rights event violated monopolies and they are taking over corporations and it is hard for small businesses in america, the breakup of the unions, is there a coalition between their corrupt government and their people and what is going on in america? host: thank you sir. we will get a response. guest: i think that is a tough one. not that i know of. i don't know if there is that type of relationship with labor or with different cooperatives. what i do know is that workers in venezuela don't really have this situation that a lot of their rights are being protected. i think that now more than ever

relationship between the government and the government's employment of individuals -- and that is based on if they are believers in the voluntary and revolution. those are the people who are getting jobs now. people that oppose that are not the ones who are benefiting from jobs in venezuela. host: let me follow up on an earlier conversation about soviet union and russia. we learned this past week that the north korean leader is going to travel to russia in may. you indicated the close relationship between venezuela and russia. with president clinton trying to isolate himself and turning to north korea -- was president putin trying to isolate himself entering to north korea, where does that put our relationship with north korea and russia? guest: when you have countries like russia and venezuela, there is an interest in projecting their ability to do things internationally. these countries now find

themselves on the periphery. that is really is on the periphery in latin america. rush is on the periphery locally speaking so they are looking for opportunities to show that they matter and have influence. the russian situation is crumbling from within, economically. so that is a difficult proposition to leave and and i think the venezuela situation is similar. will they be able to make trouble? sure, but it is a situation where these countries and body the period that they had before where they were on the russian side, we had a bipolar world and in venezuela, venezuela was a very, very strong country just 10 years ago influencing other countries in the region. are they able to do that today? host: could we see more sanctions by the administration towards venezuela? guest: i think this is the line demonstration has chosen. the people that were sanctioned

and targeted were not the seniormost ranking officials in these departments, so i think the administration has left itself some room there. i think this is the approach that will be taken. host: carl meacham thank you for being with us. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning as we do every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. 4:00 for those of you on the west coast. maya macguineas will be joining us to the long term growing debt. ted brightest will be joining us and has been looking into the u.s. government and just what is it centering. finally, daniel will be joining us to look about federal payments for the deceased. you might have seen that on cbs's 60 minutes a week ago in a hearing the covert on the issue. that is tomorrow morning on "washington journal." thank you for joining us on this sunday and i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. "newsmakers" is next. have a great weekend. ♪

>> next, newsmakers. men -- tjehen joseph clancy -- host: our guest this week is representative adam schiff of california. he is the top democrat on the house intelligence committee which also become part of the gang of eight, the top house and senate leaders who get the most secret intelligence briefings. he is also serving on the select committee on the benghazi investigation. thank you for being here. adam schiff: it's a pleasure.