and molly o'toole on where the presidential candidates stand on national security issues. pres. obama: as your commander-in-chief, i believe this mission is vital to our national security interest to prevent attacks against our citizens and nation. host: we are taking your reaction to the announcement that thousands of troops will remain in afghanistan even after the president leaves office. no good options on the table, and it hands off the afghan situation to the next president of the united states. here is how to take part in this edition of "washington journal". if you agree, call this number.

disagree, call this number. or ave a separate line, special line for afghanistan war veterans. if not by phone, you can weigh twitter,ial media, facebook, or send us an e-mail. new york times, here's what peter baker writes this morning on all of this. obama's afghan shift is tied to the iraq meltdown. as he described factors that went into his decision, the one word that president obama did not mention on thursday was iraq. his years ago, he stuck to plan to pull out only to watch the country collapsed back into sectarian strife and a renewed war with islamic extremist. ining a similar situation

afghanistan, mr. obama has decided not to follow a similar course. goes on to write, whether keeping a residual american force and iraq would have made a difference is a point of contention, but the president chose not to take a chance this time. ofseeking to avoid a repeat the iraq meltdown by keeping 9800 troops in afghanistan next year and 5500 after he leaves office, he abandoned his hopes of ending the two wars that he inherited. finally, while not openly lessons from the iraq with a draw, mr. obama drew an implicit distinction by emphasizing that the new afghan , unlike the baghdad government in 20 11, still supported an american military presence and has taken the legal steps to make it possible. the line forwa on folks who disagree. good morning, >>. caller: good morning.

host: tell us why you disagree. caller: i feel it is not a comforting anything. we need to bring our troops home. they are outnumbered there. i also disagree with his policy facee next president will different situations. i'm totally not for for what is going on there. as far as training troops in afghanistan, one of the journalist was saying that there are hardly any troops and trained and our troops are outnumbered there. i believe we need to bring that 9000 to 10,000 back. host: thank you for calling. more comments, more details, usa today. thousands of troops to stay in afghanistan. a force of 9800 will remain year. it will drop to 5500 and 2017. today. usa

the washington times look at it from this angle. generals half of requested afghanistan force. wall street journal, obama drops afghanistan exit plans. pressures mounting at home and abroad, escalating insurgent violence, including assault by taliban militants who temporarily seize control of the nduz and aity of ku deeply uneven performance by afghan forces. concerns at a steeper u.s. withdrawal would make afghanistan vulnerable to extremist, as happened in iraq, with islamic state military after theilitants u.s. drawdown there in 2011, also influence mr. obama's decision. rod on the phone now, the kabul bureau chief for the

new york times. good morning. thank you for joining us. tell us more about what led up to this decision and the conditions that made it so. caller: there have been a series nduzncidents in the ku debacle. the american commander went to washington to testify before congress and make an appeal to president obama to let him have more troops and keep troops. he got at least part of what he wanted. it is not nearly as many troops as we have had here before. see how they think they're going to do the job with 5000. what has the reaction been like in afghanistan and elsewhere? caller: there is a sense of relief with officials that were

not going to stick to the plan that would have reduced forces, just enough to protect the american embassy. there is also a concern that they need to do something dramatic to change the balance here, which has not been in their favor very much lately. one of the things they are doing is recruiting more and more irregular militias, which gives them more manpower, some of whom are devoted fighters, but also raises as an error return to the civil war days when there were numerous independent militias that ended up fighting one another after the soviets. remind us again what the current set of u.s. troops have been doing, and moving forward in the next year and beyond, will their role be changing significantly? role willthink their stay the same as it is now unofficially. -- officially,w but more or less it has been

secret, not announcing a publicly, but increasingly what they are doing is fighting the difficult fights for the afghans when they get into trouble. they are helping to bring air ofport and a certain amount ground forces as ford air controllers -- as forward air controllers. and sending units into the fray when it is necessary to turn the tide. z. have seen this in kundu it has happened frequently this year even though combat operations have ended, but the president gave permission to continue during the sorts of operations in cases of other than p or counterterrorism operations. host: a little bit more about the reaction in afghanistan. is there way to gauge the mood of the entire country right now ?ith mar

ofler: there are a lot afghans voting with their feet, leaving the country. comens have 3000 miles to through worse conditions to get there. entire towns imaging of their men because they do not see a future. host: what do you think the mindset might be of the people that the u.s. troops are battling with, knowing this issue with afghanistan and u.s. troops will spill into the next u.s. administration? the talibanink probably expected that. they have always felt that we have been doing more than we say havee doing, and they never taken our promises or claims that we are leaving seriously. i don't think at this point that

it's going to make them more willing or interested in engaging in peace talks. there is no sign of that so far. perhaps that will change. howperhaps that depends on keeping this number of troops here, how much they can really effect on the ground, and that is a big open question. host: what will you be looking for in the weeks and months ahead now that the decision has been made? don't think we will see a big change from the american side right away. i think what we are looking for is how much longer the taliban are able to prosecute the fighting season. it's getting late in the year, starting to get cold in parts of the country, but they have shown in the last couple of years that they continue fighting through winter. if they do that, it will put a lot of stress on afghan forces and society. host: the kabul afghanistan

bureau chief for the new york times. we appreciate it. caller: glad to help. host: some reaction at facebook to the president's decision. mr. president, you are making causedve because you this mess and putin is putting you to shame. you knew about isis way before it happened. you pulled out of iraq. you laugh called a jv team, romney tried to tell you that putin was the biggest threat to america. you were laughing in his face. now who is the clown. cuba -- best two-term president in american history. facebook.com/c-span is where you can leave a comment this morning. us ofgton post reminds afghanistan war debts, as they regularly do. the total number of deaths since

2011, 2365 fatalities. 1850 and hostile action. in nonhostile action, 515. those of the numbers in the washington post this morning. editorial page talks about obama's afghan reversal. is to be commended for changing his mind on all of this. he has been building a reputation for being impervious to counter argument. here he listened to his generals. in aes on to write that remarkably wary and announcement, mr. obama said "as you are all well aware, i do not support the idea of endless war." irony is that mr. obama is likely to be queen endless war" in the middle east and afghanistan to his successor. "ins likely to bequeath

this war" in the middle east and afghanistan to his successor. wall street editorial page there. jim is on the line from oregon. why you disagree with the president? caller: and i on air? host: you are. caller: and i on air? am i on air? this is something the republicans have been trying to get obama to do since he has been in office, go back to war, because he said he did not want to be at war, and that was the subject to bring people home, but because the republicans have fought and tried everything they can do, if you watch morning joe, you will see that morning he can runy thinks the country from the television pressure -- ite

doesn't matter what the president does. if he had called them all out, that guy that just got finished talking would have been against him, because he pulled them out. it just doesn't matter what he does. the republicans want to -- you us what was so clear to these guys really want, that is to defeat the president anyway and anyplace. they just want to stop him. their whole intention is not to help him do anything, and the truth came out about and ghazi, so -- and they were talking about russia. if the president went to fight russia, putin has done all the wrong stuff and he's continuing to do the wrong stuff. host: let's get some other voices in the program. the phone numbers to call in. if you disagree, call this number.

jim, you agree with the president, why? he is listening to the generals, which every president does, things change as they go along. he got us out of iraq, and he was right to do that because he never should have been there in the first place. afghanistan is a different matter. we went in there with good reason and good cause, to get al qaeda and deal with the taliban. and if we support the afghan government and they agree to not hold our soldiers criminally , iraq was demanding

soldiers be under the law. thing theg the right warmongers and the right wing will it assume that criticize him no matter what he does. host host: james, you disagree, why? caller: president obama falsely took the nobel peace prize, and he's expanded the war, done some of his own as well. him,e person who succeeds i find that ironic, since she .as more experience thank you for calling.

here is steve. the u.s. military cannot stabilize every primeval corner of the planet. bring them all home. here's a statement outlining vision and strategy. well the combat mission may be over, our commitment to its people endure. as commander in chief, i will not allow afghanistan to be used as a safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again. our forces therefore remain engaged in to narrow the critical missions, training afghan forces and supporting counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al qaeda. of course, compared to the 100,000 troops we once had in afghanistan, today fewer than 2000 remain in support of these very focused missions. i meet regularly with my national security team, including commanders in

afghanistan, to continually assess honestly the situation on the ground. our strategywhere is working and where we may need greater flexibility. i have insisted consistently that our strategy focus on the development of a sustainable afghan capacity and self-sufficiency. when we have needed additional forces to advance the goal or it needed to make adjustments in terms of our timetables, we have made those adjustments. host: you can watch the president's remarks any time at c-span.org. here's the washington post. hope for afghanistan, the editorial page, bound to reality , mr. obama will allow some troops to stay beyond next year. they say the flaw and the revised plan may nevertheless be too few troops in place. the president said he would maintain the president -- present force of 9800 for most of 2016.

his successor may find that a maye 40% smaller than that not be adequate to manage the combine threats of the telegram, al qaeda, and the islamic state. the president will inherit a functional u.s. mission on multiple bases that can be adjusted. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with the president. you are done right. for all you tv and newspaper generals, you know who started this war? president bush. he was keeping that area stable. dowent in like we always looking for oil and unstable lies every middle eastern country out here, and now we want a brain -- blame president obama for? excuse me. that is what you always want to look at bush as never ever being a president.

this pandora's box is never going to close. you're never going to stop who are willing -- a war where people are willing to die for alla. a small amount to go back in gradually is the right thing to do. weneed to make sure that look at this and make sure we are doing the right things, and the general's new that they had to keep this war going because president bush started something that is never going to end. i think the president is doing the right thing and making sure that he puts a small amount of contingency back in and do it gradually. he might just get this war to him before he leaves. you know what? the newspapers, if they want to be generals and go out and fight, maybe they should get their kids and go and fight. thank you. host: augusta, georgia on the line for those who disagree with the president. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: you bet.

caller: i'm coming from the background of having noncombat limits in afghanistan. i can say that this war should have ended quite a long time ago. the leaders of this country had a chance to ended early, from 2001-2005, many opportunities to do so. andook our eye off the ball utilized the resources another aries and did not want to finish the job -- and used the resources in other areas and did not want to finish the job. businessmen could make millions and billions of dollars off of it. host: douglas, what you make of the argument that if there were no u.s. troops there, afghanistan would again be a potential major threat the united states? caller: i don't think that it would be a threat to the united states particularly. i think ill be a threat to the region.

however, the united states cannot involve itself all over the world in trying to prop up crept -- corrupt governments throughout the world in order to protect the homeland. we need to bring them troops home and prepare them to fight in the places where they need to fight, where we actually need to use them in order to protect the homeland. this war has been going on for 14 years, way too long. lives have been taken and broken because of this war. host: douglas, thank you. akron, ohio. her shot agrees with the president. good morning. caller: good morning. .- were host: tell us why you agree with the president. caller: i agree with the president because there is too much evil over there.

going to takeust over the whole motherland of isis to whoever the whole country over at one time to russell out any deaths that may cause us sneaking in china have any, tactics to disarm or minimize an enemy. iti think it should be just is because there is one body already in it that's keeping going, so stop an empty out the whole thing and it should be over with. host: akron, ohio. to twitter, we will be there until we run out of money in a decade or so. facebook, make no mistake about it, this is a drug war. afghanistan is the number one exporter of heroin in the warning. their economy depends on it.

poppy fields are is prevalent in afghanistan as pine trees are in the united states. unless the world comes up with a better alternative for the afghanistan and pakistan economy, we will never leave. the paperson in today. here is the new york times editorial, graham decision on afghanistan, mr. obama's decision to keep roughly 9800 troops there in a year rather than drawing down to 1000 by the end of 2016 as the white house once intended, comes amid taliban advances in other alarming changes in the region. while mr. obama shipped is disturbing and mena put afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options. maryland is on the line. go ahead. caller: yes, i support the president. one thing that a lot of americans don't know, he is the guy that gets the first 10 briefings of everything that is

going on around the world, bad and good. first-hand briefings of everything that is going on around the world, bad and good. host: what does that mean to you? caller: he makes decisions based on that. he is the guy that gets to see what is going to happen, and if he say's it and something goes bad, we all blame him. so i think it is a good thing that russia came into this whole fiasco. taliban andut the how you call it isis started bombing, making suicide bombs attack come and russia, and give america a break. want some bl's to go over there and see what's going to happen. every time it is america. host: do you have an opinion on the number of troops. it would be 9800 for now, and going down the 5500. you have a sense of whether that

is enough. some are saying it should be considerably more. caller: no, i mean, it's enough for now. he's doing what he can strategically. he can't go against his generals. iraq, we shouldn't have been there in the first place. war, when he inherited the he had to do what he had to do. he made promises. he got into office. he thought it was right to get troops out of iraq. going toknow what's happen. he cannot control everything around the world. judgments based on the fluidity of the situation and the best intelligence he can get. that's the only thing. he has possibilities. he has to take care of the american economy. we understand.

thank you for weighing in. we want to get some other voices s frome, including thoma humble, texas. caller: i don't disagree. he is stuck in a bad situation. the best way to stop them is to defund the taliban. you have to nationalize the ultimate crop there, put it on the open market. then you have to bring the justice department in to make sure the cost overrun in afghanistan don't go over hand -- don't get out of hand. he is kind of stuck in a bad situation. thank you. host: that was thomas. a little bit more from the president. a couple of minutes. this is the president again from yesterday on his message to the afghan people, military forces, and people here in america. obama: to the american

people who have suffered so much. the commitment to a unified afghanistan remains firm. formed aations have strategic partnership for the long term as you build your country. today is a reminder that united states keeps our commitments. to our men and women in uniform, i know this means that some of you will rotate back into afghanistan. with the end of our combat mission, this is not like 2010 when 500 were killed and many more injured, but still afghanistan remains dangerous. brave americans have given their lives there this year. i do not send you into harm's way lightly. it is the most solemn decision i make. and thehe wages of war

wounded soldiers i have visited in the hospital, and the relief of families. chief, iommander in believe this mission is vital to our national security interests in preventing terrorist attacks against our citizens and our nation. and to the american people, i know that many of you have grown weary of this conflict. as you are well aware, i do not support the idea of endless war. i have repeatedly argued against marching into open-ended military conflicts that do not serve our core security interests. given what's at stake in afghanistan and the opportunity for a stable and committed ally that can partner with us in preventing the emergence of future threats, and the fact that we have an international coalition, am firmly convinced that we should make this extra effort. in the afghan government, we have a serious partner who want

-- wants our help. and the majority of the afghan people share our goals. we have a bilateral security agreement to guide our cooperation. and every single day, afghan forces are out there fighting and dying to protect their country. they are not looking for us to do it for them. host: back to your calls now. pennsylvania agrees with the president's decision. hey, tom. caller: good morning. i believe we should withdraw totally. how can we -- host: i think we lost tom. dennis from buffalo, new york. caller: i am a vietnam veteran. that we have a president who thinks before he shoots. basically we started in

afghanistan to go after bin laden, and we have successfully trapped him in the mountains. it was bush's crew anxious for the oil and iraq that called off and, it was more concerned about oil than anything else. thank god obama is in support of it. he cares more for the welfare of our troops that he is commanding. he is treating them like human beings. we have to realize that that area has been in war, and religious war, for thousands of years. he put us back in afghanistan. that is where it should have been originally. that is where we should have stayed. they got for our president. i am in agreement with him. the house and senate stay out, but reaction is coming in.

way on theonded this president's decision to slow the list trawl, he is concerned number of troops is insufficient for the mission. for lease is on the line from new jersey. -- police is on the line. caller: hello. it has been a long time to type talks to you. you are aging as i am. you still look very healthy. i am impressed with your face, not eatingke you are all the french fries. i am so proud of this man. , i am something last week a budding artists, i'm coming out at whatever my ages right to, because i'm going to try

go back to 52. an early, in my mind if someone says you think that you may be coming on this day, we'll see what happens. if soviets to know how old i am, it is just a number. that he is doing what he is doing, but i wanted to end, because i do not like war. i am a peacemaker. but, this is one thing i have heard, if they call for peace, it is set in destruction. more,think i want to hear but i do not want to see children killed, because the mothers brought them into this world. it is a terrible thing that we have to do. i am sorry. i'm so sorry. anyway, he has to do with the men did, because they know what

has to be done. leader of the whole thing. the world has to depend on was going on over there. the generals have to tell him this is what we have to do. he is obeying what they are saying. that is what he is doing. so, i am proud of him. i'm proud of michelle. want to ask a question, maybe this. my tears. pictures of the first lady? are there any around? do they hang the pictures? host: hang them where? caller: anywhere. i am looking for pictures of martha and michelle. martha washington to michelle obama come the first ladies are

the ones that are behind, they are suffering with the husband. they are delighting in their joy, where other portraits? host: go to our website. c-span.org we did the series of the first ladies, and you can see a lot there, including portraits and video. we appreciate your call. thanks for being patient. we hope you call back again at some point. that was luiz from new jersey. some people on twitter disagree with the troops having -- people of troops in afghanistan. in theut 12 and is left segment. we want to bring you some other news. at politico they had this is atne, hillary clinton the ebony testimony. what it is, is a meeting they are having today. her campaign has slammed the house committee on benghazi.

this is another tactic in their plan to go after hillary clinton. also -- alsorwoman worked for clinton. thursday the committee circulated a background memo that confirmed her appearance that investigators only asked about libyan policy and invents related to the 2012 attack. the campaign accuse the panel of playing politics. particularly, because the committee rarely announced the importance of what happened. the campaign also said abbott, who was working part-time at the as limited attack

knowledge about the events surrounding benghazi. that was in politico. we will continue to take your calls on afghanistan. there as limited knowledge about the events surrounding benghazi. is plenty of other items to talk about. one of them comes from the wall street journal. they say that when it comes to campaign money, candidates are regular cash very quickly. the super pac standard role does not alter the equation. the story, at least at the beginning has been this way. the 2016 presidential candidates in both parties are burning through their cash 25% faster than in prior elections. despite the expanded role of super pac's. new is according to disclosures. for current and former candidates who released and fundraising details on thursday evening they had a midnight deadline. spending 67% of the funds they raise through september 30. doing the same thing in the past two elections the average rate

was 54%. is according to echelon insights. back to a store on hillary clinton. we have new numbers for you. cash for clinton towers over the gop field. the story says the republican presidential candidates called 140 $4 million in the third-quarter quarter of 2015. the vast majority of the money flowed to a handful of campaigns. into theis stratified haves, have-nots and the hopeless. paid bothinton parties 33 million. no other democrat had even $1 million. that gets to the republicans later. we want to talk about the dennis hastert story.

if you missed the news on dennis hastert it, apparently a plea deal is of the work. the federal courts are reporting. >> explain what is going on with the plea deal. what is happening? it looks like he will plead guilty to something on october 28. read a status hearing yesterday. it was in chicago. .is lawyers appeared we had a couple of these now. since his arrangement he has been coming to court. the judge has been trying to get a sense of where this is going. he wanted an answer yesterday. they gave it to him. they asked a judge for the

hearing where he can change the plea. expectation is that he will be pleading guilty to something on october 28. we do not have the details of the agreement. we will get a copy of that on monday. we probably will not know for sure until the day of. remind us of the background on this. the u.s. attorney in chicago unveiled it back in may. lying to the with fbi. he is also charged with accounting structured. withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars. he lied to their reporting requirements.

the back story to that, apparently was that he had agreed to pay $3.5 million to known only as individual a comment to keep quiet about some kind of past misconduct --t he had allegedly something he had done to this person in the past. we have had sources come out and allege that it was some kind of sexual misconduct by mr. hastert. they did back to his time as a teacher. have, they have call the lakes unconscionable. they complained about them to the judge. they said this amended his , that has in a way really been an issue for them. there was a crucial filing deadline in the case earlier this week.

his lawyers said they prepared a 37 page motion to dismiss the indictment. it would have contained allegations of government misconduct. they are reported to watch and see on tuesday. with that deadline passed it kind of signals everybody that they are looking at a guilty plea. we did not know that for sure. untiln't know for sure thursday. host: what was the same like their yesterday? that he speak at all? caller: he did not appear yesterday. he has appeared on court since june 9. the judge has been waiting for the appearance. attorney only appeared by phone. it was an anticipated hearing.

we will reach a turning point in this case. it was called that these judges have lots of cases they need to call. it happened quickly. thatastert's lawyer said they have a change of the plea hearing. he expects of a written plea agreement. and they said they can get a graph by monday. that was it. it was very fast. , there was a crowd of reporters in the hallway. his lawyers have not said much. spokesman waseir surrounded by reporters and trying to get a sense of what this means. course, as has been the case

with the indictment, would you not have many details. one reason people believe that he wants to plead guilty is to avoid a trial. he was willing to pay $3.5 million to keep something a secret. if the case went to trial, that secret could come out. john seidel, federal reporter. thank you for the update. caller: thank you. host: as a we have some more news. in case you have not heard usa today said there will be no boost and benefits for seniors. social security will not adjust for the cost of living. seniors who million will not get it for the first time in four decades. social security will not make its cost of living adjustment. usl street journal tells there is a modest goal for

health care sign-ups. the obama administration issued a surprising bond for the 2015 coverage. there was an acknowledgment that the law may reach for the third sign up hearing. the plan for the law starts november 1. instead, hhs will have a target of 10 million people who played an average of -- through healthcare.gov. increase fromm the 9.9 million people who engaged in their premiums on june. you can read more on the wall street journal. we want to remind you that c-span's education team is on the road for the next few days. they have three social studies conferences. have association for middle level education. teams will be showcasing our

free educational resources including in the classroom. coveragepromoting our at the new series on landmark supreme court cases. so, for more information at c-span free resources their middle and high school social studies teacher, please visit c-span classroom.org. coming up in one minute, former indiana governor mitch daniels who was the president of purdue university will be here to talk about education issues and politics. later, will talk about efforts to rein in wall street. the president of a group called better markets who advocates those policies. we have more calls ahead. we will be back. >> every weekend the c-span

network will feature programs on books and history. editorial cartoonists describe their experience covering the george bush administration. and sunday afternoon at 4:45 an event honoring the life of margaret thatcher on what would have been her 90th birthday. live this saturday morning beginning at 11:00 on c-span2 the 20th annual festival from austin texas featuring interviews with authors including h w brand and his latest book of president reagan. harriet washington and how we can catch mental illness. dennis ross on the relationship between the u.s. and israel from truman to the obama administration. coverage from the festival continues at noon with

author michael white on the terror group isis. a discussion on i official intelligence. mark linden and labor jones appeared on american history tv on c-span3. saturday afternoon just before on0 historian phil hartman the relationship to president richard nixon in the shaw of iran and the effect on u.s. foreign-policy. and sunday evening at 6:40. thege mason university on confederate flag in its history in relation to the legacy of slavery. get our complete we can schedule at c-span.org. c-span prevents death presents landmark cases. whiche to the series explores supreme court decisions including mulberry versus madison. brown versus the board of

education, miranda versus arizona and roe versus wade. landmark cases the book features introductions come back roads, highlights and the impact of each case. written by veteran supreme court cases and published by c-span in cooperation with the cq press. is available for 8:95 with shipping. get your copy today at c-span.org/landmark cases. >> washington journal continues. mitch daniels the current president of purdue university. we also member mitch daniels is the former governor of indiana. the budget director, welcome to the program. college costs, college debts. we have had prices and debt

reaching $1.2 trillion. drink students and former students. for most it is, i do think we can say for all. it is a very legitimate question. one that you do not usually here. 10 years ago it is very fair to ask. the cost went up. in the economy that has gone up faster than health care. of, meanwhile, the quality what some cities have received under the microscope does not look good. the bigger craze of life is value. quality divided by cost. numerator and the denominator have come under scrutiny. i think it is appropriate. host: dealing with things being overpriced.

what you doing to meet these concerns? caller: we meet them head-on. where attentive to quality. beenr education has not asked to be accountable for its results. we're measuring the growth of students intellectually while we have teameds, up with the gallup organization for what has become the benchmark study of college graduates of all time. that has allowed us to compare oil makers, they have done well. on the cost and, we froze tuition two years ago. we have continued that phrase. we are halfway decrease in the four-year freeze. this came after 36 straight years of increases. it sounds like a lot. your the same pattern every school.

and we have worked to lower the cost. bedroom and board. we help our students lower the cost of textbooks. issequently, the total cost lower than it was years ago. i do not think there are many schools that can say that. total student debt is $50 million. that is 20%. we hope we can continue to moderate that. thatll i can tell you is we are still having an expensive investment. it is our job to make sure that it is a worthwhile investment for those who make it at purdue. host: we have 40 minutes. we are with mitch daniels the governor of indiana. phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen. we'll get to your calls in one moment. what has present wishon meant to schools budget?

host: we are doing fine. caller: westerly to pitch in. most of our higher paid administrators will gladly have pay increase. we look for the economies involved. in fact, we are ready to get one of the bigger and pieces of higher education last year. so, it can be done. but, we do places students first. we're very conscious of this. we are land-grant school. we open the gates of higher education beyond the relief. and be on the wealthy. where are determined to continue doing. will to be accessible and affordable to students. host: there is a piece of the

wall street journal while back. we wanted your take on the first part of this piece. of heisel seniors are trying to figure how to pay for college. what matters is how you go to college. caller: there is a growing body of evidence written on this very subject. about has all sorts of validation. the idea is that a superior mosttion is available at universities. but, how a student approaches that opportunity is a pivotal point. if he or she takes tough courses , and they have a good spread of

courses, and he or she is strike up at least one or two relationships with faculty, for guidance and advice, and mentor immerse, did he or she themselves in at least one or two leadership opportunities, or extracurricular opportunities not just dabble, but they have some level of serious involvement, a lot of research is showing that these activities are correlated with success in my. it is those sorts of things. i think an important book the new york times is called where you go is not who you with. it gets to this. it demonstrates that pain gigantic sticker prices for what looked like a prestigious name guarantees nothing. in fact, sometimes you get a really bad bargain.

college debt and cost. we will about the federal debt. here with mitch daniels. let's get to the calls first. republican line. charlie -- jackie in virginia. thank you. i'm 28 years old. i will be 29 superior first of all was a thank you for taking my call, a recently graduated not too long ago. i got a pretty decent paying job. i'm just look around of people my age, and what they expect. i've noticed a lot of people like the government should they have a misdirection on how to apply themselves in college come our what to go for. i would to community college, i graduated with an aas. i landed a job. people, theyot of go to the college that is more

toular, a lot of them tend go to universities, thinking that will get them farther. i can tell you, that is not the case. really, if you put your mind to it you can go to community college, you can go a technical school. as a trade school or, a specialty school it do not tend to see that. a lot of people go for bachelors in psychology. they end up with a business degree, they have no direction. i know a lot of people. i used to work retail, a lot of people graduate with these bachelor degrees n and of working retail. it is a big issue. i appreciate you taking my call. i shall to let viewers know that you have to find something that provides a service or trade. go for it.

congratulations to you. example of someone who has found and created value from your education. peopleely, for a lot of community colleges or some sort of skilled trade learning it may absolutely be the best route. it is always more affordable. as you say, it may be more applicable to the real world. it is absolutely true that, for instance and -- a talented electrician will make more money right out of school and throughout a career then a median liberal arts graduate. so four years of college, the way we have always thought a notitional college is necessarily the best answer

forever. it's like you are off to a good start. congratulations. host: we also want to mention the role of community college. communityw that colleges are big part of the answer. they could be first at. as in his case, they may be just the right launching pad. they have got issues to deal with themselves. success rates are not good. of student rates loan borrowers are extraordinarily high. so, quality is an issue. the right student at the right college taken the right courses can get a very good start in life. we go to indiana were zachary is on the independent line. he is a purdue alumni. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a few things i want to

say, thank you for that. and following some of your recent testimony, the guy before particular regarding income share agreements, there were some talk about having to change some of the regulation regarding student debt. the question is that what you see with the regulation change is making the income share a possibility. estimation and when those kinds of agreements, a sample contract or something will be available. i know a lot of people are interested in reading that. past was a, in the couple of years ago talk about the pajama test regarding higher education. if there is a place for having some online components, it's your view of quality education somebody can receive. there is a lot out

there. thank you. host: before the governor answers, you can read a little bit about what he wrote in the washington post about that. thank you very much. these are all great questions. let me deal with them in turn. income share agreements, for those who do not know much about them might be, we do not know, might be a good introduction -- addition to the menu. , these will be a preferable alternative to some students. simply put, they are a contract. i would think about it as an equity investment in which an investor or, maybe a pool of education or the part of the education for the student. contractst then freely, or has a negotiated or

snow their income for a number of years after school. and, the reason i think this is interesting is that it shifts the risk from the student. if you get a student loan you are on the hook. you will probably never get out of it even in bankruptcy. out, ifs do not work the student turns out to be less motivated than he or she appeared to be, it is the investor-owned hook not the student. i think of working your way through college after college. you have some certainty. the student knows they will a few centsre than on the dollar. the status is that we think is interesting enough that we want to try and fried out if there's interest among students to find out how it works. we will be out as early as next spring.

first two or 300 students will come in. 300.3 standard -- 200 or many people in congress think this might be an improvement. or an ice -- addition to today's portfolio option. republicans and democrats have teamed up to address things like the non-applicability of state laws. uncertainty. they want the market to have a trial to get going. the pajama test is a phrase i concocted to describe the following challenges. a lot of very smart people who have raise a lot of money are saying to potential students why do you want to go do that? you want to live someplace for four or more years, pay a lot of

money, just stay home. i will bring the best professors in the world to your living room. actually, for some students that is going to be the best choice. been a part of the nation's largest online educator . come itlled wg you addresses a different audience. typical student is in the mid-30's with the family and career. the technology is improving. the offerings are improving. this is a real challenge that i think those of us with traditional higher education have to be active, as i say in enhancing the quality, and contain the cost. host: what does it cost now? caller: it is under $2000 tuition. it is almost three times that

for out-of-state students. course, i is more expensive for room and board. total cost has come down. years we will get all we can to control it. host: there is a presidential candidate, his name is bernie sanders, this week he talked about his belief that every public college and university should be free. let's take a look. bernie sanders. sanders: i do not understand how in a competitive global economy hundreds of thousands of bright qualified young people are unable to get into college for one reason. family has atheir lack of money. that is crazy. that is counterproductive to the future of america. that is why i am introducing

legislation that i will fight for his president to make every public college and university in this country tuition free. [applause] sanders: it is not a radical idea. tois common economic sense think of that when young people come are people of any age need more education, they should be able to get that education regardless of the income of their family. echoed that realistic -- realistic echoed realistic? caller: it is not. we are in debt. we are funding a massive debt.

it makes for a good pant -- good campaign fodder, but it is something they generally do. no, there has to be a better answer. the biggest, to me misnomer that you hear in this no it is notfree, debt-free comical pilot debt. it is just a matter of who's debt. it will be on the taxpayers. all these very young people, the young people who we are all concerned about, i will give sanders credit for a legitimate concern come up with a talked about it here for 20 minutes. people to setng aside student debt, the average student borrower owes $33,000. he or she knows that that's

twice that for consumption based on people our age. that is the great unfairness that this country will wrestle with for decades. so, i do not think in all honesty that this is the best approach, simply to aggregate that problem. way, thee money by the more government money they pour into higher education, the faster prices have risen. it is very well-established there is a connection. host: democratic caller. mitch daniels. good morning. caller: thank you. idea, i come like bernie believe in free education. it goes like this, say there is a person gets the government pays their tuition for the get their college

education $50,000. ok? can make use of them self. he makes $100,000 per year. he makes $36,000 in taxes this year. how ther, can you see government can make money? they you free education. caller: thank you. in theory, the government is the lender. the federal government basically took over student loan markets. it is a giant bank. theory they get paid back. if everybody who bars money plays a debt plus interest the government with more than breakeven. unfortunately, that is not happening. very high percentages of our

wars are not painted back. and, they just took the biggest write-down and re-estimated it. that is just the beginning. intent. the it does not seem to be working very well. taxpayers are going to end up with a huge piece of the cost of the education. ands hope that productivity future success of the borrowers really is a strong one. then, they will at least be able to contribute to an economy that pays off, even if many of their fellow students did not paid back as they were expected to. host: you wrote the wall street journal that student debt actually harms the u.s. economy. one example is about the percentage of younger people starting to run businesses.

make the connection between a student at an economy. caller: the amount of student debt has exploded. it is more than everything except home mortgages. it is a fairly recent phenomenon. it is mature enough now to where we are seeing some very real consequences. we know there will be long-term consequences that have piled up. issues are that young people are postponing homeownership. that hurts the economy. there are postponing the purchase of the durables that would go into a home, if they had it. there are postponing family formation, getting married. there are postponing children. this nation needs more children. we need more people to shoulder the debts. to pay for the old-age benefits

of my generation and yours. and, yes, now we know that it is reducing the number of startup businesses. that has always been an important part of economic growth in the country. student debt is weighing down on the general economy, it even as taxes ways of the prospects of millions of individual young people. host: we move on to new york. a republican. hello. caller: good morning. nice talking to you. i am sorry i missed the beginning of what you are saying. withne thing i have seen colleges is that they become social clubs as set of places of education. host: what you mean? all kindsey provide

of clubs and intramural sports all kinds of things that are not really education related. they are called quality of life on campus kind of things. i heard of a few young guys talking about discussing community colleges and what they wanted to know is that if community colleges provided intramural basket will. what part of that has anything to do with education? there are a lot of other things going on. of course, they get wrapped up in that, and as i mentioned before, some people should not be in college. it takes him six years. i'm 60 years old. i remember when people actually worked their way through college. as a matter of fact, i myself i joined the military to get the g.i. bill. don't know why this generation thinks everything should be handed to them. that is beyond me. another point, a lot of people

that were wealthy and have good intentions and maybe some ego will donate some kind of gymnasium or something to these colleges. that is nice. it is a visible plant. it is good for the investment. the college as up having to pay for the upkeep of that plant. the eating, everything else that is involved. they get stuck with that part. host: thank you. caller: you are onto to a couple really important issues. there is no question that on far too many campuses education has slipped from the center of the bull's-eye. and, in the words of one author, and to be places colleges become four years of prolonged adolescence. this speaks to the quality that i have referred to more than once. now, i will tell you that at purdue university it is still hard to get a good grade.

there is a very pronounced pattern. you'll be surprised if you not looked at it. the average grade, this is one reason that businesses and marketplaces are having a hard if it meansg out anything. if everybody gets in a had you know who is really learning something? toare very committed remaining a place of rigor. intohas got to come back higher education in some places where it has slipped away. secondly, it is well-established that one reason college cost so -- calledat is caused the amenities arms race. too many schools have been to meeting not only quality of on the nature not and rigor other academics, but on how beautifully dorms are. features, climbing walls. always comical examples. to go outk that has of style.

cost're going to keep the affordable, and concentrate dollars on what matters most. host: we have 15 minutes left. mitch daniels, president of purdue university. former head of the office of management of the white house. congress has lots of heavy stuff coming up. the debt ceiling increase, which causes great debate. the government is on temporary funding. what you think that the fiscal situation? very pretty. not it has not been for a while. we keep hoping that somebody will show some leadership about this. the profits are getting bigger, not smaller. a friend of my coined a great term. he said we are suffering from deficit attention disorder. in other words, people have heard so much about it but they

are tired and kind of desensitized. but, you know they are crowing around this town about the fact that the deficit is "only $439 billion" that is bigger than any deficit we ever saw until a few years ago. the only reason is that small is because the federal reserve kept aterest rates historically unprecedented and unnatural levels. if they were a little higher the debt would be billions of dollars more. it will be. biggergoing to be a lot in the next few years. everybody sees it coming. before, asntioned concerned as we all are and onto the student debt, this is the debt that is going to burn in this economy, and burden the lives of young people of all kinds. risk a very harsh

judgment of history on current generations of adult. if people got sober up about this, they need to speak plainly we not need to blame the american people they have been misled about this for a long time. nobody has told them the facts about what the entitlement programs cost. about how much they are getting back compared with they put it. and about what they're going to me if we do not get about some moderate-long-term changes. host: let me link back to the presidential race. do not have a backup speaker, when john boehner leaves we need to. you aredy in that race endorsing, or you would like to be here in economic area yucca -- area? caller: i will not incident. in my job we are scrupulously

nonpartisan. happily neutral these days. i'm concentrating all of my attention on trying to make our great university a little bit better. host: let's go to new haven connecticut. mitch daniels, democratic line. thank you for waiting. caller: hello. i want to say this, education is not about style. giving the key of opportunity to those who seek it. that by following examples. we need examples of what our present government is setting. they are not very good examples. about theith you

entitlements and so forth. it is getting a lot subject about the debt and the deficit. do not know, if you come i think that is the wrong word. if you take people who work for 50 years and paid into social security, and are now llecting their checks, that is not an entitlement. that is something that you worked for. that is something the government took the money for. as far as education is concerned , i believe that the student dead should be forgiving. wars,found money to fight we can find the money to help our students get ahead.

we can make our country progressive in a civilized world. host: let's hear from the guest. caller: thank you very much. set ofmportant questions. first of all, i do not like the world entitlements either. i thought we should not use it. as far as i can tell, all we are , istled to as americans life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. , includingelse we do taking money from some americans and giving to others, we do as a generous people who are determined that no one should be destitute if we can help it. that is not something we are entitled to. now, you very sincerely have expressed a point of view that is held by a big majority of americans, but it is not true. in fact, the people who created social security, in these programs, they called it the

noble lie. it is to tell people that that is your money. case, you arey getting back a lot more than you put in. it was never supposed to be like that. those numbers not going to an account for you. they are paying for the retirement of the people who were then older. today, that is not your money coming back, it is money that today's workers are paying in. and, that is the problem. there are not enough people pain in to pay the benefits that are going out. the machine is going to tilt. it is not your fault that you believe that. you are led to believe that. it is simply not true. it never was. so, we will have to make some changes. i'm in favor of maintaining your benefits. i do not understand why we send warren buffett a security check. i do not understand what we paid

medical care billionaires. that is one place to start. there are other things you could do. the changes i would like to see made you would never see any change at all. so, we have to something that young people who are paying for your retirement there is something there for them. and 20-30 years. host: joseph from california is on the line. thank you for waking up early. independent color. caller: hello. listen, how much does a chalkboard and instructor cost? we need to reduce everything down to the chalkboard and the instructor. work to thetorial and student and the administrative work by the instructors, nobody else.

college would be very cheap. it would not cost much at all. anybody could go. you are wrong, it can be cheap. it can be free. thank you. nine trimming things down? caller: there are all sorts of costs that colleges run up. people are imposing on their tuition paying students. they monitored under the microscope. we are trying, i'm not a reclaiming, but we found that we could economize on the non-core functions. you describe the core functions are to be teaching and research. concentrate on the sources as best we can. a lot of inertia out there. somebody could get upset about any change that one might suggest. something weutely

believe in. high-quality post secondary education is absolutely possible at lower rates. i think you're speaking loosely we talked talking chalkboards. a lot of modern technologies can help us reduce the costs of education. bring our best professors into the learning of students. but, as you point out the importance of concentrating on our absolute core mission, i cannot agree more. host: democratic caller from virginia. good morning. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i agree in the amenity arms race. making college more affordable. i agree with governor daniels. but, that is where the agreement portion of my call and.

about -- youk played the segment from bernie sanders, governor daniels talked about giving things away for free. free politics, whatever term he used come i see that as a scare tactic. i do not expect your guest to be completely in tune with all of the suggestions and plans of all the presidential candidates, but bernie sanders has specific suggestions which i think a reasonable. about wall street to afer tax, i cannot go convenience store and buy a pack of gum without pay 6% tax. one of the things that is untaxed is the transfer of assets on wall street. that is not taxed. so, other major countries do this. if you look at germany or great ,ritain, something reasonable

half a percent. not even 1/10 of what you pay in tax, a very low percentage can be charged on the transfer of assets on wall street. i think that no matter what you choose to do with the money that is a reasonable thing to do. it is not too progressive. i think that it will bring down that tampered -- the issues of high-frequency trading. high-frequency trading costs the market of tax. host: let's get a response from guest. caller: what you think about it what he had to say? caller: i do not have a strong -- it is not cost free exactly. your 401(k) will be a lot less with these taxes are insinuating. we might leave that alone. sanders proposals so far have been independently assessed

to be about $18 trillion. nobody has any idea how you would raise that money. even if you plow the economy under the struggling anemic economy more than what it is. i do not think that is particularly realistic. his proposal would free this for everybody. there is a way to subsidize wealthy people. they could get more money, leaving more debt to our same young people in order to make college free. i do not think it is a very plausible proposal. i think there has to be a better way. it has to start with people in higher education taking their job seriously of controlling the cost of the product. once again, it each time the government infuses more money into the system you have seen an increase in cost.

the fed says it is $.70 for every dollar of additional aid. imagine if you doubt that much more money in. it to be easier for colleges and universities to raise their prices and pocket most of the money. students cannot be better off. more minutes a few left. i want to get back to the presidential politics. your name that was out there 2012 have a lot of potential. caller: i think it was the right decision for my family. have: it enabled us to your seven and year eight of our gubernatorial service be extremely active and successful. that would not have happened if i had been in the campaign running. we have an interview we did for q&a program. he talks about the decision process and the decision-making process hear any type of campaign that he remembers us take a look. >> the first thing i mentioned out of his mouth when we met in

my living room was he opened to me and he said if i would , iertake this crazy idea would want to do certain things in certain ways. cover not just went. i want an adult conversation with the american people. i want to tell the truth about the fiscal situation. know, what i mean in my position on social issues is compatible with most people. but, it is not a survival issue. we need to solve the fiscal problem first. the national security problem first. i am not trying to talk anyone out of their position on social issues. i want to put it lower on the priority list. he to find that as the social truth. of course, you know, and the

republican party those are fighting words. that is how he felt. that is what he believed. host: the reaction? guest: his memory is accurate. people might that it had a good summation of what was on my mind after i finally gave some actual thought to the notion of running for national office. by the way, if we had tried such i would'vee approached it that way and i have no reason to believe it would of been successful. if you heard him say at the beginning, i do remember saying this often, the whole reason i am doing this is there is no reason doing this if there's campaigning to win. you have to campaign to govern. when i try to do always is try to get as many people together if you can't.

big change requires big majorities. i worry in my country that both des are so divided and trying to draw lines. you might win an election that way, but you cannot solve enormous problems like those that we are already confronting and like the debt problem that i am so bothered by unless you can togetherring americans and realize we've got a lot at stake together. whatever our differences, we have got -- how about we set them aside for a little while and try to find that common ground? otherwise, we are going to do such an injustice to our children and theirs. host: mitch daniels is the president of purdue university in indiana. he is the former governor and that stated thanks a lot for coming back. and they q and a program that we just mentioned will run sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span

with a replay at 11:00. that is one q and a runs every sunday. leftve an hour and a half of this edition of "washington journal." when we come back, we will talk to dennis kelleher a better market he will talk about the role that wall street is playing in 2016, particularly among the democratic candidates. be here toy o'toole talk about the political fallout from the president's announcement yesterday that 5000 troops are staying on in afghanistan. we will hear what the presidential candidates are having to say about national security. we will be right back. ♪ >> a signature future of book tv is our all-day coverage of book

fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. here is our schedule beginning this weekend. we are live from austin for the texas book festival. alliedlowing weekend, we and nations heartland for the wisconsin book festival in madison. at the end of the month, we will be in nashville for the southern festival of books. at the start of november, we are back on the east coast for the boston book festival. in the middle of the month, it's the louisiana book festival in baton rouge. we're end of november, live from the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. and the national book awards from new york city. just some of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2's book tv.

>> a beautification to my mind this far more than a matter of cosmetics. to me, it describes the whole effort to bring natural world and man-made world into harmony, to bring order, usefulness, the light to our whole environment. that begins with trees and flowers and landscaping. aboutybirds bill was beautifying the nation -- her signature issue as first lady. she was a natural campaigner, successful businesswoman, and savvy political partner to her husband, lbj. lady bird johnson -- the sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series "first image,"influence an examining the public and private lives of the women who lady from martha washington to michelle obama. that sunday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> c-span has her coverage of the road to the white house 2016, when you will find the

candidates, the speeches, debates, and most importantly, your questions. this year, we are taking a road to the white house coverage and to classrooms across the country with our student can contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. student cann's contest and wrote to the white house coverage .16 on tv, on the radio, and online at c-span.org. announcer: "washington journal" continues. now is denniss kelleher, president and ceo of an organization known as ever markets, incorporated the topic is wall street reforming campaign 2016. the two have come together recently. first off, what is better markets and what is your mission? markets as an independent nonprofit organization and washington, d.c. and we promote the public interest in financial markets. what that really means is that

whether it is in congress or regulatory agencies or the executive branch, when issues related to financial reform and finance in the economy, which relates to people's jobs, savings, education, and living are on the table, we try to be the voice at the table and be a counterweight to the finance industry, which is trying to bend the laws and rules their way. we try to be there to bend the rules in the public interest of of the public has a seat at the table and a voice in those discussions in washington, d.c. host: what are some the biggest problems from the public perspective when it comes to wall street and the public? isst: the biggest problem the threat that is posed to the united states by the too big to fail banks and activities, largely centered on wall street. we saw that threat come to reality in 2008 when not only did they crash their own banks, they crash the financial system. they crashed the economy and almost calls the second great depression. thele do not realize, but crash of 2008 was the worst

financial crash in this country since 1929. one of the reasons -- and it's not just something that happened back in 2008. one of the reasons that the economy is still in a fairly significant slump and why people's wages are still bad in the job market is taught and many other problems including astronomical deficit by the government is because those are still the lingering effects and aftershocks of that financial crash. the biggest threat posed to the country is this unique threat posed by wall street. it is the only industry actually in the world that threatens the economy and standard of living of every american. markets does is trying to enact policies, rules, and laws that protect the people on main street from the excesses and gambling on wall street. host: put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our guests, dennis kelleher, as we talk wall street reform and campaign 2016. we have lines for the republicans, the democrats, and the independent speed we will get to calls in about two minutes because we have a piece of tape we want to show you,

bringing camp in 16 into this. at the debate the other night, debate, bernie sanders and hillary clinton went added a little bit on this topic. here's a look. [video clip] viewers at home, the glass-steagall laws prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking and those activities. side ancenter standard is once the break up the big wall street banks, but you don't. you say charge the banks more and continue to monitor better. wiser plan better? >> of course, we have to deal with the problems that the banks are still too big to fail. americanver let the taxpayer and middle-class families ever have to bail out the kind of speculative behavior that we saw, but we also have to worry about some of the other players. aig, a big insurance company, lehman brothers, an investment bank -- there is this whole area called shadow banking.

that is where the experts tell me the next potential problems could come from. so i'm with both senator sanders a governor o'malley and putting a lot of attention on to the banks. and a plan that i have put forward would actually empower regulators to break a big banks if we thought they posed a risk. but i want to make sure that we going to cover everybody, not what caused the problem last time, but what could cause it next time. >> senator sanders, the lakeland said her policy is tougher the news. >> that's not true. [laughter] [applause] it is greed and illegal behavior of wall street where so much fraud is a business model and helped to destroy this economy and the lives of millions of people. [applause] check the record. in the 1990's, with all due ispect, in the 1990's when have asked the republican leadership and wall street spending billions of dollars in lobbying, when the clinton

alanistration, when greenspan said what a great idea it would be to allow these huge banks to merge, bernie sanders fought them at helped lead the opposition to the regulation. host: reaction? guest: they are all right here governor o'malley, senator sanders, and secretary clinton all agree that there is this threat posed by this too big to fail banks on wall street and they have to be fixed. they have to be prevented from inflicting the economic damage on the country that has happened. so there more agreement and disagreement among the candidates. it is important to remember though that there are 6500 banks in the united states roughly. what we are talking about is about two dozen that are too big to fail. the rest of the banking community, the 6400 some odd , serve their communities and provide loans to american families and small businesses. we are talking about a unique threat posed by handful banks, the mega banks on wall street,

and secretary clinton and the other candidates are focused on them. there's a disagreement a little bit about means but not in terms of goals. host: bernie sanders did call hillary clinton naive on wall street. here's the hill headline. do you agree with that? she isi do not think naive. i think the candidates are in the middle of the campaign and therefore they have to take certain positions and articulate them in certain ways. including governor o'malley, they understand the threat posed by these banks. i think there is a disagreement on how to appropriately address that threat. i think they are all getting to the same place. it is important to note by the way that we have got consensus on this among democratic candidates and their talking about it. the republicans are largely silent. even this morning, governor huckabee, a substantial republican candidate, came out in favor of repealing glass-steagall. he talked very eloquently about the threat posed by wall street. formerr perry, a candidate, also talked very

eloquently about reining in the excesses of wall street. what that tells us is that they are reading the polls. the american people know that wall street poses a threat. they know it needs to be regulated and regulated toughly and they know that republicans democrats and independents know that it has not been done enough yet. host: michael is up next in queens village, new york for dennis kelleher. hey, michael. caller: good morning. this is a great topic. mr. kelleher, i want to thank you for your work and your reform. i have to ask in light of all the hard work that your group has done, realistically, how do wall street and financial reformers get politicians to actually listen to your type of policy and financial reform? bernie sanders said during the democratic debate that wall street regulates congress. does notcan public understand the financial markets or do not care about the becausel markets

they're worried about having a job in keeping a job, especially after the great recession. thank you. guest: that's a great question and touches on a lot of issues. .umber one -- it's true wall street has an outsized influence on washington, d.c., but that does not mean that that a markets and the american people cannot also influence the process. i will tell you right now that people call a christmas office about an issue that it gets no dispute biggest noticed the entire office and gets brought to the attention of the conga spun. you may could people should not miss understand that they do not have a substantial power. they need to get on the phone and write letters and e-mails. if enough of them get written and say, if you sign with us rather than wall street, right now, and are example, there's a big fight coming up of the funding bills where wall street is trying to sneak it special interest onto the funding bills that have funding for some important things in this country, not just the department of defense and homeland security

fighting against terrorist, but everything from education to health care to science. wall street is trying to hijack those issues and hold them hostage in the next couple of months. if you make an people pick up the phones and call the congressman and 10, 20, 30 of them and one districts or two districts with three districts make those calls, they're going to pay attention to better markets is on the other side in washington at the table, reinforcing that and pushing those views, too. you can make a difference. host: onto colorado springs, on the democratic line. hello there. caller: good morning and thank you for having me. i'm going to try to make this as quick as i can. we canf all, for what afford and what we can't afford, let me give you some actual numbers because i do not think the american people know just what is going on. bank of america's ceo brian madehan coming in 2010, he $950,000. he got a $1.9 billion tax fund.

now i do not get these kind of tax fund refunds. goldman sachs, lloyd lincoln in 2008. paid no taxes he earned over $1,113,000. million in tax refunds. --ie dimon from chase bank well, go to youtube and see what i was the say about jamie dimon. host: what does that mean to you, caller? caller: what it means is that the american people are being fleeced. please don't laugh at me. please don't because i've researched this. i do not take bernie for his word. as far as even the entitlements, what the man before you -- that is not what a constitutional entitlement is. they need to stop stealing our money.

scandal after scandal. yes, we are almost $19 trillion in debt, but we can go to five major departments like the department of state and the department of defense. t -- $13 lost -- l os trillion. when donald rumsfeld was asked about this, he said that it's .ot that the money was taken he set the money is just not there and we do not have receipts to account for it. $13 trillion. host: thank you. a lot of passion and that call. guest: we certainly were not laughing at you. you are right on the money here. when i say money, the pun is intended. problem we have now is this unique threat posed by the handful of banks -- jpmorgan, bank of america, morgan stanley -- those are really not banks. those are huge trading houses and mega firms that are meant to enrich the people, mostly the

top people who work there, as you identify. that is in stark contrast to the other 6400 some odd banks, that by the way, there is an run and atn that is the table fighting hard for those banks. we and then and others are running up against these handfuls of too big to fail banks and the business of making money for themselves rather than supporting the real economy. it is interesting that there is a new book that shows how little of the activities of these few megabanks really go to supporting the real economy, the jobs, the small businesses, and the growth that we need to recover from the massive economic wreckage that those megabanks inflicted on this country in 2008. see you have put your figure on a big problem and that is why we need a debate among the republican candidates like we had among the democratic candidates to first aid knowledge that too big to fail has to be addressed in has to be ended.

they have to protect mainstreet from wall street. host: what to that point -- paul krugman wrote in the new york times today that wall street is waaaah street. if a democrat does when next year, does it matter who wins? retainocrat will likely the reforms of 2010, but major new refunds will be blocked until democrats retain both houses of congress, which is not likely to happen for a long time. while there are some differences in financial policy between mr. sanders and mrs. clinton, they are trivial with the yawning gulf over pumpkins. is there any truth? guest: there is a truth to replicants, but governor huckabee stated quite clearly that he would be supportive of restoring glass-steagall.

glass-steagall was a law that was passed at the great depression that was repealed under the clinton administration in 1999. what that law did is that it separated a traditional banking, chich is backed by the fdi and the government and the taxpayers, from wall street's big gambling and trading. glass-steagall was a firewall between those activities. when you hear governor huckabee and governor perry when he was in the race, and some replicants have gotten to this issue and love it, but there is a yawning gold between the two. only the republicans will catch up. they're looking at the polls so they are going to know that. one other point that paul krugman referenced is the difficulty of getting things done unless democrats also with or financial reformers or people who believe it in congress. i believe that is only partly true. the fact is the dodd frank law passed in 2010 given on this power and authority to the regulators and the executive

branch. if they use that to the full assistant, they can actually go -- full extent, they can go a long wait to every to the to fail and protect mainstreet from wall street. host: let's hear from carry in west virginia. caller: i am absolutely delighted with her guest and i hope he and i will meet in d.c. i'm not one person behind the bill going through congress now. it is bill hr 1098, the investors choice act. what i learned the hard way is that the investor, the in the billsality congress wrote and through the sec, who is the regulator, the sec appointing a soul sro, which is finra. it is truly now documented and papers i'm distributing to legislators routinely. it is not just by phones, dennis. you have to get off your button go to register this test

legislators -- get off your but and go to legislators office in person. i discovered the difference of air garners i can't breathe and quit the willful wall street." that is what i explained to legislators. the cops knew where to find eric garner after his first arrest. of the system and was fingerprinted. his mug shot was taken. he was jailed and he was a felon. he came out unable to vote and became recidivist. wolfwillful wall street -- of wall street," bernie made off, and the countless wall street are's who are disciplined five fines and/or sanctions never had their fingerprints taken. they never became part of the system. howgreater argument is often and how bad are the statistics that even local police are going on in terms of

crimes if they are not being told about a crime. i took time and i read at my the issue of id and ip theft became part of the wall street conversation. i found out, for example, that wall streeters are keeping open er's accountet after they close it. they are assuming that identity. i cross compared people commuted by president obama this coming month. in month-to-month in terms of wall street and main street to show how someone stole $25,000 from a client and did not go to jail. the guy had a little bit of marijuana went to jail for 10 years. host: thanks for weighing in. for this year from dennis kelleher. guest: you raise many good points and i like to start with your first point and that is you are absolutely right. making phone calls and writing

letters and e-mails to your congressman or senator's office is important. but if people like you would get up and go to the local congressional office, the local centers office, or come to washington and knock on the door and sit down with a staffer and look in face-to-face come and say look, i want you working for me, not for wall street, what does that mean? that means -- it's a variety of things and you can go to our website at their markets.com where we talk about many of the bills and provisions that are on the hill. as was the funding fights that are coming up right now. and terrific for you hopefully more people will do that, too. on the other issue, you are absolutely right. there is a huge gulf between law enforcement in this country on main street and wall street. essentially the justice department has created double standard of justice. wall street gets treated with kid gloves and they are allowed to use shareholders money that they get to deduct from their taxes to pay big fines.

the regulators and prosecutors all paying the chest and brag about how tough they are. wall street views it as a cost of doing business and just goes off committing more crimes. there has been a crime spree on wall street for over 10 years that historically high. it is not being stopped. yet on main street, whether it is marijuana or stealing $10, you end up doing time in jail. that has got to stop. there has to be individual accountability and punishment on wall street for the ceos and supervisors having to pay money out of their pocket and they are apart from it. i do want to say the candidates have addressed this -- both governor o'malley and secretary clinton and senator sanders have all talked about increasing substantially, focusing on individuals on wall street, executives, and supervisors and making the field of bite of the punishment of host. host: ben bernanke agrees with you somewhat. he says that more execs should have gone to jail for causing the great recession we are looking at "usa today" there could go to mario.

caller: i like that you said there should be more personal accountability. i think there is a greater accountability that a couple of colors ago focused on. .he fleecing of america since 1979, the outsourcing of jobs, middle class and lower class dealing with issues of job departure and loss overseas. then you have the banks that are too big to fail and you have the and you see a lot of with -- iurvival think it is staffing over the housing laws. their tabling documents and .ourt housing there are court cases where they lose their home and a left destitute. it took one catalytic event to diverge our minds away from all

that and we focused it all on the war on terror. the foreseeable events of 9/11, the preventable events of 9/11, are more of a focus on the 2016 campaign? maybe we should have those brought to focus so we can reopen that and can hold people accountable like the bushes of the world. host: thank you, mario. guest: the job of the president, whoever he or she may be, has two number one priority one obviously is the defense of the nation, the liberty and security of the american people. is in the military foreign policy defense for. the other part of it is the ,efense of the prosperity economy, opportunity, and standard of living of the american people. you are absolutely right. they both need to be done. we focus on the second part in unique threat posed by wall street. you also talked about the cost of that and i do want to say that we put out a cost of the crisis report. we detailed the cost of the 2008

crash of the american people in the country. it shows the crash of 2008 will cost the american people want to $20 trillion in lost production and wealthier part of it is related to what you just said, mario, which is the fleecing of america. that isange to address the creation of the cfp be, the consumer financial protection bureau. that organization created by the financial reform law has been fighting every day to prevent the fleecing of america to stop the financial predators, and to stop these big banks from doing what you talked about and what was alluded to earlier about picking the pockets of investors and consumers. pb is under attack by wall street every day in this town. that is another thing. if people want to call and write their senators, you want them to proveup to the cfpb and

to you that they have concretely and specifically done to stand up to wall street to protect the cfpb and to end too big to fail. host: back to the campaign. twitter wants to know -- follow the money. what candidates are getting money from these big banks and wall street? guest: it is pretty clear that wall street is going all in on the republicans and they did that in the 2012 campaign trying to defeat president obama and defeat financial reform across the board. they were pretty brazen about it. it is also clear in the cycle of they are putting all of their chips on the republican theidential candidates and republican candidates for congress and senate. i want to be careful a little bit. people talk about wall street and finance as if it is all one big thing. it is not. differenta variety of parts of finance. for example at better markets, when we advocate for different policies, some parts are finance

their advantage and some are not , some that are not are the two big to fail banks that pose a unique threat. the other banks -- we are very supportive of them. there are many finance activities that are very important to supporting and growing the economy and creating jobs, increasing the standard of living of americans. it is the complex that you have to look at. if you really add up the dollars, we are really going to the repugnance. host: we have mary from louisville, kentucky on the line. welcome to the program come , mary. you.r: yes, thank very interesting conversation. my, is more on the banking side. we hear a lot about what legislation can be drawn up, etc., etc., to restrain banks and restrict their activity cou. however i have not heard any conversation recently about things that the banks were forced to do by regulators. one thing i want to say in particular is the fact that

prior to the meltdown that banks were forced to issue loans, a certain percentage of loans, to low income people or people who were maybe at a little higher risk. those very people were people who should never have been issued loans. and when the crash occurred, they lost homes. i think in a truly free market in the area banks would not have assumed that kind of risk. those people would have never passed the risk test and would not have been issued loans. guest: that's a very good question, mary. there is this myth out there, largely pushed by wall street and its purchased mouthpieces, that the crashes due to irresponsible low income people getting loans that they should not have received. and the government somehow forcing the banks to give them mortgages and loans that they

should not have given. there is a mountain of evidence andndependent analysts policy makers and authors. there is a number of books that just shows that those arguments are mess and not supported by the facts. that theacts show is wild gambling from the too big to fail banks and other systemically significant institutions, largely in the derivatives market, but also in the mortgage market in the subprime market, where there was massive fraud and you legality. for example, at citigroup, they constantly change and drop their underwriting standards to nothing. actually have no loans where you do not have to fill out documents and they give you a loan. nobody forced them to do that. they did that because they wanted to sell those lines as quickly as possible to somebody else, get the fees, and they did not have any liability for those lines. they got the money with no liability. they were trying to crank out

these paper products that were largely worthless and then they created derivatives to rip off other counterparties and other financial institutions, some of which they cap. it all blew up here. the conveyor belt was based on fraud from the top to the bottom. there's no question that there's obviously some irresponsible borrowers, but the bigger problem is the irresponsible and indeed criminal lenders that created this conveyor belt of fraud. host: patty from yuma, arizona is joining us now -- an independent collar. caller: hello, excellent love theion and i quick to the point responses to things like the banks were forced to give loans to people that didn't deserve them. totally disagree with that. i love the lady earlier who was and was inspiring.

i love your organization because there is action oriented. i think the biggest problem is is -- they cange say all they want during the campaign, but the bottom line is they get away with murder. like bernie sanders said, it is a model for fraud. i see that in americans on main street saying that is how you become successful. that is what country is about. we cannot afford to be having that. to say people like you no, there is an honest way to do that we're going to look out for them. host: dennis kelleher? guest: thank you, patty. if you are right. -- you are right. if we do not rein in the reckless moneygrubbing -- and again i want to re-emphasize a very small number of megabanks. we are talking about two dozen or so banks. it is a little bit bigger if you go outside the banks and senator

-- secretary clinton talked about this shot of facing system. she is right. we cannot just focus on banks. we have to focus on non-banks that pose systemic threats to us. if you add all that up, you're talking less than 50 friends and activities that really we need to focus on. and need to be reined in they need to begun back to the business of what they're supposed to be doing, what their 6400 other so banks doing. that's providing loans to people, small businesses, companies growing this economy, supporting american families, not posing this unique threat which materialized in 2008 that devastated the country could it cost economic wreckage. i want to say again that in our cost of the crisis report which shows this -- the lehman crash in september of 2008. in october 2009, 13 months later, there were 27 million individual americans who are either out of work or part-time

because they cannot find full-time work or got so discouraged that they dropped out of the workforce. it is called the you six rate. that does not matter. later, 20 6 million individual americans, many heads of households. many million americans 13 months after the crash. that is the economic wreckage that was inflicted on this country by these two big to fail banks. that is a unique threat. that is what you make of people have to focus on. host: one aspect to this story -- "the wall street journal" headline has critics pushing back at hillary clinton's proposal targeting high-frequency traders. might as well high-frequency traders are, what they do, and how much money are we talking about? guest: you're talking about tens of billions of dollars. high-frequency trading is essentially -- let me put it this way. in the old days, if you want to traders.com he would call a broker and the broker would call in new york stock exchange specialist and then they would execute a trade.

and it's done by computers nowadays and its done literally by the speed of light. milliseconds moving through nanoseconds. theseousands of a second, traits are executed largely by computers trading with other computers. that is often referred to as high-frequency trading. ,ome of that is good and normal taking advantage of technology development and innovation. but too much of it is being used by predators to take off investors one of the callers earlier talked about how investors are getting hurt. one of the ways that they are getting hurt is by predatory high-frequency traders. secretary clinton, to her credit , has raised the issue in the debate and people need to talk about it. she is talking about a fee on canceled orders, one way to address it. there are number of ways to do it come but the larger point is this. high-frequency trading poses not just the predatory threat to investors, it poses a systemic stability threat to our markets. ares one of the areas that

regulators and of elective officials have not paid enough attention to. host: gerald in new york, democrat, hi there. caller: mr. kelleher, as i see it, congress and the regulators past rules and laws and wall street has thousands of lawyers and there are people wondering, how can we get around? they come out with new programs that.llow a lot is to be passed that you perio change a comma or a d in this love is as far as fully clinton said in the debate, i went to wall street and you fellas cut back, probably in between asking them for donations. people have to listen to stuff like that and believe it. i really appreciate the job that you are doing. host: thanks, gerald. guest: thank you, general.

you are right. congress -- i'm sorry, wall street never perceives a loss as anything but a temporary setback. 25 institutions and washington, d.c. that have been here for decades and will be here forever that were to promote wall street interest day in and day out. they are having congress and the executive branch. most despicably, they are pounding the underfunded, understaffed regulators. on the other hand, they have to work the dark corners of washington, d.c. because they cannot withstand the scrutiny of the light of day. if the american people speak up and put some pressure on the regulators, organizations like ours that better markets are at the table calling them out, pushing the public interest against their narrow special-interest you'd be surprised that we can get done together. we at that of markets have been pretty successful across the board when they have done. you're dead right, gerald.

they're trying to change the commerce and create a loophole and change the lock your there in the dark corners if there is somebody like that of markets pushing back the other way, we have more success than most people think. host: to scottsburg, new york now, chris, good morning. caller: good morning. hi, dennis. how are you? guest: hi, chris. caller: the thing i'm calling about -- so the glass-steagall act was put into place during the great depression to prevent exactly what happened in 2008, to separate the investment ranking from regular banking. thaty would they appeal first of all? and how involved was the clinton administration and also alan greenspan in promoting the repeal of the glass-steagall act? , as youw up on that

said coming a lot of people are asking for them to reenact the glass-steagall act, but furthermore, does the dodd frank -- what does dodd frank do as far as separating the investment banking from the regular banking? does that do anything as far as keeping them both separated? host: thank you, chris. you laid out a lot there. guest: you are very up to speed on this and you should be one of the people calling that congressman or senator on these issues. if they hear somebody like you, they are going to listen. if you get your neighbors to call, that is what to multiply your power. that is going to counterbalance ,all street's interest specifically on glass-steagall. is important to remember that glass-steagall was one law passed after the great depression. one thing to remember after the great depression is that a number of laws were passed, which created layers of protection between main street in mckinley on wall street.

those layers of protection for different kinds of protections. it was regulatory, supervisory, and structural. glass-steagall was the structural piece that put a firewall between the lending and banking and gambling with trading in securities. .hat worked those layers of protections work very well for about 70 years. that is important to remember. controlling wall street is not a mystery. we know how to do it. we did it for 70 years. but you are right. starting in the 1980's all the way up to 2000, the wall street lobby machine, and as somebody else alluded to, the campaign-finance machinery slowly chip away with the regulation and non-regulation. ultimately in 1999 under president clinton, the glass-steagall act was repealed. also, derivatives were unregulated, which was also very important in supercharging and super sizing these banks and causing the crash. so the clinton administration was part of the deregulatory zeal that overtook the country

on a bipartisan basis in the 1980's and actually leading up to a crescendo in 2000 and many of the same people unfortunately are still providing advice to too many presidential candidates. what is even worse is that too many of those people have not reflected on their role in causing some things to change that caused the crisis. that is a disservice to the american people. what. frank does is that it does not restore glass-steagall. it does not restore a specific firewall. it has different pieces that try to get back and put the layers of protection in place between main street and wall street. host: down to last couple of calls. dave is coming from michigan, a republican colialler. caller: i'm calling to defend the opposite point of view for what the fellow is talking about. right now, this country has 90 million unemployed people.

they are unemployed because they cannot solve a real life problems to say this law. e under educated by the liberal left school system call the public school system. when things like this happen and our jobs get shipped off to china and mexico and everywhere, all point southeast and west, we all the sudden blame everything but the majority problem. you're looking at 90 million people. you cannot turn around and going the for the problem. plain the thinkers and this guy and that guy and talk a bunch of gobbledygook in fancy numbers. way, i remember rush limbaugh long ago talking about bill clinton instituting this hedge fund idea. it was your little left do, bill clinton, who brought that appeared here's what you need to do, my friend. claim the real problem on the undereducated of the population. you are writing the children in

this country with your public school system, which is totally destroying their minds. host: dennis kelleher? guest: you did call to represent the opposite view. the facts actually show that most of what you are saying is not correct. of the eight of the cost crisis report, which you can find it a website at ww w marcus.com -- better markets.com, shows unemployment before the crash being incredibly small and it is see clearly you can in the data and the numbers the effect that wall street crashing the financial system and almost causing a second depression had on this country in terms of unemployment, underemployment, lost homes, underwater homes. today, there are more than 10 million homes the united states underwater. mortgages are more than the value of their homes. that economic wreckage was caused due to the unique threat by these handful of these

too big to fail mega trading houses, misleadingly called banks on wall street. there is a pretty clear correlation in the data in the facts that show that. and the reason that we still have a bad economy is because the economic shock of 2008 was sincerst economic shock the great depression. if you look back and you see how long it took to get out of the depression, that is why it is taking so long to get out of the great crash of 2008 host. host: let us hear from the coal in new jersey. caller: my question to you is regarding what we can do as people. what do we do when there are not elections going on? you say call your congressman. i have called every person i can call and basically, if you do not have people that aren't invested in the market, like low income americans, they really do not think that they can make a change. what can we do to get this

glass-steagall act passed during this very, very publicly test media coverage? and all the wall street stuff going on currently and how this loss of deregulation and corruption on wall street -- all of it has to do with what is going on in our nation. irs,ssness, the taxes, the it is all correlated. i wanted to ask you about eric holder and your lawsuit against him for abusing his executive to thenot coming forward american people about that whole case and where that stands currently. host: thanks, nicole. guest: thank you, nicole. we completely understand at better markets how individual americans can feel both powerless and intimidated by this big thing over there called

washington, d.c. and congress. unfortunately, wall street and the special interests and their purchased mouthpieces in the city council on -- count onvia mecca people being intimidated or frustrated by that. it is a perfectly reasonable thing to feel. the american people do not understand how powerful they really are. it is really important to make those calls and write those letters and show up at their office. have theactually ability to show up at events where presidential candidates will be. if you are in new hampshire oh iowa or south carolina in particular, gets a little bit less so later on when he gets the bigger states. you have the ability to go to these can it forms, whether democrat or republican, and ask them what you doing specifically to protect us from wall street? if you think glass-steagall is the way to go, and many people do, ask them why you are not supporting it or are supporting it? call their hand-painted

corridors -- campaign headquarters. 20th 30 calls on an issue -- i work in united states senate for eight years. if enough people make those calls, campaign dollars can be as high as he went, but when real voters from districts are calling in, they are giving equal weight in equal time. the problem is that there are more dollars than american people calling. if we change that, those policies are going to change. host: one last call from new york, it is bill. good morning, bill. caller: good morning. how are you today? i like to make a few comments on glass-steagall. there was at least five major stock crashes in this country prior to 1929. it was franklin delano roosevelt along with joseph p kennedy who andin glass-steagall put a firewall between the commercial and investment thanks. for a collar to say it was bill clinton, a democrat, who would overwrite anything with joe kennedy did is nonsense.

since they eliminated glass-steagall, now your investment banks and your commercial banks caused the crash. the reasonnt is that is there is no jobs is because george bush, junior had jobless recovery from the recession. that is all the republican said. the government cannot create one job. that was on the republicans. ,hey knew that george bush senior set up a deal with china under richard nixon that opened up trade relations with china. it was not about trade. this is not about trade. it's about lower wages and markets in foreign markets. glass-steagall cap this country from crashing from the 1930's to 2000. i believe that was the reagan democrats in congress that pushed congress to pass legislation written by the republicans to eliminate glass-steagall, which was written by republicans. clinton did not have the power to override a veto.

host: he had the reagan democrats. thanks, bill. we do have to get going. final word from i guess. guest: we have a fact sheet on website about glass-steagall for the people out there who do not know it and are not familiar with it. go to www. that are markets.com. -- better markets.com. sheetn search fact glass-steagall and find the cost of the crisis report and many other things. one of the other things is what can we do? you can stay informed and our website does that. we do not just want to focus on glass-steagall. glass-steagall is very important. governor o'malley, senator sanders support it. senator clinton has a different way of ending too big to fail. some people think it is a better way and some people think it is worth the glass-steagall. what people need to focus on is to learn the issues and get involved.

if you do not get involved, wall street wednesday support better markets and pick up the phone and visit your elected officials. find a campaign event and we can change the power and authority disproportionately that wall street has in washington. been dennisest has kelleher, president and ceo of better markets p thinks . thanks a lot for your time this morning. one more segment on this friday possible "washington journal." when we come back, we will talk with molly o'toole from defense one, a political reporter there. from thet the fallout president's decision on afghanistan and how the presence of candidates in general are dealing with national security dialogue. we will be right back. ♪

>> known as the city of good neighborhoods, this weekend, our c-span's cities tour with time cable explores the literary life of buffalo, new york. we will visit the mark twain root in the buffalo and your county public library with manuscripts of "the adventures of huckleberry finn." and then we will feature "against the grain," the history of buffalo's first war. irish people came over desperate from the famine and years after the famine, things were not great. it would take maybe one relative to find out about these wonderful jobs along the waterfront, working in the grain elevators or in the mills. .ork we go back to ireland you want to come to buffalo. you want to become rich, but you are going to have steady employment. they came to this neighborhood called the first war.

its name because when buffalo was first created in 1832 as the city, it was divided into five political wards. this area along the waterfront, the buffalo river, has always been the first ward. onon american history tv, september 6, 19 oh well, -- 1901, president william mckinley was assassinated in buffalo, new york. we will see events surrounding his death and the gun used to shoot the president. then, discover the history of the buffalo waterfront and how it has adapted from the nation's green center to modern redevelopment. >> right now, we are at silo city. this is a collection of grain elevators built along the buffalo river, originally built for different companies, but today owned by rick smith. now being regenerated for many different purposes, for arts, for music. we do history towards what we take people around the grain

elevators and tell the story of buffalo history. there are the optical connections down here, opera, poetry readings, all different uses for the historic silos. >> see all of our historic programs from buffalo c-span book tv is sunday afternoon on american history tv on c-span3. -- c-span cities tour working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is molly o'toole, a politics reporter for "defense one." a big story dropped into our p with the president and afghanistan, changing things a bit with the exit plans. what have the presidential candidates that so far, if anything, about what the president has had to say? guest: most of what we have heard so far is the republican

candidates, which is somewhat unsurprising. and a lot of them suggested that this was the right move. there is a little bit of an i told you so attitude about this. people have been calling for him to extend this timeline for withdrawal or consider it for some time. they're suggesting that 5500 that would remain from early if that is indefinite, that is not been given any deadline as of yet. they suggested that is insufficient and will not be enough. the setbacks that we have seen over the past eight months or so -- this is what occurred with 9800 troops, the current troop level. what is going to happen when we get to 5500 troops? they're suggesting -- good move, not quite enough. host: much has been made of the notion that this effectively hands off the afghanistan situation to the next administration. you expect this to become a big source of dialogue and the upcoming debates? guest: i certainly do, which i think is interesting because afghanistan was not mentioned

once in the democratic debate a few nights ago. afghanistan has been this forgot more. it's america's longest war. obama even made note yesterday in extending his timeline that he had ended the war, or at least enter the combat mission, but it is very clear that the war in afghanistan continues. we are not heard a lot about it on the campaign trail so far, but what this explicit acknowledgment that the war will be handed off, which was still itin the air, i believe that will be much more for presence on the campaign trip. interesting to see if they make specific policy pronouncements on what they will do differently and afghanistan. we have seen president bush and president obama with different strategies for the war in afghanistan. it will be interesting to see how the candidates just what they will do differently. host: molly o'toole is with "defense one" and she is a politics reporter and will be with us to round out the program. we will put the phone numbers at the bottom of the screen. we are talking about the 2016

candidates and national security issues. we have lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. we look forward to hearing from you. i want to look at a piece that you wrote in september after the second gop debates at the reagan library. you talked about 11 candidates using much of their second debate to relitigate the iraq war with each other. it is symptomatic that you write that a national security identity crisis. what do you mean by that term? guest: after the iraq war, i think this is perfectly timely given the announcement yesterday. there was sort of at the crediting -- discrediting of the report imparted it supposed to be a party strong on defense and they tend to emphasize that issue and have it be a central focus. with the bush administration and the war weariness of the a mac in public -- american public, and perceived policy failures of force first and diplomacy second , george w. bush style of national security, we really

the 2008 election of president obama was a repudiation of that foreign policy. that prompted this identity crisis within the republican party could for a few years, they laid low a little bit. with the rise of the islamic state and the spate of foreign-policy crises that we have seen under the obama administration, has been a resurgence of the hawkish tenor of the repugnant party. and never went away, but it has got much latter. there is identity crisis as to what is the right way forward for the republican party as he sort of pendulum on the use of swingsmerican public back toward an appetite for to this anxiety around the rise of the islamic state at some of the events that we have been seeing. host: onto the other side of the aisle, a sampling of what the democrats had to say at this date that they had the of and i could use of the five candidates was asked what is the greatest national security threat to the united states? here's what they said. [video clip] governor chafee, what is the

greatest national security threat to the united states? >> the chaos in the middle east. >> governor o'malley? >> nuclear iran and the spread of isil. >> secretary clinton, greatest national security threat? >> i think would have to be continued threats from the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear material that can fall into the wrong hands. i know that terror arrests are constantly seeking it and that is why we have to stay vigilant, but also united around the world to prevent that. >> senator sanders, greatest national threat? >> the signs in this committee is that if we do not address the global threat of climate change and france port from faisal fuels to -- transform from fossil fuels to renewable energy that our environment may not be livable. >> our greatest day-to-day threat is cyber warfare in this country. our greatest military operational threat is resulting

the situations in the middle east. , kind of a o'toole very responsive. what did you think of it? guest: i think is interesting in that they were divided as to what they saw was they saw as te greatest national security threat but were all unified when it came to going after hillary clinton for some of her national security stances. i thought that was an interesting strategic thing. ,bviously, some had a catchall but you see the greatest contrast between bernie sanders and hillary clinton. she is talking about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nonstate actors, terrorist groups perhaps getting their hands on the material. and he is talking about climate change. that represents the divide between those two potentially, their electability, and how they are perceived on national security, which is still an important issue. host: first call is from brenda from manchester, washington. democratic caller. i am very nervous, so i

need to take a deep breath. this is an issue important to me. i just want to say, my uncle is a congressional medal of honor recipient on world war ii and was very against the war in iraq. live in a high military environment, there is military in my family. my husband and i were considered s by many because we were against the iraq war, but saying that, we have strong support for the military. my husband works in the department of defense. but ourour military, military was sent on a false airman. you cannot blame the soldiers for this. if they had won the more indirect, it would not have fallen apart. therefore, we have to examine, can we really win these wars? and will we stay forever to accomplish this?

i'm afraid that whenever we pulled up, this will happen. that we need to find our enemies, where they are at, so they don't get to us, but it is -- maybe we need to focus more on our own homeland and make sure they cannot get to us. i am so impassioned by this because, how long do we stay, how many do we need to lose? -- lives do we need to lose? i think our president is trying to do what is right, he has , as examples,nues libya and syria, acting and not acting. at least he is thoughtful. calling.nk you for we want to get a response from molly o'toole. the questions you raise are still the fundamental questions we have been asking ourselves since the iraq war, what lessons we draw from that,

and particularly with the rise of the islamic state, american troops going back to iraq, this question is more immediate again, and what is what is the role of u.s. force in the world? where are we obligated to intervene, where should we intervene, and for how long? presidently with obama's announcement yesterday about afghanistan, the 5500 troops indefinitely, a lot of people were asking, how long will we be there? people raising echoes of the non-, and i think these are the same questions being asked, particularly as we go ahead to 2016. what kind of leader do we want? how will they answer this question of how long u.s. forces should be deployed in the world? the claim that we looked at with the different ways that they answered what the national security threats are -- in the way that president obama has taken this question on himself is, what is in the national

security interest of the united states? what is the most immediate threat to the united states? you want to use u.s. force, rather than becoming embroiled in these con x that may not -- conflicts that may not directly impact us. that is why he discussed afghanistan yesterday, and in saying he wants to put troops there longer, he is saying he does not believe in the idea of a forever war, as you look at extending america's longest war, and also doesn't believe in getting the u.s. involved in these long-term conflicts. but he wanted to preserve the gains that have been made, prevent additional setbacks, to prevent afghanistan from becoming that haven for terrorists that could allow them to launch another attack on the u.s. articulating that this was in the national security interest of the united states. host: michael in gerard, illinois. independent caller. caller: thank you for taking my

call. proliferation, nobody is going to give nuclear material to terrorists. it can be tracked back to its location and they would be destroyed instantly. another thing is, why are we protecting other countries for 50 years? we are in germany, south korea, japan. as rich and their economies are booming like ours. i am a businessman, i am a veteran and the head of a militia group. thesee had enough of wasting of american lives protecting other countries. we are in syria now. why? history has shown as no country can take over another country and put down a terrorist uprising. 1980's.tan in the you cannot put your democrat views on people who don't not want them. it is all about religion. get our troops home.

sooner or later, you don't understand the amount of animosity in the streets from us regular people. guest: you may twa interesting points. people suggest we should leave moressia makes -- conduct military action in syria, becomes more involved, as iran becomes involved in syria. people suggest we should just leave it to president putin, let in thisme mired quagmire in syria let him have his own afghanistan, referring to the russian involvement. i think that is sort of the point that you raised, that there is a cost here, not just in american lives, but in american dollars. yesterday, with president obama's revived withdrawal plan from afghanistan, that is expected to be $4 billion more

expensive than the original withdrawal plan. obviously, those numbers seem very high to us, and they are. it is a drop in the bucket when you talk about military spending. there is a cost argument to be made, looking at the basic cost-benefit analysis form where the u.s. should become involved. we don't often hear about the cost, and that is a discussion that perhaps should be had. host: more sampling from the presidential candidates on the president's decision. said, asraham president, i would follow the advice of my commanders and require a condition-based --hdrawal, not an official artificial timeline. , if he is truly committed to fighting terrorism and securing a stable afghanistan, he should not shortchange with our military commanders have said they need to complete the mission. they fiorina called

decision a recognition of reality in afghanistan. chris christie said the president was waking up to the fact that disengaging america from the world and allow there to be safe havens for terrorists is not the right to protect homeland security and national security. cole chester, vermont. hello, i am an immigrant from afghanistan. i moved here in 1981. i used to work with usaid in afghanistan. from my bachelors degree colgate university. i appreciate the united states and president obama that supports afghanistan and afghan troops. i never forget that the united states soldier last year. the afghan people are very brave. they want to fight. they do not let other soldiers fight for them. the only thing we need is support.

that is what president obama is doing. i sent an e-mail to the democrats and i mentioned that. i am grieving. afghanistan has been in war 33 years. children grow up and fight. of 30not the afghanistan years ago. it was a beautiful country, beautiful culture, beautiful streets. beautiful people. they are not talent than. television is from pakistan. unfortunately, we have that neighbors like pakistan and theia that take apart people and make safe haven for afghanistan. america, get rid of isis, it is not enough. we have to find the root of it.

they have to take part in fighting. we have to do that. it is good for afghanistan and every country in the world. host: are you still there? do you still have family there still? my brother lives in germany with his family, and my sister and the rest of the family is all educated. in germany, education is free. government housing is free. health is free. thought moved here, i the united states is a dream country but it is not. student loans are killing students. they are making a business out of students. host: there is a lot there, passion in her voice. it is amazing, your

story, and thank you for sharing your experience with us come in afghanistan, and for your perspective here in the u.s., looking at the continued conflict in your country, and how much the afghan people have suffered. when president obama was making his announcement yesterday, he said he wanted to speak to the people most affected, speaking first to the afghan people. his articulation of the revision to the withdrawal was a demonstration of the u.s. commitment to afghanistan. it will be interesting to see -- defense secretary ash carter talked about this yesterday -- what kind of commitment will continue to be made, whether in troops, funds, as the drawdown .ontinues for our nato partners it will be interesting to see what kind of support is given, moving forward. host: we will hear from ben

carson in a minute. first, karen from littleton, new hampshire. republican caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i will give a question and then i will let you answer. wondering, what are we getting back from afghanistan, for all we give them, and everybody else? we do not seem to get anything back. i do not understand why we keep doing this and keep putting ourselves in debt. and then i want to know if anybody has ever thought that maybe they are capable of taking care of themselves. but they know that we can do it for them, so they can lay back -- actually, i will say this -- they don't look like they know

what they're doing. it's a common thing. that, now they know we will always be there, but we are sending thousands of more troops, so that is less incentive -- you know what i mean? you asked some important questions. in terms of what we get from the involvement and the risk to american lives, the incredibly high cost, which we are all byre of, the articulation the obama administration, defense department as well, is that there are key missions that need to continue in afghanistan. they describe it as twofold. one is of particular importance. counterterrorism. not only against the taliban, al qaeda, which was the main focus , due to their2001 involvement in the 9/11 attacks,

but now we see other militant groups like the islamic state, starting to gain a foothold in afghanistan. they are very concerned about this given the islamic state's stated intent to not only launch and inspire loan more tax against the united states -- lone wolf attacks against the united states. it is kind of hard to prove a negative but president obama said it continues to be important to be there because we need to prevent it from becoming that wefor terrorists saw before two thousand one. in terms of can they do it themselves? an interesting point. we had an intelligence analyst who worked with the military in afghanistan, told my colleague yesterday, after this decision, he is concerned that by sending more troops, by continuing the presence, there is a dangerous overdependence by the afghan security forces on the nato and u.s. coalition, that perhaps

they are dependent, they know they will be there, and that is preventing them from closing these gaps that remain, in terms of taking over. it's important to note, this is the first real fighting season. there are fighting seasons in afghanistan due to the weather and terrain. this is the first fighting season where afghan security forces have had more of a leadership role. so the administration admittedly suggests they have a long way to go. some of these setbacks we have seen -- for example, the taliban and taking the city of kunduz in northern afghanistan. some of these examples show they are not quite there yet, so a good question about whether they can do it themselves and what kind of perverse incentives it may create by keeping troops there. host: here is ben carson talking about syria. is veryieve putin

desperate right now because oil prices are very low. that is what has been precluding his expansionist activity, not us. believe me, it is the economic situation. now, he can get a foothold in syria, and then begin to spread his influence throughout that region. if he can gain control of significant energy reserves, he might then be able to have a control on energy prices throughout the world. that will then embolden him because he will be strengthened to do what he needs to do. we need to fight him everywhere. theeed to be reestablishing missile defense system, i think, in eastern europe. we need to be supplying arms to the ukraine. we said we would protect them if

they gave up their nuclear weapons. did we protect them? of course not. we turned our back on israel. i don't think the world is sitting idly by and noticing that we renege on our responsibilities. we need to oppose him at every step. we need to take advantage of his economic weakness by using our economic strength in wise ways. host: molly o'toole of defense one? there is a lot there. i thought the line, we need to fight him everywhere, is interesting. how realistic is that, what is the cost, what does he mean by that? does he mean use military force, fight them in other avenues? for a new cold war, essentially. he did have some interesting -- this is the obama administration's argument, kind of counterintuitive that president is making these moves

in syria as acts of desperation. not only has his economy been suffering in large part because of the drop in oil prices, as ben carson noted, because of sanctions put on russia, but that he is doing this to shore up his assets in syria. so they also suggest this is a sign that aside is losing his grip on power because russia had to step in before the government collapsed. that is a difficult argument to sustain when you start to see the syrian government going on the offensive, backed by the russian air force. also, an interesting counter to this is clinton's approach. the question was raised in the democratic debate, how would you counter russia, what should we do about syria? she was unique in the democratic field for suggesting there should be no fly zones, which is what some of the republican candidates have also suggested.

those would have to be backed by military force, mainly by the of. because we are doing 90% the airstrikes in syria, we have the strongest air force. it would likely be carried mostly by us. she suggested it would be not only to protect syrians -- we have 4 million displaced outside the country, 8 million inside the country. but because we needed leverage , thet into the table negotiating table, to come up with a political resolution for syria, and that was the real solution. military solution but using the military to force a diplomatic solution. that was an interesting counter to carson. host: one of your recent stories was headlined "hillary clinton, defensive hawkish record." do you expect the democratic candidates to continue to press her on these areas, moving forward? guest: absolutely.

she has some of the strongest national security credentials in the race. nobody in a democratic field in particular can touch her. was alsongly, jim webb the navy secretary under reagan, a decorated veteran. he did not really take the opportunity to establish his leadership on that. because her credentials are so strong in national security, an area of vulnerability they can look for is that she strikes a discordant tone with the base of the democratic party when it comes to foreign policy, because she has, relatively speaking within the democratic party, a more hawkish position. there were a lot of accounts that in the first administration , she was pushing obama more toward the use of force when she was secretary. i think they will hit our on this because they see it as a potential area of vulnerability for her, when her credentials are pretty strong. host: loretta in lucasfilm,

ohio. we bringing in muslims from syria and all over, when they have threatened to cut our heads off? that is what their bible teaches. my bible says anyone that comes against israel will be cursed. why don't we bring in the christian that they are be heading over there, and make this a christian country again? host: i guess speaking of the refugees coming in. guest: thank you for raising this because there is a lot of misinformation spread about this refugee crisis about the syrians. a few points that i would make. it is not the syrians themselves that have threatened the united states. the islamic state has suggested that potential recruits should take advantage of the refugee process in order to somehow gain a foothold in the united states. that is nearly impossible. we know that from our intelligence community -- i

recently did a story where people were suggesting that we should not let in more refugees because of a national security concern. when i went to a dozen agencies, the once charged with homeland security, intelligence, and asked, what is the national security concern based on? as far as they could say, there is little quantifiable data or intelligence that indicates this community is a threat. these are some of the most vulnerable people in the world. u.s. policy is such that we have some of the strictest security standards in order to get these people to let them in the country. we also prioritize, in order to be a refugee, you have to qualify under certain criteria. the united states in particular s women, family, children, the ill, elderly, and religious minorities that you are talking about. christians and other groups who

are being persecuted, particularly targeted by the islamic state. these are the people we are giving priority to when it comes to these communities we are letting in. these are notst the people we should be letting in, these are actually the minority vulnerable populations that we are giving priority to. so we do let in some of the most desperate people with the intention of the refugee policy. from a security standpoint, most of our intelligence officials, the obama administration officials are emphasizing it is such a strict process. right now it takes 18 to 24 months at best for a refugee to get into the country, in large part, due to how strict the standards are. by which thehance system can be exploited by a potential terrorist. host: joseph in delaware. democratic caller.

im switching. i have been a democrat but i'm switching to republican. after the whole obama administration. it was a wasted vote. it has gotten worse and worse. look at the world around you. i read a paper, i watch all the news channels. i am making educated guesses and i am going, this is not what i wanted. you wanted a diplomatic solution out of everything. this whole give them milk and cookies and a job -- with repeat offenders, we lock them up, you commit five crimes, you are done being a member of society. as you turn republican, any particular candidates you have your eye on? caller: i am liking ben carson. and he thinksent

things through. that is the kind of person that seems to be -- that is the kind of person that gets the job done. you look at all the options, even if they are bad options. he is looking to take the best of the worst and see if they can make something work of that. host: let's get one more call and then we will come back. kate from tulsa, oklahoma. republican caller. say, i i just want to believe we are just beginning to eighte consequences of years of trying to withdraw from the world as a world power. molly's conversation that she just had about about the vetting of the 200,000 people the president is leading into the country -- we have no way of letting these people. some of them are from africa, some from syria, some from yemen. they are almost 80% male of a

fighting age. they can definitely be infiltrated by isis or some of the other more vicious groups. we have absolutely no way of vetting these people. we do not have people on the ground that can vouch for them. we do not have the network to be assured that they are who they say they are. people seem to be very -- weary. it is all about me, me, me. that is not america. america does the right thing. the right thing is to stop the insanity but go into when it. don't do like we have done for seven years and keep it at bay. go in and win it. guest: a few things. refugees, i think we should probably trust the officials who are the experts on this issue, more so than you or

i. if the members of the , theligence community department of homeland security, are emphasizing that the security process is as strict as any country in the world, and that they can vet these people -- the fbi director recently mentioned that there are certain gaps in intelligence because we do not have essentially eyes on the ground in syria. to get into the details of this -- not too much -- but for example, it is not 200,000 people. the total obama is talking about letting in -- we currently live in 70,000 refugees from the entire globe for the past several years. we are talking about extending that to 100,000 people, the total. not just syrians. when we talk about syrians, it

is 10,000. not 200,000. not sure where that number came from. all the referrals that we have in so far, and we have let less than 2000 refugees from syria since the beginning of the pop -- conflict. we have gotten about 20,000 applications and all have come from the u.n. refugee agency. the u.n. refugee agency is the first stop, the clearinghouse. they will talk about some of the steps they can take to vet syrian refugees. these are refugees that are registered, they have taken biometric data. scans.. uses iris turkey uses fingerprints, which is what the u.s. agencies tend to go off of. very hard to gain that system. scan, it is difficult to pretend to be someone else. they talk about the various ways

they have to check passports, for example, to check that kind of documentation. ,es, this is a war-torn country but these agencies have been doing it for quite some time. with technology, you are getting more sophisticated when it comes to checking the documentation. addition, this extensive security process, all the members of the family who will be in one particular case, have to be cleared at the same time. and those are temporary clearances. if, at any point, one of those clearances expires, the whole family has to go through this process again. there are layers on layers that goes through this process, so i hope that answers some of the questions about how we can then these people. the reality in terms of how many and who is coming in. host: one last call from new york city. caller: i am concerned about theary's response to greatest security threat, a

nuclear attack. does she not realize that her vote to go to war with iraq, a country that has no arms -- she voted to go to war with iraq. as a result of 4000 americans who died and over 100 thousands iraqis and muslim people have been dislocated and died. does she not realize that this might be considered a terrorist attack by americans, and somebody may retaliate? vote, as lincoln chafee pointed out, was the worst decision in american history. guest: bernie sanders made the same point as well. saw in the debate, they use her vote repeatedly to sort of question her judgment and whether she had what it takes to be commander in chief. i thought her response to that was pretty ies