exhibit including the statues. it was a model for benjamin franklin, as a matter of fact. before that i was the horn of the u.s. house of representatives. -- historian of the u.s. house of representatives. >> where is it? >> on the campus of shepherd university. . of auditorium, classrooms and

archive with the papers of robert c. byrd and otherit is a nice facility. >> who paid for it? >> it was paid for by grants from the federal government as well as the state government. the entire project was an $18 million project to renovate and modernize the entire campus library and that involved about $14 million in federal funds and another $4 million in state funds. the byrd center came from state money. >> when you step out on the front steps, you see the erma byrd hall, obviously mrs. byrd. why is it named that? >> this campus has several projects that have been through the senators' efforts. the center is named for mrs. byrd.

that was about a $10 million facility dedicated years ago. also we have the robert c. byrd science center. we dedicated that in about 1998 or 1999. >> is this where seniority gets you? bob byrd has been there for a long time. >> i am not sure that it is seniority that gets it. if you look around every state in the union, you will see senior members of congress and people who have been on the appropriations committee and other committees who have highways named after them and federal buildings. this is part of the legislative process. some call it pork and others call it well placed money. >> one reason we wanted to talk

to you this particular date is there is an anniversary coming up in a few days. it is a record for senator robert c. byrd. >> senator byrd has so many records because he has been in congress so long and has held every leadership position. this is a big one. on november 18, he will become the longest serving member of congress ever, using his combined house and senate service. that is 20,774 days which amounts to 56 years and 10 months and 16 days, there about. i think that is pretty accurate. he has eclipsed everyone in terms of his length of service. >> who did he pass to become number one? >> carl hayden held the record for his house and senate

service. carl hayden -- he surpasses carl hayden by one day on november 18. >> i noticed that his birthday is two days later when he will be 92-years old. he has been in and out of the senate, sick and in the hospital recently. do you know what his current health condition is? >> he is doing fine. he had an infection that took awhile to get straightened out. he has been giving speeches about afghanistan and cautioning about why we are there. he recently chaired a homeland security session. he is back in the senate, working.

his overall attendance record for over 50 years is 97.9%. >> 9 terms? >> no one has ever been elected to the senate for nine terms. those are six year terms and he is in his ninth term. >> i should not ask you this question. is it a good idea for someone to stay there that long? >> an awful lot of people have served a long time. there are pros and cons, depending on who you talk to. members that i came across in my years as house historian, i like the senior members the best, the ones that have been there for 30-40 years. they have an understanding of the institution. they are steeped in the institution's history,

government and they are pretty wise souls. throughout history, we have had people who have served for 30 or 40 years. that is the decision of the people that elect them. i have never been one for term limits. >> why shepard university for the byrd center? >> because of its close proximity to washington dc. it was an ideal spot for this center and senator byrd's papers. it was easy for researchers to come from d.c..

at the national archives, where the congressional papers are stored, it makes for a nice arrangement because we're only 1.5 hours from the capital. >> what other papers do you have here? >> [inaudible] was a long time house member from virginia. they overlap senator byrd's papers. there is an awful lot of references to senator byrd in the collection. that is a collection that i got in a u-haul truck and went over to kaiser, west virginia and fished them out of a barn with the family's permission. they were sitting in a barn, rotting away. we saved them and brought them here to the center and we are glad to have those collections. >> how many people work here?

>> we have three full-time people right now. we have student workers, interns, and i am looking to hire another archivist. >> what is your budget for a year and who pays for it? >> the budget is about $300,000 a year. that comes from an endowment that we have which is operated by the shepard university foundation. the byrd center is a 501c3 operation. >> who is your boss? >> my boss is the chairman of the congressional education

foundation, joe stewart. joe is the former secretary of the united states senate. he was a longtime friend and associate of senator byrd and many other senators. >> are the people here paid for by the foundation? yes, we are not on the federal payroll. we are not on the university payroll. >> who determined that senator byrd would get the money to create a center like this? >> we started this about six years ago. the group is called the association of centers for the study of congress. there are 40 members and a number of other members of our

part of the organization. the word -- but would include the alberts center. he was a speaker in the 1950's and '60's. >> when you were historian, who was the speaker? >> i served under tip o'neill, jim white and tom foley. i was hired by speaker neil in 1983. >> the carl albert center is in norman, oklahoma. >> they collect not only oklahoma collections but 40 or 50 other congressional collections. some of the newer ones are the howard baker center at the

university of tennessee in knoxville that just opened its doors this year. the bob dole institute for public policy and a number of others? >> who determines this? i looked at the status of speaker sam rayburn and his library in bonn, texas. it is run by the texas historical society. >> i am not sure if there was federal money. there might have been. that building is pretty elaborate. >> who determines that a senator or congressman will get a center like this? >> that is usually determined by congress itself. and the funds are appropriated, usually to leaders.

congress has never figured out a way to deal with this issue. just last year, the house passed a resolution, saying that the private papers of members are very important historical documents and efforts should be made to save them and preserve them for historical purposes. we were glad when that past. there was no money attached to that. it was just a sense that this was a good idea. from time to time, money has been appropriated for the establishment of centers. there is usually a pairing. >> they have papers like bob

michaels? >> they have bought michaels papers. it was funded by a foundation. after a tip o'neill passed away, there was a center established and a library at the university of boston. one of the newest ones that will come on-line in the next years is the senator ted kennedy center that is adjacent to the jfk library. >> who has access? >> the public has access. we are in the out reach business. all of the centers are

interested in promoting a better understanding of congress, using historical records to lay a foundation for good studies. the official records of congress' committees go to the national archives. there is a pretty good budget for that. not anywhere near the presidential library budget, but there is a budget. it officially keeps the records of the committees. but all the private papers, their correspondence, there office files, there is no provision for that. sometimes they want these papers and when they get them, bay arrive with two or three trailers of these papers.

they end up sitting in a warehouse somewhere. we're hoping to find a better way to address this problem in the future. >> what do you say to someone who would look at this and say that the stacks are stacks of papers that no one will look at and they have to be maintained and it costs a lot of money and what good is it for the public? >> what good is it for the public is the importance of understanding the rep. those of us that have been in these records, you really see how the members work and how congress works. you have to rely on documentary records for historical purposes. you cannot -- is the fundamental touchstone for anybody in the history field.

sure, there is a lot of junk in the papers. a process that we go through is to get rid of the old newspaper files and extra copies of the congressional record and get down to those records of correspondence between members and the president of the united states and correspondence on major issues. you see how the members that are active with one another, the notes they sent back and forth to one another. in one thing that came through was president reagan writing to senator byrd about giving partial immunity to admiral poindexter and oliver north in the iran-contra hearings. that level of the information, you might find some of that in the presidential libraries but

not all of it. >> how much of this is being digitized and placed on servers so people can access it? >> that is the goal and the future of these collections. only a handful of people need to see the originals. the rest of the public would be better served if these things are placed in digital files and made accessible. >> are you doing that now? >> now. >> how long of a process is that? >> that is a long process. we have a lot of microfilm records which will have to be digitized. we have to look at all that. every one of the centers faces various degrees of problems. what do you have that is available for the public to see and what do you not have?

>> we have a good part of senator byrd's collection, but not all of it. >> how many do you have this year? are you up to 2005? >> usually, when they are no longer active files, they have a time when they have courtesy's storage at the national archives. if a member of congress -- they can move certain groups of their records, usually two or 300 boxes at a time to maryland and wiig will have a truck and bring them out here. sometimes the material comes directly to us. we're still a work in progress. other senators have collections

that they have pretty much processed and a lot of them have been operation. >> how often does senator byrd come here? >> he has been here three or four times. usually to give speeches on campus or to dedicate a building. the last time we sat together was about three years ago. >> you were historian of the house over for some of it for how many years? >> for 12 years. >> were you the first historian? >> yes. >> whose idea was it? >> it was a result of the fact that the senate created an office. the senate leadership established that office and as a result of that, the house

wanted to establish a similar operation it was not until 1982 that the bill came forward and then it was defeated at the last minute by members who said that we do not need a historian and we do not need a copy of the senate. in 1982 it failed, and in 1983, it passed. it was the idea that we would be there long enough to plan for the bicentennial of congress and six years later and it would be a temporary office. six years later, in 1989, the office was made permanent. >> correct me where i'm wrong, born in indiana, grew up in illinois, when to roosevelt university, got a ph.d. from

the university of maryland. what did i miss? >> that is about it. >> what is a historian? >> a historian is someone who recycles stories about the past. the stories that we need to understand ourselves. i always liked the phrase by cicero, to remain ignorant by history is to remain ignorant as a child. i discovered history as an undergraduate and it was the civil rights movement that got me excited. i wanted to know more about the history of african-americans and i wanted to know how things

got this way. i thought it would be a fascinating story and i never gave up on it. >> is there anything in your past that would have triggered your interest? >> yes, i had attended a community college that i had a professor that was just absolutely dynamite. he taught without using a text book. he taught by using documents. we read original material and we discussed it. >> what was his name? >> his name was dale chapman. i went back for his retirement party about eight years ago and gave a talk about how important he was in my development as a historian. >> give us an example of what he would do and did he have the same impact on others?

>> i am sure that he did. i am not sure. he would expect us to get into the language. i have for british history in u.s. history. we were reading all of these medieval documents and trying to get into the language of them to understand the time. he would provide the story around the document and expect us to get something out of the document. i just found that as fundamental stuff. this was the mother lode. it was not some authority in a textbook telling you what to think, you were discovering these things yourself. >> how much teaching do you do? >> i usually teach one course a semester.

i also teach reconstruction history. >> what is u.s. survey? >> that could be the first half of american history or the civil war up to current history. >> do you use the same techniques that your professor used? >> i like to use documents. i like to use books that have authentic voices. i have been a documentary editor. i worked on the booker t. washington papers. >> i have your book on my lap, "booker t. washington: black leadership in the age of jim crow." before we talk about this book, how did you get interested in

booker t. washington? >> that goes back to when i was 8 years old and my uncle came to visit and he presented me with a coin that he had gotten in change and it was an audit:. it was amended half dollar showing a picture of booker t. washington on one side and a slave cabin on another and it said from slave cabin to hall of fame. i did not know anything about booker t. washington. i was a budding coin collector at the time. this was a special coin. i started finding out about him. it was many years later that no one of the top scholars of booker t. washington was there.

he had just published a book in the field. i studied under him and that renewed my interest in washington. i went to graduate school and by coincidence, on my first day of class, i worked with louis for many years. he won the pulitzer prize for his second volume of his 2 volume biography. >> i took one big thing away from your book. the speech. >> in which speech? >> the atlanta compromise speech. 6give us a background of who booker t. washington was.

>> booker t. washington was born as a slave on a farm in virginia. he was freed in 1865 and his family moved to west virginia where he was a labor. this was the salt industry. he worked as a child labor. he had a tremendous drive to learn to read and write, as many did. the first generation of freed slaves, in most places it was against a lot to teach slaves to read and write.

the desire to learn how to read the bible was very strong. a lot of schools popped up. he was very good at that. he went to hampton institute near norfolk, virginia. he was picked at the age of 25 to start a school. there was nothing there when he got there. he built the tuskegee institute which became a model of education in that region. he was also a politician. he became an advisor on republican matters to several

republican presidents, most importantly to theodore roosevelt. >> the story of the speech. how did it happen? >> there was a five minute speech in this process before he got to the other atlanta speech which got a lot of attention, but build up to that. >> washington was a good orator. he really wanted to reached the white south in his speeches. he got on a train and all the way back to alabama and gave a speech for two minutes because he wanted to be there and he got back on the train and went back to boston. he talks about how the went 1,000 miles to get a two minute

speech. we have accounts of the speech in newspapers, so we pieced together if his message from those newspaper accounts. his speech in atlanta and 1895, that was the speech that launched him as a national figure. even though he has worked all his life to make things happen, he is launched international leadership. >> had tuskegee been built? >> yes. it opened in 1881. he had been at that for 14 years. he was building a reputation as his school grew. >> his father was white? >> his father was white but he

never knew who he was. we guessed it was probably one of the young men on a nearby farm, but we do not know. he never learned anything about his father. >> who was his mother? >> she was a slave on james berle's farm. he had a dozen slaves on his property. it was not a plantation. >> what year did he make this speech? >> 1895. >> what was the politics of the country and what organization invited him to speak? >> in 1895, the racial state of the continent were -- of the

this was a trend that began during reconstruction of the 1870's and was discontinued. by the 1890's, it was considerably well entrenched. many of the states were writing their state constitution to keep blacks from voting. most of the politicians were openly white supremacists who argued that if you elect them, he would make sure the white man stayed on top. there were segregated cars. until they put separate cars on, it would be the smoking car. it would be some place that you might not want to be any help.

>> of wood whites be allowed on there? >> what could go anywhere, but blacks could not go anywhere. >> the atlanta speech, where was it? >> it was as a huge fare -- at a huge fair. the world's fair got a lot of national attention. as a result, the south wanted to do something similar. they created this big a fair and they had a separate negro building which would have exposition's from tuskegee -- expositions from tuskegee. for the opening day ceremonies, bay asked if they should let a black man speak.

it had not been done -- they asked if they should let a black man speak. it had not been done. there were a lot of efforts and lobbying going on to make sure that they wanted him to give the opening ceremony at the negro building. it was high drama. the newspaper men were all gathered because a black man was going to speak to a largely white audience. >> how well known was he at that time? >> he was well known about the south as a leading educator of african-americans. >> did he have a point of view that everybody knew about? >> yes, he was basically the belief that education was the key to success and that

african-americans and needed to get out of the poverty of slavery and get jobs in the trades. this was the industrial education idea. >> there were two camps at the time. >> at that time of the atlanta address that booker t. washington gave, and opposition leader in that would become his chief critic wrote him a letter and said that this was a word fitly spoken. he actually praised washington. >> was the speech written down anywhere? >> we have the original.

it is not a complete speech, but it is in his hand writing. he did not use any notes. he memorized it. it was about a six-seven minute speech. he got up and said that he would offer a compromise with the south that african- americans would not agitate for civil rights and would not agitate for social equality. he said they would be as separate as by offenders, but as a fist, in all things essential for progress. he said to give us a chance for education and jobs and we will not worry about agitating for civil rights. sitting next to a white person had an opera house was not important.

getting a job was. at the time, everybody just roared at the success of this thing. the whites and blacks. it was bedlam when he finished his speech because he had hit a tone. he tried to find a balancing act between the racism of the south and the need for social, political and economic advancement. >> when did that turn sour? >> it had its critics from the beginning. by 1900, and certainly by 1903, when dubois wrote his book condemning booker t. washington for giving away too much.

there were other groups that came later in 1905 and 1906, there was a movement which had those moving away from his view and then there was the founding of the naacp. by the time the civil rights movement came around in the 1960's, some said that booker t. washington was an uncle tom and that he sold out the brace and that he betrayed the race because he would not agitate for civil rights. >> you paint a picture of dubois and booker t. washington being on the campus in tuskegee and the boys would come -- dubois would come to this school and they somehow got a long.

>> washington tried to hire him to come to tuskegee as late as 19003. -- 1903. washington's wife was a friend of dubois from their school days. so, there was part of the family that went back to school days. they were political rivals. they were never complete enemies. dubois lived another 50 years beyond booker t. washington. he kept the division alive but i think they really did represent two completely divergent views. dubois said that freedom depends on the right to vote.

>> you said he married to three different women. >> his first wife was from west virginia and he married her and she came down to tuskegee as one of the early faculty members. she died shortly thereafter in an accident. it is confusing what she died of. either from internal injuries from a fall off a widened, which is possible. his second wife, she came to tuskegee from ohio and she became lady principal at tuskegee.

his third wife was also at tuskegee. >> come back to the robert byrd center. you say that you have a project investigating the investigations of congress. >> back in 1975, arthur's schlesinger jr. and roger brines -- arthur solicitor jr. and another man -- arthur schlesinger jr. and another man brought together documents and bibliography so that you could do further research. it was a sign of reverence. we were asked to do a new edition of that. >> who asked? >> the publisher.

they knew of my background as a congressional historian and so they came to me. luckily, i was able to get my good friend to come back on as part of the editorial team. >> what is the time frame on this and what we learned when it is all over? >> what we have got is that we start in 1792, the first congressional investigation and we go all the way up to the katrina investigation regarding what happened after the aftermath of the new orleans hurricane. i think that what we find is how important congressional investigations are. the power to investigate has

been crucial in our history. in recent times, congress has not used this power very effectively over the last 10-20 years. a lot of its hearings are more window dressing and seem to be politically motivated. they are not really thorough. >> how often do you find -- right now, the democrats control congress. the democrats -- to do the democrats investigate the white house or does it take a different congress? >> the trend in modern times is that you are -- if the president is a different party, congress is more likely to investigate. >> is that good or bad?

>> that is hard to say as a generality. you have to get down to the investigation. what is the investigation about. during the bush years, there were very few investigations. >> starting in 2006, i remember there were a lot more investigations in the bush administration after the democrats took control. >> there was more talk of investigations. it never went very far. >> why is that? >> i do not know. it seems to me that one of president obama's desires was to look forward, not backward.

there was talk of holding serious investigations about how we got into the war in iraq and all the various lines and misleading information that was part of that whole scenario, but that has not happened. >> what have you learned so far? >> as i said, how powerful the process can be. >> do you have one in mind that was more powerful than others? >> you can go through all of american history. one of the most interesting is harry truman investigating the defense industry during world war two. he got away with it. he is a democrat in the senate, investigating franklin roosevelt's activities in

spending in the war, bringing top defense contractors and putting them on the carpet and saving the country billions of dollars when they look at some of these contracts and how they were read. there were air men that were flying in airplanes were the engines were falling off. they would bring in somebody like curtis of curtis aircraft and tell them that the specs are wrong if the winds aloft. -- with wins all off w allings fall off. even its own party would investigate how these wars were conducted. >> we did have a lot of attention to the humvees and

things like that. >> yes we did. in terms of looking at all the contracts in the iraq war, we have not touched that. >> when is this one to be published? >> it will be published next spring. it will be two volumes and it is called "congress investigates." >> will it be expensive? >> i have no idea. it is designed for library reference. i have no idea what the price will be. >> put this in perspective. you go back and read about the longest serving speaker in history, 17 years, and you find that he would not take anything

from anybody. he would not even take a free train ride if he was going somewhere. he would not take the free meal. it looks like that he was either the end of an era or the beginning of an era. what happened to that kind of speaker to when we have airplanes put aside for speakers. what changed? >> sam rayburn was legendary for been scrupulous about money. he did a tour of the panama canal one time and paid for his own trip. i have observed many members that have a good moral compass about these kinds of things and they stick to it.

i think senator byrd is in that category. the moral compass chefs. money is everywhere in politics, far more than it ever was. politics is mass media now and mass media costs money. look at what is going on in the corporate world where you have $100 million bonuses and these corporate guys are flying around on jets. in order for them to do that, they are supposed to be watching the bottom line of their stockholders. society has changed and money's influence has changed everything to rid it is a new wave that we look at politics

which is a part of that. >> what was your last year as historian of the house of representatives. >> january, 1995. >> are you ever going to write that story? >> while i was there, i kept a journal. it was about 2000 single spaced pages. i kept a record of things that i saw and things that i was doing. we were celebrating the bicentennial of the congress. we were interacting with all kinds of folks. i was part of the speaker's office. i had a bird's-eye view of what was going on. i was frequently on the floor for interesting things. someday, i am not sure if that is a story in itself or if i would write a different kind of

story. >> what about the history of your firing? i know that is harsh language. you were let go by newt gingrich. >> when the republican takeover of the house came in 1994, an awful lot of people changed. that is not surprising. this is the first time in four years that the republicans had been a majority in the house. and they were euphoric and they had all kinds of reasons to celebrate the fact that they were not in my door before the first time in their whole careers. it is not surprising that a lot of folks would be fired.

since i was part of the speaker's office and served at the pleasure of the speaker, i was one of the first that could be fired under the rules of the house. newt gingrich wanted to bring his own person in. i was let go and i did not know that until december 17. two weeks later, i was gone. >> who told you? >> i got it in a letter from the house administration committee. >> what did it say? >> it was almost like a form letter. >> did you expect it? >> we sort of expected it. the republican transition group headed by jim russell interviewed everybody to find out what they were doing and why they were there.

the last thing that the transition team asked me to do was to prepare a memo on how to run a history office if i was to -- set it up as what should be in a history office boss said that -- set it up as to how to run a history of this. >> what is the current status of the historian of the house? >> it took several years -- the person that newt gingrich fired or -- hired was fired shortly thereafter. newt gingrich did not want that on his plea. it stayed in the rules and that

there should be an historian but it stayed in to for a long time. slowly, the house clerk began to take on some of those services. there was an interest of having historian of the name of robert ritchie -- of having a historian that came in starting off as a contract of but he was then appointed historian by the time that the book was completed. he remains the house historian to this day. he is out there very often. -- he is not there very often. there is a wonderful office of history preservation.

she is a curator. there is an archivist they have a very nice office and they are doing a lot of the things that my office was doing. i am happy to see that the house has paid attention to its history. >> how long are you going to keep doing this? >> as long as i can because i love what i am doing. i think i have a few more books in me. once i get some of these big projects out of the way, i might take up what you suggested and do something about my time as house historian. also, my publisher and i have

been talking about me writing a book on how politics has changed in the 24/7 news cycle. there have been a number of books written about that, but i want to take a look at that. i think it is really important how partisanship has become so strong and it is fuelled by the 24 hour news cycle. they're jumping on each other and i think that has a detrimental effect on politics. i listened to a lecture about franklin roosevelt and he talked about changes in the news

media and the big change is that everything is moving to talk radio and talk tv. it is just talk, talk, talk. what jonathan alter said was that talk is cheap, investigative reporting is expensive. >> raymond smock director of the birds center here. thank you very much. -- of the byrd center. and you very much. >> for a dvd copy of this program, called 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q &a.org. q&a is also available as a c- span podcast.

>> next sunday, judy shelton, a communist and wall street journal contributer. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> the senate will continue work on spending for the veterans department and military the construction. the gavel and a 2:00 p.m. eastern. lot coverage will be on c-span 2. the house returns from veterans day recess. it will vote on a bill to increase tarp. they are back at 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative business with a roll call votes on

suspension bills after 6:30 eastern. >> tonight, what to watch for an emerging technology trends including the white house open government initiative. industry insiders and government officials at the gov 2.0 summit. >> coming up on "washington journal," we will take your questions. this morning on "washington journal," a discussion of the u.s. dollar and its influence on other currencies.

coming up at 9:15, a book talk about sarah palin. "washington journal"is next. .

host: looks like a busy week with four health-care on the hill. what do you think of the prospects for the legislation? for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. we will start things off this morning on the health care story. on our newsroom said, for republicans, 202-737-0001. -- on our news room set, ricardo alonso-zaldivar. when will the senate began debate and what is the holdup at this point? guest: we are expecting it to begin on tuesday. the holdup? there are many holdups. there is concern about the

public plan. there are concerns about abortion. there are concerns about the affordability of the coverage that will be offered. you name it. concern aplenty. host: we understand that there will be in early key vote. how are they shaping up for possibly just going to the bill? starting debate. >> -- guest: the key is what the moderate and democratic party will do. there are a whole envelope moderates that hold the balance of this debate in their hands. you might expect that most of them would be inclined to allow the debate, but will they be there at the end? that is an unknown. part of what makes this so interesting.

the hard to know what is going to happen next. host: the backdrop, you are the co-author of this piece, the lead line asks what this will cost me. americans are worried about fine print and health-care overhaul. there are concerns about creating new challenges for the president. tell us more. >> the polls are out today. interesting polls because they have two sides to it. one is the horse race. in a horse race the opponents, 43%,ic hlth care bills, 41% in the middle. 15% are undecided or do not know. the horse race has not changed much, the nation is divided on health care.

beneath the that what you see is broad support for the large goals of trying to change the health care system. when you start asking people about trade-offs or possible costs, then the reservations bubble oup. you see some of the numbers in the polls change dramatically. host: so much to talk about, health care story. our guest is ricardo alonso- zaldivar, health care correspondent for the associated press. and north carolina, you are first. brenda, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been trying to get in with you guys for the past week, since you have been talking about health care. i feel that we need health care as the american people.

and it is our right as citizens. i am a widow for six years. i had insurance, but i could not afford it. it was very expensive. i have a lot of health issues, pre-existing conditions, and for what they were wanting to charge me per month, the insurance was well hundred dollars. we need the health care public option so that we may choose, as citizens, who we would have as our provider. host: what about the poll that we just aren't talking about? that most folks want some kind of health care change, but when we get to the fine print, they have a lot of reservations. guest: -- caller: there is a lot

of reservation on that, however i would be willing to pay more taxes so that everyone can have health care insurance in america. i have never heard anybody connected health care to the economy. if you have got health care, then at least you can, you know, get yourself taking care of, instead of spending all your money trying to pay doctors' bills, hospital bills and all of that, filing for bankruptcy. host: thank you for calling. this particular viewer does not mind a tax increase. give us the scope of the discussion right now about cost. those all importance cbo numbers are coming in soon. >> correct. on the cost issue, it remains to be seen what people would be willing to pay additionally.

it is certainly true that they are concerned about the possibility of having to pay more. the caller just now mentioned pre-existing conditions. doing away with the denial of coverage on the account of people's health problems is one of the most popular issues in the overall health-care overhaul. 80% of the public supports that. in our poll we asked people what it's doing away with pre- existing condition the niles causes premiums to go up for people that already have health insurance? surprisingly, the level of support dropped quite a bit. only 43% said they would favor of doing away with pre-existing conditions of denials.

41% oppose the proposal. you see this rally for it, but it is not like 83% anymore. it tells you that people are concerned. what is the balance? how much more would people be willing to pay either in taxes or through higher premiums in order to expand the social safety net and make sure that everyone has access to affordable coverage? that remains to be seen. host: 15% remain neutral or undecided according to your poll. how significant is that? >> i was talking with robert from the harvard school of the public opinion at all, he thinks that that number is pretty significant.

it says that there are a sizable number of people on the fence as far as this goes. they are waiting to see. they could spell the difference in the public's ultimate verdict on what is taking shape on capitol hill. host: malcolm, republican line. good morning. caller: before i make a comment on health care, i would like to make a comment about the long tenure of robert byrd. is a shame that people stay there so long. this is why we need term limits. i would also say something about health care, it does need overhauling. everyone knows that. we need something different. but i think that the government should stay out of it because they have ruined everything that they ever touched.

the best christmas present we could get would be for nancy pelosi the louvre -- nancy pelosi to leave this place. host: do you think that there should be significant change? host: how should work? who should pay for it? caller: some kind of consortium of the business community or something like that in conjunction with government, but it should not be run by the government. host: let's hear what you talk -- utah has to say. caller: i am a very confused independent out here. in the health-care debate, the first dark wet thrown down by nancy pelosi and steny hoyer in the op-ed piece accused anyone opposed to the democratic plan

of being unpatriotic. there was never an apology. then in the house they cobbled together enough votes to pass it. if we were told in the press and the media that first there were only two votes of separation. then the final vote came out, 215 to 210. in the process of getting those votes cobbled together, they charged 3200. there were two new members of congress sworn in. a former lieutenant governor of california and another member of congress from upstate new york. neither of those two new members that were sworn in within a few days of the election results coming in had the election results certified by the state secretary's in either california or new york.

how could their votes count? thank you. host: anything you would like to add, ricardo alonso-zaldivar? guest: i would have to look into it. the previous caller referred to the government's role in health care. that is an interesting point. a lot of people are concerned about the role of the government, the government calling the shots. a lot of times we do not realize that the government's is already up to its elbows in the health- care field. and about half of the nation's health care task right now is being picked up by federal and state government. either through medicare, medicaid, or other such programs. even if nothing is done this year, the size of the government

role in health care is going to keep on growing. we will get to 50% + one if it stays on autopilot. host: lots of articles in the paper today, this one is from "the new york times." "11:00 p.m. last tuesday, the budget office was sentenced to read 11 pages of questions on the legislation. the back-and-forth continued. harry reid had already received substantial analysis on the measure and if the number had been what he wanted he would have released a bill by now. what is your sense of exactly what the majority leader is looking for from cbo prior to his release of the bill? >> i think he would be looking for a bill that meets the president's overall targets.

does not add to the deficit, stays around $900 billion over 10 years. below that there are many moving parts. the generosity of the subsidies for people that would have to buy health care now. for many people it will still be several thousand dollars out of their own pockets in the course of a year. many democrats are upset about that. there is a major long-term care program that would be in -- would be created under the bill. this is something that senator kennedy wanted to create but many moderates had concerns about long-term costs. so, there are many major moving parts. how would you give them to line up in some kind of acceptable

pattern? something that allows us to go forward. it is difficult. host: republic , topic is health care. the senate is poised to start debate. what do you make of it? of >> i think it is -- caller: i think it is all right if they have a real debate. i do not like it when they do not let the republicans have their fair share. host: what is the fair share as you see it? of caller: they have got a controlling majority, they control everything, acting like they are not even letting them held with any of the changes in the bill, things of that nature. host: how about that amending process, ricardo alonso- zaldivar? the a lot of amendments could be coming in in the weeks ahead. guest: it will be pretty open-

ended. in the house there were two amendments. one was the subsidy, the other was the stupack amendment on abortion. in the senate i think you can expect a free-wheeling debate. host: we have been reading a lot in recent days that the entire issue has been front and center. the abortion issue. guest: it will be one of the important issues. the question here is people are talking about the status quo. they want to make sure that the current balance of power or state of play on federal restrictions for abortion funding is carried over into this new health care

legislation that creates a totally different stream of federal funds for health care. there is broad agreement on a goal that preserves the current restrictions, but how to duet, the abortion rights side of the debate says you can do it by making sure that the health insurance plans offering coverage segregate federal subsidy money from any money that is used to pay for abortions. the abortion opponents say that no, you cannot do it that way, money is fungible and what you have to do is make sure that no plans getting federal subsidy money can offer abortion as part of the benefits package. if people want coverage for abortion, it would have to be

gotten separately through an addendum to their policy. so, you might look at this and say that this is debate about fine print, which it is, but this is fine print that is crucial the people that have a stake in the debate. sometimes even the placement of a, makes a difference. host: independent line from florida. thank you for your thoughts. caller: thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. i have some very important points to make. i will start with things that no one else is talking about. we squander money on a drug war that is a failed policy. we are sending billions, if not trillions, on that every year. there are other things that i will not mention, but please let me finish. we have 300,000 to 500,000 new

cancer cases each year. hundreds of thousands of dollars on each one are squandered on barbaric treatments like carving people up like thanksgiving turkeys and poisoning them with chemotherapy. 18 other countries are using vitamin b 17 to save the lives of cancer patients. it is done in the u.s. illegally. there is dilution between the corporations in the government's. that is the problem. corporations making healthy treatments illegal because there is more money in barbaric treatments. the military industrial complex, the prison industry, the banks, this is where our money is going. we could easily afford a public option if we could straighten this out. we need to legalize and teach people that they can prevent

cancer would be 17 foods. host: the caller referenced the pressure between the industry and the congress. guest: say it again? host: the caller reference to the pressure between the industry and the congress of all of this. guest: any and all industries that have a stake in this our players by and shaping the legislation. that is true whether any other kind of major proposal that comes before lawmakers. it is no different with health care. it is much more complicated. the stakes are extremely high. host: this is from "the new york times." "even if drugmakers promised to

support the health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion every year off of the drug costs, the industry has been raising prices at the highest rate in years and that last year brought a 9% increase in prescription drugs, the highest since 1992. what kind of reaction do you expect a story like this to get on the hill? guest: it will get close scrutiny. in advance of any kind of health care changes, if a bill passes, there will be a three year period of phasing for most of these things. i think that a lot of the scrutiny of the drug industry as well as other medical industries or fields, done in advance of the subsidies that spread coverage to most people, are the

insurer is going to raise premiums -- insurers going to raise premiums? host: democratic line, topic goes to you. caller: to many in the senate want to continue practices that favor the social interest. -- special interests. if we could get the special interest out of the senate, we would be better off. if those people would work for the country, the country would be better off. host: what is the number one thing you would like to see in the bill? caller: the president should be supported, he has the support of the people. i want to see, first of all,

whereas the people who have pre- existing conditions, they should be allowed have medical insurance. we should all be allowed to have some type of medical insurance. there are people in this country right now that are not insured at all. they should be allowed to have some sort of medical insurance. host: market, republican line. waterville, maine. what is on your mind this morning? caller: basically what i want to talk about is the overhead involved in the health care system today. from my understanding of the public option, that is what that is meant to address, driving down costs. but really, the problem that exists with companies today is that they're given money at the

beginning of the year that is finite, then they have to deny claims along the way as they pay it out. as an alternative to the public option i think we should be looking at changing that incentive program so that insurance companies are paid on commission. at that point the incentive is to pay out claims. my health care costs are made of three components. i pay premiums, i pay out of pocket, and i am collected from by the insurance company. my premium is $23,000, my out of pocket is $26,000, and my out of pocket is $2,000. let me say that my primary pot -- primary policies right now are cadillac policies according to nancy.

host: anything there that you could shed some light on? guest: a couple of things. i want to get back to the first caller who said that she felt the people should have access to health insurance and that it should be a guarantee. that is a broadly held desire of americans. again, when you raise the question of cost, the congress is looking at requiring everyone to have coverage. either through an employer, a government plan, or buying it themselves. a high 60% of the public feels that there should be such a requirement in the polls. however, when you ask people how it should be enforced and what it would define for those that do not get coverage, when you raise the subject of cost, the

numbers flip, fewer than 30% of the public supports it. you see the opposition go up into the high 60's. that is the kind of problem that lawmakers are facing here in the final stretch of this debate. people are starting to focus on the nitty gritty details. while there is broad agreement on the goals, the specifics are filled with qualms. host: lots more in the papers today, "the washington post" reports billions in lost medicare money by fraud. "medical treatment that showed little relation to condition, wasting taxpayer money three

times that of the previous year ." this is from a report obtained by the associated press. also in there this morning, "house health bill enclave men -- includes medicare release. a lot more like a new federal stimulus spending than national health care reform." the next call is from beaver county, pennsylvania. raymond. and caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i continue to hear this debate, politicians talking about affordable health care. evidently it is about premiums. i have contacted my congressman and i have asked him the same question, you keep talking about affordable, how much is my monthly premium going to be -- i gave an example, single making

$35,000, how much is my monthly premium going to be? what if i make $45,000 and i have a wife and a child? i asked his representative is that if i came to them with a contract to do their rules on their house and i just put affordable in the contract, what is the first thing you will ask me? how much, well, i told them that is not important, just sign on the dotted line. if congress cannot give us the numbers, how you know what is affordable? host: thoughts? guest: the gentleman has a very good point. these numbers are still a moving target. what is affordable is going to differ depending on your income.

now, for folks listening out there, there is an online resource that they can go to to get an idea of how affordable coverage will be. it is important to underscore that this would be for people buying coverage on their home. if you get coverage through employer, it would not change that much. go to the kaiser family foundation website. look on the main page. they have something called the health reform subsidy calculator. basically what you do is you plug in your age and income. you can get a rough idea, a ballpark idea, of what you would be paying under the various bills before the congress. it seems, from what i remember, that the subsidies are generally pretty good for lower income people. once you get into the solid middle class, $65,000 for a

family of four, it starts to taper off a very dramatic way. so, there could be an affordability problem there for quite a few people. host: a cartoon in "the new york post" this morning. and they show a street salesmen here selling and bottom of pop -- selling a bottle of public option. guaranteed to cure all medical problems and it does not cost a dime. ricardo alonso-zaldivar, you mentioned all of the moving parts to this story. one of those parts is the minority. mitch mcconnell was on television yesterday. here is what he had to say. >> i think that we should at

least have as much time for the other 99 senators and the american people to take a look at this bill. the only way to guarantee that, for sure, would be to delay the process and allow everyone to understand what is in the bill. even though the administration's own actuary, someone who works within the administration of the department of health and human services has said that it would likely drive up the cost of health care and that it would hurt seniors, that if they still want to go to it, we will have the debate. and if we get on to the bill there will be a lot of amendments over many weeks. three votes and it was over in one day, look, we spent four weeks on a farm bill in the last congress, eight weeks on an energy bill. this will be on the floor for

quite a long time, for least as long as it has been in harry reid's office. host: is 72 hours going to be enough for the minority? to read the bill, like the house members wanted, before they actually start? guest: it remains to be seen. what we can safely say is that the senate is the senate and it is hard to predict anything about the senate, so i generally do not. it is ok with you i would like to get something -- get back to something that the previous caller addressed, the public plan. interesting, some analysis from the congressional budget office a couple of weeks ago looked at who would be in the public plan. they said basically about 30

million people, 21 million of them buying coverage on their own. if you look at that, it is only a small fraction of the total number of people who have health insurance coverage in the united states. the public option has become, or has been all along, one of the biggest, most complicated issues in the debate. if you look at the numbers and you believe the cbo, is the tail wagging the dog? i do not know. and host: one message through twitter -- the one thing that really has not been addressed is the actual cost. we need transparency, get rid of anti-trust. what do we say?

caller: the poll conducted by your guest is a push poll, a poll designed to drive public opinion in a negative way. i say this is specifically because of two things. one, the public option being divisive. research has been done and the majority of people in this country support at least a public option. he is saying that it is a divisive factor. yes, the question of the tail wagging the dog. the other question in the poll was whether people would respond positively or negatively if health-care reform were to cause their premiums to go up. in fact, health care reform would more likely cause the premiums to stabilize or be less. host: what do you say?

guest: i do not think it was a push poll. i would call a full disclosure poll. the caller is right about the public plan. in public opinion polls, the public plan scores highly. it has majority support. what i meant to say, and i should have said it more clearly, is that it has been very divisive in congress. you saw that in the house. one of the major unresolved problems up through the last minute was how the public plan was going to reimbursed medical providers. is it going to use basically government set rates as a foundation? or does it get out there and negotiate like any other insurance plan would have to? in the senate you saw that the

health committee had a public plan to the finance committee did not. senator reid wants to offer a public plan with the option of states to dropping out of it if they do not want to join. so, i think it is accurate to say that in halls of congress the public plan is one of the most divisive issues. host: we will step away from health care for a moment to go to detroit and general motors. justin hyde is with us, our washington correspondent from "the detroit free press." >caller: two pieces of news. the results are interesting, it is still moving money, losing billions -- losing $1.2 billion

in that quarter. but they also announced that they would be repaying the loans from the government early. they hope to get through the payments by 2011. host: how significant is this information? caller: they have $6.7 billion in government loans outstanding. to attempt to repay the government early shows that they are on the right track. that said, they are still not making money selling cars in the united states, which is key. compared to ford motor co., they earned an uptick in dollars. they have still got a long ways to go, but they're trying to use the cash to pay down the debt early. host: is there anticipated reaction coming from washington? what about detroit and the industry itself belloc caller:

-- itself? caller: i think the reaction itself is certainly measured. they are attempting to show that they are trying to reap a taxpayer investments in good faith. that said, general motors still has a lot of challenges around the world. consternation could be a problem in washington that we have to watch. the next quarter will not be as good as this quarter. there are a billion dollars in various payments the need to be made. $5 billion in cash from an escrow account established by the government as part of the bankruptcy. they are hoping to increase sales next year but the forecast is still not clear. host: thank you for your time this morning. back to the health care story.

rich, republican line. what is your take? caller: hello? host: is this rich? caller: no. host: well, we are glad to have you. go ahead. caller: i was calling in on health care. i could not hear what the gentleman said. host: about what in particular? caller: are we supposed to talk about what that other gentleman talked about, or health care? up hoshost: we are talking about health care. was there a particular point? caller: won the that wanted to make was that if we do not get an actual public option, what will happen to the people? will they still leave mandated to get the coverage?

guest: the caller is correct, but people would still be mandated to get the coverage. host: rockville, good morning. caller: did morning. i appreciate having ricardo alonso-zaldivar there this morning. in the run-up to the local actions i watched the debates, where hillary clinton supported the mandate and barack obama asked how it would be enforced. at that point i thought he was a thoughtful man and i thought i would vote for him. now we have a plan that supports the mandate and i have a couple of questions about it. one, is there any serious discussion of how it would be enforced? second, are there questions about whether or not it is constitutional? third, i am a medicare recipient

and i find we have a defacto mandate, most of us in groups, the states that to keep the group insurance 22 first have medicare part b. i do not like the loss of freedom involved in that. if you could address those issues in terms of the information that we have in what you have seen, i would appreciate it. guest: i will do the best that i can. the affordability issue is a very important open issue. it is very complicated. basically, the money for subsidies in the bill is not going to be enough to assure that everyone has low-cost coverage. so, as you get into what you

would call the solid middle class with federal subsidies, this is for people buying coverage on their home, not those getting employer coverage, of those subsidies will begin to taper off. there was a big debate about what to do. basically people would be faced with several thousand dollars in and out of pocket costs. and you penalize them if it is not fit into the budget. the way that the finance committee handle this was by scaling back the fines, postponing othe effective dates of penalties. they handled by softening effects, so to speak. what you saw was the insurance industry becoming concerned about this. they said that if you do not require people to get into the pool and do not enforce the

requirement, what people are going to do is wait until they get sick. that means that costs will go up for everyone else. again, these other kinds of things that are going have to be looked at very carefully. who knows, we may wind up coming back to where president obama stood as a candidate when he said wait a minute. this is very expensive, how will it be enforced? it remains to be seen. host: more voices out there, more pressure. here's a full-page advertisement from "usa today." it shows a man visiting the doctor, saying "you may feel some slight discomfort." "comfortable"? it is from a group called

rethinkreform.com. here is a moveon.org advertisement. >> our family faces rising health-care costs, unable to get insurance. many have gone into bankruptcy because of medical bills. a courageous group of representatives stood tall, voting to ensure affordable health care for millions. mike ross voted no. tell him how little you think of his vote. host: ricardo alonso-zaldivar, any thoughts on the pressure out there from industry and other interest groups? as members are heading back for various breaks in weekends, that kind of thing? guest: it is only going

escalate. as decision date gets closer on the final bill, it will only escalate. you know that the nature of pressure is that it tries to find the weakest point to break through. so, we will see that play out. it has already been a bonanza in terms of advertising on health care. and that is likely to keep going up. you have to wonder, at some point, does the cacophony of voices cancel each other out? host: speaking of pressure, open " the washington post" has this below the fold -- pressure, "the washington post" has this below the fold. they are financing a study that could prove that the health care

legislation is a threat to the economy. "the e-mail, written by the senior health policy major, shows that a respected economist was hired to study the impact of the legislation. the outcome of the economic review appears to be the the economist will circulate a letter to hundreds of other economists, saying that the bill is going to kill jobs and hurt the economy, but the they will be able to use the open letter for advertisements and powerful lobbying. any response? guest: no response to the particular information, just to say that generally speaking i think that there is a concern about the effects on jobs. getting back to the poll, we saw that in the poll as well. there was a high level of

support for, broadly speaking, requiring employers to help out with health insurance costs. but again, when you translated that down to a specific question and you brought up the issue of penalties or added costs, the level of support went down. nowhere near as dramatically as for the individual requirements. so, i would just say that a study like that would connect with the chinese that is out there. you have to look at any such study on the merits of it. whether it actually reflects a plausible scenario. host: the next call is from the bronx, new york. thank you for having done. caller: i have questions. i am wondering, the employer-

paid health insurance, do you have any idea what that amounts to per year? that alone is tax-free. if it were taxable, how much of the $500 billion every year that is held over in the health overhaul would wind up being paid for? guest: the caller has hit on the central issue here. employer provided health insurance is not taxed, even though economists say that it is part of your compensation. you are not getting it in dollars in sense, but you are getting it in health care. the problem is that attempts to tax the value of employer provided health care have met

with very strong political opposition, both from employers and from the labor unions. so, basically it is an idea that was advanced, but has largely been beaten back. the vestiges that we see a bit are the attacks on high-cost health insurance plans in the finance committee proposals. host: from twitter this morning -- what kind of idiot believes that employers should help out with cost? the employee pays, always. tony is on the line. good morning. go ahead with your thoughts. caller: good morning. i would like asked, i have been following this pretty closely, watching it on c-span every morning. i would like to know, they are talking about this being the

$1.20 trillion it goes through. by any means it will barely held at all any of us, i do not believe. it would be better if they gave that money to each and every one of us and the spread it out equally. host: sean, democratic line. health care bill moving through the senate. what is on your mind this morning? caller: i am trying to figure out what they are planning to do for the people that have pre- existing conditions. how are they going to make health-care benefits more affordable for those people? host: ricardo alonso-zaldivar, what can you tell us about pre- existing conditions? guest: that is one of the central issues they want to

address. in 2015, insurance companies could not deny coverage to someone because of a free -- pre-existing medical problem. nor could they charge them more. so, that is one of the central things that the bells want to address. -- bills want to address. host: take us back to that magical number of 60. name some of the names of key democrats who do will be watching, but they are looking for in order to get their vote to start the debate. host: we will be watching senator nelson, senator lieberman, senator landrieu, said arlington, senator bayh, senator casey on the abortion issue. the others, mainly, on the overall economics of this.

the role of the federal government. the total cost of the plan. basically it is that group in the middle. i hope i did not leave anyone out. host: andrew, new jersey. caller: thank you for taking my call. the gentleman mentioned that the biggest issue is that the corporations have become too close and paid too much the fund the elected officials. if we really want to drive down costs, we already have the demand for medicare, over 40 million people, that is the lowest priced insurance around. but politicians do not want to do with. right now we have got the best deal, people do not want to give it up. why not expand that program with

that those rates? they do not want that because insurance companies will not make enough money. guest: the caller is correct, if lawmakers -- if there were a majority to doing that, lawmakers to do that. they could expand medicare to cover the working population. but, that idea has been out there and that has not carried out today. people are used to getting coverage from their employers, many want to leave it that way. they do not want to change that. employers and medical providers are also reluctant to change for different reasons. employers, i guess my best way of describing it is they do not want to turn over management or control of health care costs to the government. health care providers are afraid that if that happens, they will be reimbursed far less than what

they are being paid now. on paper you could say yes, that would work. but in practice and political reality, that has not proven to be the case. host: lots of other issues out there this morning. "the financial times has this shot of the president. talking about the financial aid bill, for "the financial aid bill would not produce a legally binding treaty for climate change. obama reaches out to china, the carefully screened audience of chinese students in shanghai telling them that relations

between the u.s. and china have been tumultuous in the past. some of the reporting was that the meeting was not live on chinese television. at least not on television. china's top banking regulators issued a sharp critique of u.s. financial management only hours before the president commenced his first trip to the asian giant, highlighting economic tensions that threaten to overshadow the trapped. the weak dollar and low interest rates have added to massive speculation." lexington, massachusetts. back with the health care story. jean, republican caller. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i am reading this article from "the wall street journal" today. hold on, i cannot hear you. let me turn on my television, i guess. anyways, i have been reading in "the wall street journal about how the democrats are quietly trying to oppose a global budget on medicare. and then they are going to said a committee and an election board with extraordinary powers to dictate how it will be paid for. there is a review of it here, bombing from 35,000 feet -- where you do not see the faces of the people that you killed. many of the people that you kill are going to be at that age, like women. we outlive men. why does no one seemed to care if you are killing all of these older people? particularly older women.

these are your mothers and grandmothers. host: think you for calling. ricardo alonso-zaldivar, anything did you would like to shed more light on? guest: as far as medicare goes, there is a big disconnect between what the policy makers would like to do and the public. people in government, some of them want to scale back wasteful spending on medicare. but somebody's waste is someone else's income. it will be difficult. i do not think that we are carpet bombing that program. that is the program that everyone's family is on. a carpet bombing of medicare? there would be a big of people

of anyone attempted that. host: arlington, va. caller: how are you guys this morning? host: fine. caller: i have listened to so many of your programs, but i have never heard what benefits that medicare recipients are going to lose. host: harrisburg, pa., last fall. you are on the independent line. caller: how are you doing? i would like to open by saying that benjamin franklin said that the beginning of a two-party system would be the end of democracy. second of all, we're out here in pennsylvania, someone tried to sele said boat. how much was the ticket? we were told that we could

afford it. what if we have no money? the legal immigrants can still go to the emergency room. insurance companies, i do not think that there should be insurance companies. they work for profit. how can they cover all of these people with no conditions and still make a profit? capitalism and democracy seem like a contradiction of terms. capitalism and democracy? it is just not right. insurance companies work for profits. we elect officials, they come in, they play monte hall in the congress. this country does not have a chance. host: some of the thoughts for our guest, how would you wrap

this up? guest: boy. [laughter] on the previous caller, benefits of traditional medicare would not be cut. for seniors that are receiving care through private plans, to the extent that those plans are cut and they might see higher copays and deductibles, they would also be cut. under the traditional programs? no. host: our guest has been ricardo alonso-zaldivar. thank you for the updated information on health care. appreciate it. we will talk in a couple of minutes about the u.s. dollar and its relationship with other currencies. for now, news from c-span radio. .

the white house >> this follows the obama administration's cancellation of the former missile defense shield program. world leaders approved a new strategy to fight global hunger in to help poor countries feed themselves. pledging to substantially increase aid to a whole trend developing nations, the group did not pledge the funds s ought by the united nations.

space shuttle atlantis aimed at spare parts. host: at the table now is richard rahn, senior fellow at the cato institute, here to talk to us about the u.s. dollar. when we talk about the strength or weakness of the dollar, what does it mean and why does it matter? >> there are two aspects. one is how it is pressed against other currencies. how much does it take another currency to buy a dollar? second, the level of the dollar -- how it is priced against commodities such as oil and gold. most of us want a strong dollar. if we have a strong dollar will, we can buy other currencies tubecheaper.

the europeans have the other goal. they would like to see a strong euro versus the dollar. host: what does the weak u.s. dollar mean? guest: it is more costly for americans to travel abroad. the common expression is in force inflation because the goods pricecost more. the same with a lot of other commodities. we have seen a lot of concern about the level of the dollar. a lot of people have been buying gold. >> are there any benefits to a weak dollar in the u.s.? guest: not really. people say this makes it easier for u.s. companies to export. foreigners can buy things

cheaper within the u.s. the trouble is much of what we export, we have to buy the raw materials and component parts from elsewhere around the world. countries are usually much better off with strong currencies. host: what does cato feel about the dollar? guest: cato is a market oriented organization and feels the market ought to determine the prices. if the government has the proper role of reasonable regulation, strong protection of private property, margins will find the appropriate level for the dollar. if government imposes too many taxes and too much regulation, that makes u.s. business is less efficient. host: the phone numbers are on the bottom of our screen for our

guests, richard rahn, senior fellow at the cato institute. we're learning more about the strength or weakness of the u.s. dollar, what it means, and there's this headline in "usa today" on this monday. why is wall street so dollar focused? guest: the weaker dollar has driven up prices. we have very low interest rates in the u.s. at the moment basically because of the actions of the fed. if you are a saver, where are you going to put your money? in normal savings accounts, you get extremely low rates of interest. you will not get much interest on bonds. the stock market seems to be the best alternative. and also, companies which have global sales and profits.

big international firms where they have may be more than half their sales from elsewhere around the world. they benefit from the weaker dollar. by people investing in the stock market, it is a way of protecting yourself against the fall of the dollar. host: what else should the average person know about the dollar and why it is so important to them? guest: is the dollar continues to fall and it has to fall against something. we're basically talking about the japanese yen or the euro. those are the two other big currencies. in europe, the basic underlying

economies are much weaker than the u.s. the japanese have been having problems now for almost two decades. their economy is nowhere near as strong as it used to be. if the dollar is going to fall against those two currencies, we have to do worse than they are doing. that is far from a sure bet. where we have seen a big fall in the dollar is against the canadian dollar and the australian dollar. those two countries produce a lot of commodities. commodities are a safe haven. those two countries have done a better job at managing their monetary and fiscal affairs than we have. host: the first call for our guest. we are talking about the u.s. dollar. our guest is richard rahn. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of questions. i wonder if you heard of jekyll island. i've read a book about where it was the creation of the federal reserve at the beginning of the last century, and there were some congressmen and international bankers that basically pulled one over on the rest of congress. it is basically a central bank, but it is called the federal reserve. it is not really thought of by the public as a central bank. it seems like there has not been much success. there's a bill right now about- trained the federal reserve. it is ron paul's bill. i wanted to get your take on those. i wonder if you think gold is going higher. i think it is. i think we might see $1,500 or

$2,000. silver is nowhere near its record high. thank you. guest: first, i will start with the price of gold and silver. i do not know if the prices are going up or down. you can make arguments either way. the problem with gold is a lot of central banks hold gold. any time they decide to sell a lot, i can drive down the price of gold. there are many psychological factors in the price of gold. if we have long sustained inflation, gold may be a good hedge. i'm not in the business of giving price recommendations whether things are going to rise or fall. your question about the fed is more interesting. the federal reserve was created back in 1913. the u.s. did not have a central bank at that time. we were essentially on the gold standard.

we had these periodic panics. nowadays they call them recessions. there was a big one in 1908. most of these lasted only a few months. there were very short-lived for the most part. the question was -- could have been a central bank lead us to more sustainable monetary and fiscal policies? the argument was that if we had a central bank that we should be able to reduce the number of bank failures and also have a more stable currency. during the late 1800's, we have mild deflationary for a couple of decades because the economies were growing faster than the increase in the supply of gold. as a result, this is called deflation because the growth of the money supply was not keeping up with the growth of the economies. deflation has problems, as does

inflation. this helped lead to what they called panics. the wholesale price level in the united states was virtually identical to what was in 1910. it had gone up during the civil war. you had some inflation. generally speaking, over that 120-year period, prices had been quite stable. we have been on the gold standard. the fed had the mandate to try to reduce the number of bank failures. also, there were supposed to maintain a stable currency. the problem is the great inflation we have had since the creation of the fed. the u.s. dollar is now worth 1- 22 of what it was in 1913. -- is worth 1/22 of what it was

in 1913. inflation is crucible in the long run. you either want deflation or inflation. the fed clearly has not madmet s mandate to maintain a stable price level over this last 80 years. the number of bank failures has been higher under the federal reserve. during the great depression, we have 14,000 bank failures. we have had a number of in years cents. -- we have had a number in the years since. you want some bank failures because you want the most poorly managed banks to go out of business. on the other hand, you do not want bailouts for the banks. the fed has not fulfilled the

goals that were set out for it when the had the famous meeting at the jekyll island that you referred to. there's a lot of question about what we should do about the fed. there are bills before congress to give the fed more power. in the senate, there's a bill to give it a whole lot less power. this is one of the great policy debates of the time. host: our guest writes a weekly economic column for "the washington times." our next call is columbia, south carolina, joe on the republican line. caller: good morning. how can the fed's control over currency when the government runs upside budget deficits? have avethe other person needs w

that the democrats refuse to drill for oil and buy our oil from opec nations better funding to do other things. until we get a sound budget and fiscal constraints, i do not blame everything on the fed. i think the government has a lot to do with it. if we are going to bite will and we do not even want to drill it, what difference does it matter for the environmentalists whether we drill in alaska in court in the desert? the fed gets too much blame. but congressman tell them what they want to hear. there is the convoluted thing. half of our budget deficit goes too cheap chinese goods. the other half goes to will. what do you think the fed is supposed to do? host: first begin with the subject of oil. guest: we import about 70% of

the oil that we use. 70% of all oil is used for motor vehicle transport. as we eventually go to a legend automobiles, we will have less demand for that kind of will -- and as we eventually go to electric automobiles. we should be drilling a lot more in the u.s. we know we have massive oil reserves in alaska. we have found new oil reserves in the dakotas. offshore we could bring in a lot more. there appears to be a lot of oil on the gulf side of florida. we could be doing a lot more for self-sufficiency in energy. not that i am arguing so much for the absolute need to have self-sufficiency, but i do think it is ridiculous for us when we have oil at home to artificially

restrict that. then we have the flow of dollars going outside of the u.s. to buy oil unnecessarily. you are producing a given quantity of oil in the world, and the environmental impact is probably a lot less in the u.s. because we have much better safety and environmental standards than in other places where the oil would be drilled. it is going to be done. the question is where and what kind of rule of law and regulation. getting to the broader question about should the fed be blamed. the fed has a big problem. when you run huge budget deficits, as we are now doing, there is great pressure on the

fed to monetize these deficits. it brings us future inflation. if the fed can restricted the growth in the money supply so we do not have inflation. right now we do not have inflation even though we have the big deficits. how are these deficits funded? they are funded by the big increase in private saving and business saving. u.s. businesses are not demanding loans. the banks are recapitalizing and putting together a very large reserves. this is the way these deficits are now absorbed. the problem is when businesses are not getting new loans, you do not have more venture capital, and people are courthoarding money. you do not have the kind of expansion that you need. if they're not using money to do that, we have higher

unemployment. we really have a choice. we coulif you're going to have e budget deficits, you have a choice of slow economic growth, and higher rates of unemployment, or inflation. inflation has to be stopped, as it was in the early 1980's. at least for a number of months you will have high employment. the fundamental problem is that we're spending way too much. the u.s. government, rather than going much bigger, as it now is, it needs to downsize through the u.s. government is growing faster than the entire private economy. it is not a matter ideologies. it's a matter of great school arithmetic. if the government continues to grow faster than the private economy, you cannot tax the way out of the problem.

the government will absorb more and more of the nation's resources. it will get close to 100%. in reality, but will not happen of course. this is the fundamental problem. if we can get government spending back down to like it was in the late 1990's, under administration the under and the republican congress, at that point we had good fiscal management. we could have a rapidly growing economy. host: maria is on the line for democrats from richmond, va. good morning. caller: all like to say that the dollar does not amount to anything here in america because the white people sit back and let bush sent everything overseas.

then he sent to the jobs overseas. he sent his foundation overseas. then he took his money and carried the dow overseas. what are you talking about? -- the needs of the money and carried that oversees. what are you talking about? guest: you have a less than optimal fiscal policy under the past and current president. there's no doubt that the bush administration allowed government spending to grow too rapidly. now it is even worse under the obama administration. both parties have a lot to atone for. we need to get back to the kind of policies we have under the reagan and clinton administrations. host: "the wall street journal" this morning's headline --

what do you make of the chinese reaction to the current dollar situation? guest: as much as it pains me to admit it, the chinese are right in this case. right now we see the great rise in equity prices in the stock market for those of us who hold stocks. we say this is wonderful. but you have the potential of another asset bubble building because this very inexpensive money that the fed is now putting out their leads to what we call the carry trade.

there are organizations who will borrow cheap dollars here and they will buy other currencies or assets around the world, driving up those prices. we have a global economy. the chinese currency is tied closely to the u.s. dollar. they cannot break away. there are a whole lot of reasons we could go into that are rather technical. as we had this integrated global economy -- if you have a great expansion of money by one central banks such as the fed or the european central bank, that really affects everybody else these days. i think the chinese are worried, for good reason, that we have seen huge price increases in real estate and parts of china,

and also in commodities. this is likely to end badly, as are all real estate bubble did. the irony is that this is in part funded by the u.s. federal reserve. we need to really have more global responsibility on the part of all the central banks to hold down the growth of the money supply. getting back to the earlier caller, that requires the legislative branches in some countries to reduce the levels of government spending. host: let me get paul krugman's voice into this from "the new york times." he writes --

host: any reaction to that? guest: i think mr. krugman has it wrong. the chinese have very limited potential for movement. you ask government securities -- talk about the trillions that the chinese have invested into the u.s.. those u.s. government securities serve as the reserves for much of their banks and

financial system. if they were suddenly allowed to their currency to rise rapidly against the dollar, then they would be farmed more reserves for their own banks. -- they would need far more reserves for their own banks. it would put a lot of other banks under water, or they would have to buy more of our securities. in a better way to look at this -- if you assume that china was just a 51st state, another california, and they were using the u.s. dollar. for all intents and purposes, the chinese currency has been so closely tied to the u.s. dollar for several decades, there in the same bind with the fed. i think paul krugman is totally unrealistic.

they cannot do it without putting their full financial infrastructure under water and having a crisis like we do. host: james, you are on the independent line for richard rahn. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. with cap and trade, workers comp rules, forcing employers to pay fines for not covering their employees -- we are not to create an environment to lure businesses into this country. i'm afraid this will push more out of the work force. our government has got to create an environment where we can create a working environment where people who want to come here -- and the more they squeeze companies, the more money there were enough to

print to keep this bid will turning -- to keep this big wheel turning. guest: many of the measures going to congress will greatly increase the cost of u.s. business. as you do that, that means they will have less money for new investment, for productivity increases, and to hire workers. we will put ourselves in a less internationally competitive position. we are going to be worse off and have slower growth. there's no way you can avoid this. there's this huge disconnect about so many members of congress who cannot seem to put the dogs together. they somehow think you can greatly increase the cost and impose costs on american business. the math does not work. it is time for members of congress to start taking take

long run view and start understanding the cost and benefits of what they do. if i could make one big change on capitol hill, it is before any of this legislation goes through, have a detailed, independent cost benefit analysis of what the ramifications are going to be. and congress goes ahead and passes all these things and that we end up with another disaster, which is predictable. let me give you an example. we know that fannie mae and freddie mac were in large part responsible for the financial crisis. they were the ones that were buying the subprime mortgages, and congress was pushing them to do it. as a result, we have a lot of people who cannot afford loans getting mortgages. this was the government 80 and abetting the suffered. we thought we have learned our lesson. if you look at what is happening

now, freddie mac and fannie mae are already guaranteeing more than did the% of all the new mortgages. -- more than 50% of all the new mortgages. this is going to be another disaster. nobody wants to read but what they're doing. the pressures on these agencies by a member of congress's. -- nobody wants to admit what they are doing. not everybody is in a position to maintain a big mortgage. we have to face the reality. host: kansas city, kan. good morning. caller: i'm curious if he has read the book "the creature from jekyll island." as far as the five that all of our national bankses -- the fed, the imf, and the world bank are responsible for every bank closing we have had because they print money wildly.

and because of the fact that they have caused every war we have had and financed both sides. it is not the congress so much as they are turning their heads away from what the problem is. is the banking system that is going to be the ruination of this country. host: how would you wrap up the current condition of the dollar? what should we be looking for? guest: it is very hard to say. i know that sounds like a two armed economist answer. you have already had a big fall in the dollar against the yen, the euro, the swiss franc, the canadian dollar, and the australian dollar. the dollar is not going to fall forever.

part of it is looking at the actions of our fed and our congress versus the actions of the other central banks and the legislative bodies. this is not clear. what is a safer bet is that over the long run, we are going to have much higher interest rates, and probably much higher inflation. i'm afraid we will probably replicate many of the mistakes we already are of the late 1970's. then there is going to have to be another correction. you cannot spend money the way we are and have the fed expand money the way we are without negative consequences in the future. host: our guest has spent richard rahn, senior fellow at the cato institute. we appreciate your time this monday morning. guest: thank you very much. host: we will talk with senator amy klobuchar.

ulcers on the table, possibly on the floor of the senate this week. -- health care is on the table, possibly on the floor of the senate this week. before that, we thought we would do some questions about this. we are hearing that obama, according to the financial times, is dampening climate hopes. you can see the president arriving in shanghai. no climate change deal this year is our topic, at least from what we're reading. we want to get your reaction this morning to all of that for the next 20 minutes. here are some of the details from the peace in "financial times."

host: baltimore, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. i am pleased to be on air. thank you for c-span. i just want to emphasize that even if president obama does not come away with an agreement from the other world countries on climate change, that each individual american needs to still recognize their own individual responsibility to save as much on energy as they possibly can, and still contribute to the problem of

climate change. i think that the president should go on and emphasize to the american people that just because there's not a world agreement on what we should do in terms of climate change, but we should still hold ouourselves individually responsible for reducing how much energy we use. host: david, republican caller from georgia. what is your reaction? caller: i think president obama has realized he has spent all his political capital on health care, and he knows trying to put through a health care and climate change -- he knows that is impossible. that is what he is due in doubt. he did not just wake up and say

we do not have a kind of problem. he knows that he can do one or the other. host: tony, independent caller from washington, d.c. caller: i do not think this is an issue of climate change. if climate change was really an issue, then they would address the fact that they have been sprayeing, putting chlorine in our drinking water. i do not think this is an issue of climate change. and a rational person knows that only the sun warms the planet.

only the sun. what is is really about? this is about the global elite turning this into an authoritarian state. some of the things in that copenhagen tradineaty -- this ia move for the elite to establish their new world order. they do not have an interest in climate change. climate change is a politically corrupt way of saying genocide. host: more from the "financial times."

a commitment by the u.s. to cut its emissions by 2020, and finance from the u.s. and other rich nations to help poor nations cut their emissions and cope with the effects of climate change. kansas city, missouri on the line for democrats. caller: i would like to say that when you get cheaper oil war relatively cheaper compared to the more exotic forms of energy, there are hidden costs. there are cost to our city, our air, our water, and our children's health.

these are not to invade or paid for by the user. you're not going to get capitalism -- investors are going to go for the cheapest. they're going to go for putting the true cost on somebody else and reaping a profits. this whole thing about the deficit -- there are two things about a deficit. a man spends to letter thousand dollars at a casino, that as a deficit. if he spends that money on house, a car, food, that is -- it is about how we spend our money. let's quit spending our money on more. let's start on investing in our country but other countries might have higher deficits, but they're much more programs.

there is education, mass infrastructure, transit. thank you. host: n.c., jerry on the independents line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. we need to do that. another thing that the gentleman said -- we do have a lot of oil in america, but the oil that we drovill goes to japan and other countries. it is put on the world market. it is something that is in the ground but all of us own. we let these feeble by these leases -- we let these people buy these leases.

once they get all the leases on our oil, then they can control the price and do whatever they want. as far as the environment, this is something that is going to affect everyone in the world. we have got to look at all the stuff we are doing. everybody in china is going to own an automobile soon. host: "the wall street journal" writes t--

host: darcy, republican, what do you say? caller: i am very happy he is not going to make the copenhagen treaty. it will take away our sovereignty. we will have to go by the treaty of the un nation, and we will not be able to back out of it. it is a transfer of wealth from us polluting countries to the third world countries. just like a couple callers said climate change is a hoax.

it is another ponzi scheme. i see these rainbows in the sky from the chem trails. it is disgusting. they are creating a problem that is non existent. plants need co2 to breath. i am glad that he is not signing it. host: i want to send you over to "the new york times" for new analysis of this. host: the point they make is that the admission prices mr. obama in the awkward position.

and they talk about the viewpoints and challenges that president bush and now president obama face on this issue. colorado, bill, democrat. caller: i have to agree with the caller just a moment ago. i think we have a real problem here. the more we signed into international agreements that are abroad, and we are lacking the real concern in the interest of those people on their part for exactly how we in this country might need to deal with our energy use. that goes back to a caller earlier who was talking about our own personal responsibility. i do not want to see us give away any sovereignty.

i would rather see this country, or in this case, this administration, to promote alternative sources of energy. the one that is never talked about is magnetic drive systems. it's kind of things are used to power cars to go from zero to 60 in three seconds. we can turn these into home generators. they simply runoff a magnetic drive pulse. it is a very simple, clean type of energy source that can be used in every home in america. it can create larger units that are used to drive power plants. this kind of things are never even talked about. host: we will take a short time out and get back to that issue of healthcare in the senate. it may begin debate this week on the floor. senator amy klobuchar, democrat

from minnesota, will be joining us. we will be right back. ♪ >> today on c-span 2, hersman describes some of agency's investigations. she will address a luncheon of the national press club and take questions from the audience members. live coverage begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern. also, the final space shuttle launch of the year is scheduled from the kennedy space center in florida. a six-member crew will begin an 11-day trip to the international space station, delivering 3,000

pounds worth of spare parts. live coverage begins at 2:20 eastern on c-span 3. gordon brown gives a policy speech of the lord mayor's banquet today. live coverage starts at 3:45 p.m. eastern, also on c-span 3. >> c-span's documentary of one of the most cunning buildings in washington is now available on dvd. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, takes you to place is only accessible to the justices and their staff. you're about the court's history and traditions from the justices themselves. own your own dvd copy. it is $9.95 plus shipping and handling. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest now is senator

amy klobuchar, who tells us that she gave 22 speeches in three days when she went back home during the last break. several of them were on health care. what did you tell your constituents? guest: there's a lot of interest in the health care reform in minnesota. you can imagine what kind of medical mecca, with the mayo clinic, and continually used as an example. our state is focused on making sure that any health care in forreform bill is more efficien. my favorite statistic is that a study came out showing that if all of the hospitals in the country used some of the protocol that mail clinic uses with chronically ill patients, we could save $50 billion in five years. again, for some of the highest quality care in the country. we're focused on that.

the medical device issue is an area we're working on. also, this idea of making care more affordable. i always tell people to remember only three numbers. six, 12, and 24. that is 10 years ago, the average american family was paying $6,000 per year. now they pay $12,000 per year. that is an average. if we do not do anything, 10 years from now, the average american family will pay $24,000 a year. host: what do you make of the house bill? guest: there are some good things about it. the favorite thing for me and my people in minnesota is that it gets rid of the ban on pre- existing conditions. no one wants to think that their kids get sick that they will suddenly use theilose their heah insurance.

the other thing people like is this idea that you can keep your kids and your insurance policy until they're 26. people get worried when their kids going to college. those are some of the good things. some of the things that are like to see in the senate bill -- i think we will have a stronger focus on cost reforms. you will not see quite as large of a price tag. host: the phone numbers are on our screen for our guest, senator amy klobuchar, democrat of minnesota. we will be taking calls from minnesota callers as well. guest: highest voter turnout consistently. host: what can you tell us about harry reid and his plans to bring a bill to the floor? guest: you can imagine this is quite a challenge. we have two bills in the senate. we have the health committee bill.

we also have the senate finance committee bill that focuses more on how this will be paid for. you also have to consider members who are not on committee. there are things they would like to see. majority leader harry reid has said he would like to get a bill out there and a vote on the floor by either the end of this week or the beginning of next week. host: there is the roll-call headline. host: there's a lot in this article. i just wanted to ask you more about that magic number of 60 votes. you may be passed on fast to voe motion to proceed. are there 50 votes? >> i believe there are. there are many negotiations going on. joe lieberman has some concerns

about the house version, the public option. he has made that clear. ben nelson and olympia snowe -- there's a lot of talk about who will be in those 60 votes and what the bill will look like. the most important thing is to get the bill on the floor so we can start debating. host: virginia on the line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. the first thing we need to get rid of is the border agreements that the government has made. i have health care that obama wants for everybody. i pay eight thousand dollars per year. his family coverage. -- it is family coverage. most people are not willing to work for health care. i but to work and i cleared a 20 per week after i paid my gas and everything. that is all i worked for was

health insurance prettify can do it, other americans can do with. people want to live off the government. the american people who work -- we cannot keep supporting the rest of the country. until our government realizes that, mr. bowsher voted against it, and i'm glad he did. host: senator klobuchar. guest: thank you for your comments. a lot of people feel exactly like you do. it's difficult for people to make it in this economy. your first question was about border controls. i think you may have meant allowing this exchange to cross state lines. that is one of the things that is in this bill. you can buy insurance that you may be would not have had access to before.

in a number of states, there are maybe one or two insurance companies that dominate the market. we are trying to foster more competition to bring those prices down. in minnesota, we have more efficient low-cost care. we have a number of them that compete with each other in our state. that has really helped in our state. the idea of the exchanges to cross over those borders and to allow different private plans to be a part of this exchange. as part as working to get your insurance, i completely agree. we want to have as many people employed as we possibly can. a lot of people have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. we want to make sure that if you do lose your job, or if you want to small your own smart -- if you want to start your own small

business, you want to have the opportunity to buy insurance. the idea is by creating this exchange, is to allow people to leverage their numbers so they can get as good of a right as you are talking about. host: moving on to l.a., jim on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to ask the senator, who is a great senator, i wanted to ask for about the future of the single payer, possibly government sponsored public option. i am most concerned that everybody has basic health insurance. i do not need insurance for cover in plastic surgery and that's sort of thing, but just basic health-care. is this a reality, or is this

something that is financially impossible? guest: thank you for your comments. let's first differentiate this idea of having a government-run plan for everybody is not what anyone is talking about. i did the president has made it clear. some people may desire that. when you are looking at 17% of the economy and try to keep what is good about our health care system, that is not the direction we are going. however, the public option is something different. the idea is that as part of this exchange for you have private insurance companies, you also have a public option. there are various forms of it. the house version allows for a negotiation of rates. one of the things that is very important for me is that we have that kind of negotiation. if we just rates on medicare, which already has some issues

-- it is based on reporting the number of surgeries as opposed to the quality, result orientated outcomes, you could perpetuate some of the problems. we like the idea of negotiating those rates. there are many versions of this. that is one of the things of we will be working on in the senate, to find something meaningful that will afford us that kind of competition. to me the big issue is this delivery system. how do we deliver health care? how do we become more efficient so we can match some of these other countries? and our small businesses do not have to cut people off from their insurance. part of this is how we deliver health care. if i could just give one example out of a non minnesota example -- we to do a better job

of treating diabetes patients. they had too many people waiting to get in. they said let's have nurses see our patients, and then we will have the dodgers saved for the most difficult cases, and they will review all of the routine cases. they did that and they ended up with higher quality, higher patient satisfaction, saving two hundred dollars per month per patient, and they got less money for that. they got less money fofrom the government for that. we want to change the way we deliver more integrated care, instead of tipple to be over each other. that is what we are trying to change. host: call from minnesota on the

line for democrats. caller: good morning, senator klobuchar. the reason i am calling -- i was denied life-saving health care last friday. i am not an isolated case. in a flight attendant. i pay my benefits out of my paychecks. i am really scared. i am on family leave to get healthier. they suggested i call your office today and here i am speaking with you personally. guest: first of all, i want you to call our office directly this morning. i know it is an hour earlier in minnesota. give them a call. call someone named erica nelson.

she will be able to work with you on your individual case. as for the bigger picture of this problem, i will say that we have seen this all the time. people who have issues, they get denied coverage for something that maybe the doctor wants you to do it, but then the insurance company says something else. .

what we need to do is have clear rules about the pre-existings, making sure that we are putting the patient and the doctor in the driver's seat. host: abortion became a big issue in the house as it passed the amendment. how do you see things playing out in the amendment -- playing out on that issue? guest: we are encouraged to look at the language that we have now in the bill, including the ban on public funding for abortion. people may feel differently about that issue, clearly, but everyone has said that we need to feel neutral about this, otherwise it will be difficult to get this legislation through. once you start expanding into

the private insurance plan market is when it becomes an issue. we have a compromise that has been worked out and i would guess that that might make it through the senate. we will see what happens in the conference committee. host: time for one more call. alabama, republican caller. caller: i remember several years ago the federal government said that we had too many doctors. so, he paid them tens of millions of dollars to make up the difference for tuition at the schools. course, now says they done that we have a big shortage of doctors now. why did we need two hospitals?

they just turned everything over to dch and west alabama went out of business. they raise prices up to where dch was. we have got no competition in hospitals now. wal-mart superstores want to put in clinics. host: you left a lot there for the senator. we have got to get her going. guest: i was thinking of jeff sessions and the judiciary committee, he is from alabama as well. i want to short -- focus on the shortage of doctors and realize that it is a tremendous problem, with too many doctors in certain places adding to cost problems.

the costs seem to go up. my joke in minnesota is that wanted to take half of the doctors in miami and move them to alabama and minnesota. the bottom line is that medical students to do a better job of creating incentives by going into primary care and rural areas so that they feel they can graduate with less money in debt and still make it in a rural area. we have got to create more programs that make it more welcoming for them. there can be a great quality of life in rural america. it is good for all of us, because of what we have seen with the numbers across the country. host: our guest has been senator amy klobuchar. guest: it has been great to be on.

host: senate debate begins this week, or whenever it does start, we will be here watching a play out live on the floor. we will be right back. >> is 9:04. here are the latest headlines. the commerce department said that retail sales rose more than expected last month largely due to an increase in auto sales. the government revised september's performance, stock futures pointing to a higher opening. general motors says that they're much reproved earnings report shows a solid foundation after generating $3 billion in cash in the third quarter. the company says that it will begin to repay government loans next month. british and u.s. ambassadors in afghanistan praised the afghan government's new commitment to fighting corruption as they

launched a new anti-corruption unit and major crime-fighting force. this was the third official launch of a unit promising to rein in graft and bribery, saying that there was a real desire to succeed, strong international backing, and defense against international threats. mahmoud ahmadinejad said that talks of nuclear issues between iran and other powers will only hurt the west. the remarks, after president obama said that iran is running out of time to agree to a u.n.- brokered plan to ship its uranium out of the country for further processing. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we will do about 10 more minutes of open phones, and the topic you like, health care or climate change, domestic policy, foreign policy, and we

will also be talking politics in about 10 minutes. here are the numbers. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. matthew will be along at 9:15 to talk about his new book, "the persecution of sarah palin: how the elite media tried to bring down a rising star. " of course, her book comes out tomorrow, officially. peachtree city, georgia. republican caller. what is on your mind? >> i am perplexed by the democrats -- caller: i am perplexed by the democrats attempting to throw the baby out

with the bathwater. seems that they are jumping over the ditch rather than using the common-sense approach of walking around the ditch. host: what are you looking for in all of that word fly? >collar " tort reform. the things that the republicans are saying that they are not listening to. they could be using intern's supervised by medical specialists to help to provide care to the changing number of the millions of americans that they say have no insurance. first it was 47, then it dropped. the number keeps going down. but if they allowed small businesses to purchase across state lines it would be an improvement. would you buy a new car because you have a flat tire?

no, you would fix the flat and go on. the flat in this country is the need for reforming the system and taking care of specific problems in the system. host: let's hear from tim, in detroit. caller: i called about the unemployment situation about one month ago. to give you an update, still not working, lost my benefits at the end of october. still have not even gotten a letter saying if i qualify or not. in the weeks that tick by, the economy is getting worse and worse. host: what kind of work did you do? caller: i was a machinist. i went through retraining, but nothing is happening here. what i would like to say is that we keep getting off of the point of all of these different issues and distractions.

it is the economy. this is going to be the worst holiday i can remember in my life. this is a terrible situation and i do not see any sense of urgency in this administration at all. host: out of detroit this morning, general motors says that it has lost billions since it left bankruptcy protection, a sign that the auto giant is starting to turn around. the company also said that they will begin to repay the $6.7 billion in u.s. government loans. also from the associated press, retail sales rose more than expected in october, largely reflecting a rebound in automobile sales. atlanta, georgia, you are up now. caller: how are you? host: fine, go ahead please. caller: i do not mind that we

get unemployment benefits for the first six months or 12 months. i think what we need to do is take this money that is going out to people that do not work and have them do some of these government jobs. i think of this came up a few years ago and it worked in a couple of places. why are we still giving money to people that do not want to work? my father finished third grade, but he put five of us through college. i think that people need to get off of their rumps, the government needs to be paying people to do these jobs instead of giving them free checks. host: let's hear from chris, a republican caller from houston. caller: i am calling in response to the senator. i have a couple of comments i would like to make on health care reform. i actually have a problem with

health care reform as it is in the bill right now. my problem is our current spending and the fiscal deficit. in is increasing every day, probably by $100,000 per second. i just wanted to make a comment. in 2006 obama said that washington was shifting a bunch of bad choices on to the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a failure of leadership. even with obama in the white house i believe that we have a failure of leadership, committing generational theft on our children and grandchildren. there are a couple of simple solutions, as a college student i will have to find insurance myself one day. but why not do something based on the model coming out of texas?

comprehensive malpractice reform, getting rid of junk lawsuits. actually attracting people to the states. excuse me, it would free up the court system. we could put a cap on non- economic medicaid damages. we could also increase competition by allowing families, businesses, individuals to purchase across state lines. competition drives down the cost of insurance and improves the quality at the same time. host: got you on all points, caller. one program note, we will be having the national -- chairman of the national transportation safety board on television later

today, we expect her to speak on this issue, the proposal that the federal government regulate local transit agencies in the wake of increased local subway and light rail passenger injuries in the last year. dan, good morning. caller: i picked up the phone when you said that the biography of sarah palin was coming out. went she was picked by the gop i was embarrassed to be a woman. i do not understand any of her thoughts. she does not even have a brain in her head. anyways, i did not understand it.

real quick, something else i had to mention about health care, i do not know if anyone noticed, but everyone is talking about health care reform, and in one day turned in the health insurance reform. i have not been insurable since i was 19. i am disabled. i had a rare disease. i do not understand what they're doing, we are just making insurance companies more powerful by giving them these new clients that are subsidized by the government. this for profit thing just does not work. we have proven it time and again. host: thank you for a thoughts on health care. for anyone else who would like to call in about sarah palin, you had your chance next. after a short break we will be

talking with matthew continetti, who has written his own book entitled "the persecution of sarah palin." be right back. ♪ >> today on c-span 2, the chair of the national transportation safety board discusses her agency's investigations and other safety issues, addressing a luncheon of the national press club and taking questions from audience members. live coverage begins at 1:00. nasa's final space shuttle launch this year is scheduled. a six member crew of the shuttle atlantis will begin an 11-day

trip, delivering 30,000 pounds and several years worth of square -- spare parts. live coverage begins at 2:20 on c-span 3. british prime minister, gordon brown, gives a foreign-policy speech today. live coverage starts at 3:45 eastern, also on c-span 3. >> tonight, on the communicators. what to watch for, the white house open government initiative, twitter, craigslist, social media and industry insiders at the gv 2.0 summit. tonight, on "the communicator's." >> "washington journal" continues. host: with sarah palin's book coming out tomorrow, why did you decide to write a book called "the persecution of sarah palin

"? guest: as i watched the press coverage unfold i was amazed at the myths and exaggerations' that were being told about her by some of our most established news media. people said that she was a supporter of pat buchanan. she was not. people said that she was a supporter of the alaska independence party. she was not a member. rumors about the maternity of her youngest child were circulated. all of these rumors and lies, i decided that we should catalog them to show that not only were all of these myths propagated, but also to try to explore the question of why. i think that why is the more interesting question. sarah palin has this unerring ability to summon up the worst feelings in her opponents. it is really quite amazing. host: what is that quality? why is that quality bear?

why does it have the effect that it has? guest: personally i think that she represents most of the things that the left in this country want to change about america. they do not like her forthright christianity. they do not like the fact that she is not a member of the feminist establishment. in fact she disagrees with much of mainstream feminism. they do not like that she is representing the people who are left out of the obama revolution. the job a plumber -- joe the plubmer's of the worlds. people without elite scholarships and agrees. host: we are talking with matthew continetti on his new book, "the persecution of sarah

palin," in which you talk about some of these rumors and lies. who were the biggest offenders? oguest: there were quite a few. "the new york times brandy issue of the alaskan independence party on its front pages. if you go to the museum -- newseum and look at the front pages of the nation's newspapers in 2008, it was filled with the pregnancy of her eldest daughter. this does not strike me as front-page news, certainly not something to be fronted without any consideration of the fact that it has on the family, the girl, or that it has on the child as he grows older. host: what about the web? guest: [laughter] the blogosphere is pretty

vitriolic. the maternity of three youngest son was kicked around on many leftist web sites. it was referred to by many established newspapers. all of these things kind of come to fruition, and we have to be skeptical of them. because of the new media, so much is on mediated. we have to take a step back. in the case of sarah palin, so much of this was not true. host: as we look at the role of the media in these elections, what do you see as the future? guest: based on the reaction to her book, i think that she will continue to get negative press. but i think that sarah palin has discovered another avenue for communication. that is through the new media. one of barack obama's many

achievements in the 2008 campaign was utilizing new social media like facebook and youtube, ways to communicate directly with your supporters. without getting much credit, sarah palin is doing exactly that. her facebook as close to 1 million followers. she is second only to barack obama in the number of friends on facebook. twitter, i think that is around 15,000. the last i checked it was growing. through these media she communicates directly, dispelling some myths. if you go to our facebook page, almost every day there is a lengthy essay posted there, including footnotes on various policy issues of the day. host: brian, republican line. caller: good morning. i wanted to just agree with matthew.

i think it is a thoughtful left- wing media bashing of someone. they make it so obvious, for she was not important and she did not matter -- if she was not important and she did not matter there would be no coverage of her. they are very afraid of her and going out of her way -- out of their way to discredit her and any one that agrees with her. it is just so obvious. i think that the american people are so far beyond this kind of trashing. no matter what they do, this woman will rise. i do not know if she will run for office or not. i think that she will. i just think it is typical left-

wing media. again, they make themselves so obvious, you know? if they did not care, they would not cover her. guest: i agree with you. of all the politicians that have written books, the coverage devoted to sarah palin -- remember, she no longer holds any office, she did not win the vice presidency, yet she is the story of the week. my favorite example so far of the negative coverage of her book is the associated press. they had 11 reporters write a fact check of her book. they took 11 ap reporters to discover that she is ambitious. it is ludicrous, the manner of reporting on her and the reaction to her ability to drive her opponents bonkers. it is laughable sometimes.

host: you write that this is a book about how "the beast hunted down its prey and how to pray fought back." guest: i think that her book is part of that fighting back. sarah palin has not been able to tell her side of the story. i think that her book is her attempts to tell her side of what happened in the campaign. this is something the she needs to do to start looking forward. while there is some policy discussed in "going rogue," it is somewhat backward looking, telling people about her life, in alaska and on the campaign trail, finishing with a brief look forward about what might be next. because she does not tell her story, who will? certainly not the media.

cocoa -- host: harpercollins is the publisher of sailor pale and's books -- sarah palin's book. matthew continetti is here talking about his book, "the persecution of sarah palin." fort lauderdale, florida, is on the line. mark? caller: my main question is this. this bunker mentality, sometimes hard questions are asked of sarah palin and right away is either an attack or people are trying to be-term. asking someone hard questions is not going after them, is it? if you do not mind, i would like to maybe hang on and above what you might have to say. guest: i have no problem with people asking hard questions. as i write, i think that her

real major misstep was her interview with katie couric. even sarah palin admits that it did not go well. she admitted that to oprah winfrey and talks about it in the book. every aspirant to high office should be it able to answer tough questions. what happened with sarah palin was a cultural revulsion. any rumored to be inherited, every fact that might confirm this caricature of her as some sort of radical conservative bent on taking us back to the stone age was embraced. every factor that contradicted that, which is most of her political profile prior to 2008, directly rebuffs that khartoum. well, those facts were dismissed. host: caller? caller: it seems to me that

everything you just said, she seems to have this mentality, as many like her do, that any type of questioning or the slightest bit of negativity is right away and attack. i have not read the book, obviously, it has not come out yet, i am looking forward to it, but from what i have heard a great deal of it is about the left-wing media being out to get her. guest: well, there is something to the fact that people are out to get hurt. it has something to do with what the earlier caller said. she is, in many ways, a threat, i think, to the current our configuration in washington. mccall, the only time that john mccain was winning the presidential election last year, the only time that he was pulling ahead of barack obama was between his announcement of

sarah palin as his running mate and the collapse of lehman brothers. one part of that equation he had something to do with, picking sarah palin. the other part neither sarah palin nor john mccain nor anyone else saw coming. they could not do much about it. host: matthew continetti, father of "the persecution of sarah palin," graduate from columbia. we have a call from jeff, california. caller: matthew, it is incredible that you are serious. i did not get any of my negative feelings about sarah palin from left-wing media. i got it from watching her in hearing her speak. the fact that people refer these days even to liberal media it

appears to be one of those things that among conservatives is a dinosaur. if you recall, the media back in the 1980's was either liberal or conservative. conservatives that did not like anything that they heard from the other side was because it was not their talking points of a call that led -- liberal media. -- talking points, they called that liberal media. now there really is liberal media. there is also conservative media. other people being trashed much more than her, just watch fox news, the white power network. thank you. host: you raise an interesting

point, saying that your negative feelings come from watching sarah palin. i happen to think that one of the reasons people have trouble taking sarah palin seriously is that accent. it is more minnesota than alaska, certainly not what you hear on the airwaves. certainly not what you hear on the coast the accent -- coast. the accent reminds people that she is not what you would call on the mainstream of american life. she is outside of the established networks. i think that tends to rub people the wrong way. then again, i will say that she has had some tough interviews. she had a lot of catching up to do. if you look at her closely now, as i write towards the end, i think that she is doing some of that work. if you go onto her facebook page you will see a policy haft that might not have been so visible

during the policy -- presidential campaign. host: in the past week from "the wall street journal" it says "can sarah palin make a comeback"? guest: looking at public opinion, you would find that she has become one of the most polarizing figures in american politics. republicans love her, democrats hate her and independent voters are divided. more independent voters disapprove the approved, but i think that that is somewhat manageable for her. there is only a seven. gap in the gallup poll that seems to hold up in other surveys. if she has more independent voters approving rather than disapproving, they could serve most birders in the white house in 2016. host: one of our comments from twitter, "you believe that she

writes for facebook entries"? another one questions if she wrote the book herself. guest: i believe that she writes to the extent that any political figure rights the material under the name. politicians tend to be bosses. they like to run things. that is why they are politicians. of course she had a collaborator of her book. she says that. as i read the excerpts coming from the book, it struck me that it was very much in her voice. it was informal and casual, very down to earth. that is one thing that her supporters like most. host: st. louis, back to the calls. joe, republican line. what do you have to say? caller: i like sarah palin. she is interesting and i listen to her. people are not going to like her

if you do not have conservative values or views. i was interested in what you were talking about with independent voters, i think that that is her problem in the presidential race issue decided iran. she does not have that ronald reagan quality -- if she decided to run. she does not have that ronald reagan holiday. she could run as a third -- reagan quality. she could run as a third-party candidate. my worry is that she could split the vote. what is your take on that? host: third-party chances? guest: i am skeptical. this is something that you hear about quite a bit, but i do not think it will happen. sarah palin has been a loyal republican since the age of 19. we went back and look at the

voter registration, she has voted republican since the age of 19. i do not see her leaving. but it is important to the constituency that she represents, this tea party constituency of angry people, people angry at the way the party is headed, wanting the big spending that stop -- to stop, not wanting cap and trade in place, those voters will be integral to any republican come back. she is more or less the the fact a leader and she will have to be included in any republican movement. whether it is in 2010 or 2012. you are right, to be like ronald reagan she will need to get to the center. here is the thing, she has done before. the sarah palin that ran for

governor of alaska in 2006 was not as hard bitten cultural warrior that you hear about in the media. it is someone very different, someone campaigning on bipartisan issues, ethics reform, changing the tax code for the oil companies, making a critique that the people of alaska were being left out by the culture of being an insider in the state capital. i think that an argument similar to that applied to a national scale would be compelling to independent voters on 2012. host: we are talking about sarah palin and the media. hello. caller: when i first saw sarah palin i took myself back four years when i was at a lower level at another state and was called upon to run. i had no idea the den of lions i

was entering into. i empathize with her greatly. there was a lot of vitriol. she has a great deal offer this country. she is not perfect, but no politician is. i think she was horribly maligned. the vitriolic just astounded me. a friend of my son asked me what i thought of sarah palin. i looked at her and i said that i liked her. i thought the the woman was going to explode. that is what i found in the area i live in. i will continue to defend her. she had more political experience than obama. to me she was raised by a good family, good parents.

she is an athlete. i hope that she gets in there and wins. i think she is capable of doing it. remember, she was close. guest: i think that you will also enjoy my book, "the persecution of sarah palin," if i can put in a plug. [laughter] i think it is interesting that some of the ferocity might have been that sarah palin was a woman, very different from the type of woman we see on the political stage. most of them are older, past the age of raising their children. most of the most prominent women in american politics is that they are pro-choice, sarah palin, as everyone knows, is pro life. i was fascinated that hillary clinton said she would be interested to me sarah palin. i think that that was an

interesting acknowledgement of hers of sarah palin creek lamenting that -- frequently referring to clinton as a trailblazer. bill clinton often commented favorably of sarah palin, who understood early on that a lot of people, not everyone, but a lot of americans look at her and say that she reminds me of me. she talks like i do. she has the same values that i do, i kind of like that. host: written in "the post" over the weekend, "is the book tour an opening chapter to provide a subtext to political plans"? "in addition to her book, the tour follows various smaller

states and cities, a subtext for a bigger discussion of the political future she could have or more importantly, want to have. is she a political personality? or is there something that could be called palinism"? guest: [laughter] there are definitely palinistas, palin critics, but we are not at palinism yet. it is a great question, will she be able to cultivate this grass roots effort into something bigger? i think that she adopted a free market populism, running against washington, running against the elite trying to run the economy, trying to design america according to their own theories about how society should work, i

think that could get some traction. but i think she will have to prove to the independent voters that she is familiar with the issues, that she can hold her own in the debates, which i think she did it, as i talk about in my book. down the line, she will have to go in for a rematch with katie couric. host: east michigan, hello. caller: another interview with katie couric would be a blast. once again she would be caught in the headlights. what did she do for alaska? not really that much. they have the highest crystal meth problem. come on, people are alcoholics up there. 286 seniors died on her watch because she did not want to fund health care.

host: let's hear from our guest. guest: that is the democratic critique of sarah palin. it goes back to iraq -- her record in alaska, which i am happy to hear, because so much of a critique of her had nothing to do with a record in alaska last year. it is amazing, "the washington post" and " new york times -- and "the new york times" both went to alaska last year, never commenting that she had the highest approval ratings of any politician in the country. yes, like any politician, her record has its highs and lows. but until she was nominated for the vice president and became this extremely polarizing political figure, she was remarkably popular. there has to be reason for that. host: san antonio.

jack, good morning. caller: i like your comments on a couple of items. one, the resignation of her governorship. seemed like the democrats were going by out of their way to file these ludicrous actions against her, which eventually i guess drove of her legal bills? she was going to rely savings? which is ironic, as you see the left criticizing her after they orchestrated the situation. the other item that i noticed is that the criticism of her seems to be based more on how she seems to break the liberal mold of a successful woman, a someone who actually sacrificed family for a career, and instead of being -- instead of having a good family and a good marriage, etc. etc., is basically getting

what she wants in life without following that difficult path. thank you very much. guest: great questions. first, the resignation, i do not feel that she has adequately explained it yet, but the situation that she returned to when she came back was untenable at best. there were plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum the told me that they did not think that she would run for a second term. no one told me that they thought she could rock -- resign at a time. it speaks to her impulsiveness as a political figure. the reason that she did it, as the caller mentioned, were these mounting complaints against her, most of which have been

dismissed, frivolous, mostly ethics complaints. there were two other reported reasons. we tend to forget, as this was not covered when she appeared on the national stage, but the bulk of her support in the legislature in alaska came from democrats. she had run on a campaign of reform and had overturned the the republican power structure in alaska. as a result, not many republicans in alaska like her, to this day. so, to get those legislations through, she relied heavily on democrats. well, as soon as she became the running mate of john mccain, her democratic support evaporated. when she returned, she could not get anything through the legislature. republicans hated her for going up against the state party chair

and the democrats hated her for being sarah palin. that, combined with ethics complaints, as well as her new political persona, the most famous republican women in the world, every time she left alaska to communicate with supporters, she would be pilloried in a local press. i think that she saw those things and said that it was time to move on. on the feminism, i have an entire chapter devoted of feminism in my book. one of the points i do make, i think that the caller is right, there is a narrative for many women that you have to trade off a successful personal life for professional success. sarah palin shows that that is not necessarily the case, which i think it got her criticized and made fun of in some cases, ridiculed by the feminist establishment. host: this caller is calling

from alaska, says she is -- calling from arizona, says she is from alaska. caller: first of all, i would like to say that sarah palin gave her reason for resigning, she owed $500,000 in legal fees for defending herself against so many ethics complaints, of which she was convicted, several of them, including taking money from the state for eating at her home, taking money for taking her family traveling around the country, and several others that she was not convicted of but there were still muddy waters when it was solved, at least in the eyes of many alaskans. host: what does all that mean to you, caller? caller: personally, i voted for her. i was willing to give her a chance as governor. she did very little of what she promised.

in my eyes she became a drama queen. anytime things that none over way for any time that she got criticism, she became quite venomous towards the pe that criticized her. she could not live with even a small bit of criticism. how ridiculous of her to pick on john mccain staffers in the book. i did not plan to read the book, but i saw on your show that she is planning to complain about republican staffers. that shows how low she is planning to go with it. guest: i think it was more sarah palin it -- sarah palin responding to the mccain advisers ticking on her. we do not know their identities, but they were talking about background reports of blaming sarah palin for the loss of john mccain. if anything, i think that she helped john mccain close the

gap. i think that many people voted for john mccain who would not have if sarah palin was not on the ticket. she excited the grass roots. i think she is trying to put her story out there, rather than picking out anyone. the caller makes a good point on the per diem issue. i do not exonerate her of everything. like all political figures, she has pluses and minuses. on the troopergate issue, while one report tried to blame her for not taking stops -- not taking steps from stopping or husband from contacting public safety, the other report by judicial council exoneratied host: her.

-- exaggerated heard. host: "emerging as a nemesis in the excerpt, charges were made out." if you go the other publications, john mccain calls her book a good account. then he acknowledged tension and a lot of back-and-forth, as well as contradiction, but he said it was a ghraib. what to believe? guest: -- but he said it was a good book. what to believe? guest: it takes us back to the mccain campaign, a ramshackle organization the entire time he was running for president. schmidt has emerged as one of sarah palin's biggest critics. she hits back in this book. i would say that she can hit back now, but the caller has made excellent points, if she wants a political future she

will have to start talking about the country as a whole. she will have to use that criticism and they met at barack obama. host: we have a twitter question about policy. "she lacks substance and have to pander to red state values for higher q ratings. -- ratings." this gets back to your issue of the direct to the voter ways of communicating. what is she saying, policy-wise? guest: basically it is the conservative message, at this point. health care with more regulations would add to the cost of business, having unforeseen consequences, not all of which would be good. she is saying that cap and trade with actively raise energy prices and that if you are going to be responsible things, why not start drilling offshore? she is going after the obama budget, saying that it spends

too much money and that they need to be careful. more or less a republican critique of the obama policy. i would say that the twitter commentator makes a good point. she has been judged by the court of public opinion for now. the thing is, opinions of public leaders change over time. hillary clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in american politics, and she came very close to winning the democratic nomination. now she is one of the more popular figures in the obama cabinet. look at ronald reagan, whose political career had been declared dead many times before he won the republican nomination in 1980. host: a quick word about the dynamics within the party, this is from charlie crist, a sure- fire republican becomes a right- wing target. "and intelligent former speaker

of the house, a reagan night that answers to mr. obama by the national review. what is going on there within the party? of desk of the same thing that we saw in the special congressional election in new york 23. we are seeing it with florida. there is a revolt among some conservative grassroots against established republicanism. in new york resawed conservative voters that wanted nothing to do with a liberal republican that had been put on the ticket by the party establishment and backed by the republicans in washington, d.c. something similar is happening with charlie crist. the most of -- the most enthusiastic voters right now are on the right, the people that show up for the tea parties. they are going to have to find a way, the republican party, to keep those voters involved and active. this same thing happened with

that the democrats after the 2004 election. lots of people were saying that they would hurt the party. but the democratic party was able to incorporate the network voters while reaching out to the middle. then we have 2006 and 2008, with barack obama in the white house. host: democratic line, good morning. caller: i am listening to what your saying about sarah palin being down to earth, but we should not confuse the language of the people with being simplistic and naive. god help us, her whole approach on the view of things is so simplistic and night eve. the world is not like that. it is much more complex than that, much more complex than sarah palin is allowing it to be. about this attack on her, as

another person said, just listen to what she says during the interviews, you will see that the woman has no knowledge, no broadness of thought in any area whatsoever. guest: you raise an interesting point, this idea of sophistication and the world being too complex for sarah palin's message. i think that one dividing line in politics today is along those lines. for lack of a better word, the liberal view of reality is that it is so complex that it takes people with a more sophisticated technocratic background in order to manipulate it to get the outcomes that we want. the conservative that you might say that that is true to some point, but what is also necessary as a set of values and foundational principles. because the world is so complex, we do not always having answered everything. because we are human beings,

often we do not know enough to change the world to our liking. more important than expertise knowledge would be a broad set of political values. i think that that is what sarah palin's supporters like in her. i would also mention that the one interview that people go back to is the katie couric interviewed. as i write in my book, that was a bad interview. sarah palin admits it to this day. but that was only one interview. sarah palin gave many others. if you look at those other ones, you might have a very different opinion. host: next caller, good morning. caller: i like her because she is honest. during a conference about this administration, who boxes of their questions in the ways that they want it to be read. sarah palin gives interviews from the heart, but obama has

surrounded himself with communist czars. she would take a good cabinet, but people want to hear. obama has to read the teleprompter. that is the sad part. host: are you going to see a lot more interviews as opposed to these and direct to voter affairs? guest: we are seeing the big- name interviews this week with the book rollout. i think that those are meant to humanize her, say that she is not a caricature. but i do not know what is going happen. i would say that if she is serious about continuing to be a national political figure, she will have to return to those more serious interviews. like i said, she will have to revisit, not only with charlie gibson, but also with katie couric and the other networks, proving that she can handle them. once she does that i think that the opinion of her might change. the bar is set low because of

the demonization, it is kind of easy to walk over it. host: grand junction. hello. caller: i have been an independent for a long time. i think that sarah palin was the brightest light in the republican campaign last year. it looks to me that mccain was going into the dump her until she showed up. -- dumper until she showed up. you should understand another thing. very little chance i would vote for president. we have had enough people like bush and so forth in there. she would be the extreme of that. the other part of that, i think that the republican party is really missing the boat by not sending a team there to rumor. because sheesh -- she shows

things on television that another good for some of the people. one of the earlier callers mentioned a sort of image of shallow nests -- shallownewss. -- shallowness. in a phone booth, where majority rules, that does not matter much on account of the fact that when you get into that phone booth people are thinking a lot like she thinks. host: thank you. final thoughts on where all of this is going for sarah palin? guest: as the caller mentioned, bush. bush hurt sarah palin. the country went through eight years of george w. bush, two unpopular wars. bush's on popularity was extremely high.