it is my personal view earmarks for such a nominal piece of the whole process that they almost -- earmarks are such a nominal fees of the whole process that they almost do not count, but to suggest that would be a huge reduction would be crazy. the first thing we should do is as we go back and recognize members will provide input is insists any savings from such reduction in the number of appropriations will go to the deficit rather than going automatically back to the bureaucracies by non-elected people who think they know better what the american people ought to enjoy. >> was that a difficult discussion? every member must have a story like yours where they knew they had an earmark. was it a hard sell for your members? >> i had been one of the voices that say we ought to make sure we preserve the constitutional responsibility. that is ours to appropriate. nowhere in the constitution is the spread -- the president's budget mentioned. the earmark developed a thing in california that i was directly involved in that affected my own district, but the proton is a process for treatment that kill

to help them obtain more earmarks. in 2007 the institute had total revenue of 3.5 million dollars but since then congressman rogers has what your march 21 million for the organization then there's a sister word has several candidates and this year goes to senator tom harkin 7.$3 million to continue the harkin grant program and iowa and the senate day senator burr and west virginia for advanced manufacturing a system that will be added to the bird dropping portion of our website that means everything that is named after senator burr in west virginia. [laughter] a harkin grant program has received 33 million since 2005 this award will be limited hopefully to only senators or hopefully too no one since the house did not have any earmarks named after sitting members of congress peake says david obey says no to one thing that have been going on, and senator arlen specter and also a representative from pennsylvania $200,000 for design and construction of a small business incubator in scranton pennsylvania. enjoy today by mem

that would not have occurred without an earmark. and members often times find themselves in cases where the nih or the defense department. >> did that make it hard then to get your members largely -- >> oh, you want to take me back to what kind of debate. there were a lot of people who had absolute concern. but it was important for us to send a signal out there that said we're going to be serious about every form of appropriations and make sure there's appropriate oversight. and the way to symbolize that best, in my judgment, was by way of putting a more torm on earmarks which says ahah not all of these things are good but indeed there's a need to maintain there control and its credibility. so this symbol is going to allow us to have that discussion in open with our members. and, yes, especially since members can't initiate propeses as a result of moratorium there's a lot of controversy in our caucus and also in steny's caucus. >> i want to broaden this out a little bit as a veteran member of congress. how bitter is the partisanship

earmarks. these and we're ones that are listed in the new edition of the congressional book. william la jeunesse is here to tell us what some of the earmarks you bought with our hard-earned money and how much they're costing you as part of your it's all your money series. >> reporter: martha, let's say this is the federal budget, that $17 billion figure you talked about, it isn't less than 1 percent, it's a fraction of 1/10 of 1 percent. that much. so if the rest of us can cut out money, can't congress? especially these earmarks? those pet projects that are doled out by lawmakers for the sole benefit of a local employer, a town, that many consider waste. for instance, millions for textile research in north carolina. let's say hundreds of thousands for tattoo removal in california. almost a million dollars for fish management in alabama. now, some lawmakers are trying to quit the habit. house democrats want to ban earmarks this year but only to corporations. house republicans agreed to ban all e

tells you how irrational this spending cull cherry become that's driven by earmarks. >> and the groups there is more hope on the horizon. fiscal year 2011, house democrat are not requesting earmarks that go for for-profit ent tips and not requesting earmarks but the group says, expect a lot of exceptions and senate rejected similar limits. we can't expect a for better or worst in the 2011 pig book. >> all right. the pig book, we're talking. a great name for it. who are the biggest? we usually hear. these guys are really, seen as heroes back in their districts, their whole states sometimes for bringing all this money, but also on a national level, who of these big spenders sometimes that -- i'm scratching my head. >> one person's pork is another person's job, or school or business operating there. here's the deal. citizens against government waste said one man took home the most park by far. $490 million for a project and here's what he told hur breanna keilar. >> congress has an obligation to direct the spending of appropriated funds under the constitution. our constitutional first mm

or if you eliminated earmarked, we could balance the budget. remarks -- pierre marques -- earmarks account for less than 1% of the budget. foreign aid accounts for 1.5% too 2% of the budget. most of the budget is medicare, social security, medicaid, and defense spending. as well as interest on the national debt. that accounts for about 70% of the budget. all of this other stuff that we sometimes argue about is not the big stuff. we have to tackle the big step if we're going to get our budget under control. boy, that was a long answer. i am sorry. [applause] i hope i answered your questions. i have to make this the last question. i am going to ask this young man. >> my name is matt. i flew down from cleveland, ohio, this morning. we are a slider -- the supplier here. can i get a ride back to the airport? >>, on. let us go. -- c'mon, let's go. >> the limousines that you drive -- will they be electric some time soon? >> i will be on -- i will be honest with you. when i first got secret service protection, i asked, can we make these cars hybrids? i

. >> it jamie harris doesn't want to talk about how he did earmarks because that's not a winning strategyand the governor brewer that she's demandsing a billion dollar ayear sales tax increase, rather than reducing spending and reducing the budget, she's been pushing for a tax increase and opposed the legislature that gave her a bunt that didn't raise taxes. she's delighted to be on tv talking about anything other than her tax increase, jamie hayward is happy to be out there talking about anything but government spending. >> right now the democratic candidate in arizona loses to any of the republicans, that is a statement had it not been john mccain as the republican nominee last time probably would have been another of the red states turning blue was of the hispanics coming over to the reside. what happens in this state now? >> i think that we have to make one thing perfectly clear, the governor is facing a challenge from the far right. that is a huge reason why she did this. john mccain who supports the wrong headed bill is also facing a challenge from the far right, that is why he's do

the grant program is primarily earmarked again. 75% of it gets earmarked every year. what happens is the administrators of the grants don't get to administer the grants based on needs and merit because a senator has already said it will go here instead of into a pool of the greatest need. again, duplicating the existing program that's more efficient, that is based on merit. it's a pot of money for -- it's a slush pot of money for earmarks. you will hear lots of complaints about eliminating that program, even though the administration wants to get rid of it as well. savings, $340 million. enacting -- this is section 239. enacting rescissions offered and passed by the house leadership. this would rescind $112 million from a commerce department program designed to provide coupons to households to help people buy analog and digital converter boxes. this has already been used. that program isn't going anymore because everybody has converted. and so why should we continue to put money out to a program that nobody is going to utilize? that money was used for an offset for a

. >> sean: eliminating earmarks. >> not just elimination of earmarks but budget reforms.transparency. >> sean: put it on c-span? >> absolutely. >> sean: what a shock that would be. >> we've got to get rid of the earmarks we've got to get rid of the corruption. when we say pay as you go you want have people spending money. my opponent voted to raise the debt ceiling now nancy pelosi just appointed her to be on the deficit panel. i wouldn't trust her with my money. >> sean: where do you stand on national defense? how dangerous do you think barack obama's policies are? >> what concerns that our representatives aren't speaking up against him. i think he put allies in danger, israel, britain. my opponent has not stood up to that we have a lot of veterans, people who served overseas. people are troubled by what they see happening. she has not stood up against what president obama has done. >> sean: there are a lot of mart people that -- smart people that i'm listening to that are not confident that we are there yet. one thing i say in life, i like the idea, karl rove wrote a gr

it fought against earmark and pork barrel spending. mr. hayworth still defends earmark and pork barrel spending. that is a litmus test as to who is really conservative and really takes care of the taxpayers' dollars. look, i enjoy the fight. it's a good scrap. i will always believe a fight not joined is a fight not enjoyed. i'm enjoying every minute of it and i'm confident we'll do fine. >> chris: what do you make of the comment that there has been an election year conversion to a more down-the-line conservatism on your part? >> the record indicates, as i said, i've been against wasteful and earmark spending when it wasn't popular. i fought for the surge against my own president and secretary of defense. i have fought for the things against this obama-care. i have fought against the wasteful spending now today. my record is very consistent and i'm very proud of it. the people of arizona really want us to know, want to know what we are going to do for them. i think i can make a case that i'm much more effective here helping them out of the

this is not an earmark. it is not a specific designation. it simply allows the great lakes to compete for available dollars authorized under this program. we think that this body of the greatest repository of fresh water on the earth ought to have a standing among others that have the designation of estuaries. those meeting places on the great lakes are every bit as important as the meeting places of the freshwater rivers and the saltwater repositories of a traditional estuary definition. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. schauer: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. mr. schauer: i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. chairman. again, having great respect for our chairman, the point i'm trying to make is i understand the problems we have in the great lakes. and this is a body of such significance and yet again my feeling is that we should take care of that problem within the structure that we have within the great

earmarks are the responsibility of the congress.sed to designate every single penny that we spend. we're not supposed to let the president do this. i do not like a strong executive branch. i want a strong congress that exerts its prerogative. [cheers and applause] what we need is not to tinker with earmarks, but to vote against the entire package, the of preparation bills, until we get the budget under control -- the appropriation bills, until we get the budget under control. also, the definition of an era armark is very important. it is when your congressman says, why do we not get some of our highway funds back and spend it in our district. when it comes to earmark for building an embassy, which we are now doing in london, which is a fortress, it is going to cost as $1 billion. what are we doing that? it makes no sense whatsoever. we're tinkering around with some spending bills here and trying to build a highway. we have spent $1 billion on an embassy in baghdad. we're spending and another $1 billion on an embassy in kabul, which

republicans say they're not going to have any earmarks this year.c that's not going along. go to foxnews.com and find out how much this stuff is costing you. eric? >> you may recognize her as a regular -- >> right. >> i'd like to thank william. good job. we're proud of you. >> that's right. that's my fault. william, thank you, sir. >> so you may recognize her as a regular roundtable panelists on e's late night talk show, chelsea lately. this morning, loni love sits in with us. we love to have loni love here. so great to see you. >> thank you for letting me come on. it's tax day. >> are you happy or sad? >> well, i've done my taxes. i'm going to tell you something, i don't care about the income tax taxes. i'm worried about the fat tax. i'm going to start a tea party doughnut movement. that will be my movement. >> actually, i don't think they're talking about that right now but they are talking about, people are upset about how much they're actually paying that the 50% of the country doesn't pay anything at all. what is your message to people like eri

a lot of people think if you eliminated foreign aid -- earmarks, a pork project, those account for about 1% of the budget, less than 1%. foreign aid accounts for about 1.5% to 2% of the budget. most of the budget is medicare, social security, medicaid, defense spending and interest on the national debt. that accounts for 70% of the budget. we're going to have to taffle the big stuff if we're going to get our budget under control. boy, that was a long answer. but i hope i answered your question. i got to ask this young man right here. >> my name is maut and i flew down from cleveland, ohio this morning. we're a supplier here to celgard. about 75,000 of those 100,000 jobs are in northeast ohio. the limousines that you drive -- electric with celgard membranes in them sometime soon? >> you know, the answer -- i'm going to be honest with you -- [applause] when i first got secret service protection, i asked, can we make these cars hybrids. and i apologize because secret service said no. the reason is not because secret service are bad guys. it is because the cars that i'm in are like tanks. as

the clerk: whereas the standards on official conduct had an investigation into earmarks and campaign contributions in the spring of 2009, whereas on december 2, 2009, reports and findings in seven separate matters regarding the alleged connections between earmarks and campaign contributions from reported to the standards committee. whereas on february 26, 2010, the standards committee made public its report on the matter wherein the committee found that while widespread perception exists that campaign contributions provide a greater chance of obtaining earmarks, there was no evidence that members or their staff considered contributions when requesting earmarks. whereas the committee indicated that with respect to the matters forwarded by the office of congressional ethics, neither the evidence cited in the o.c.e.'s findings nor the evidence in the record before the standards committee provided a substantial reason to believe that violations of applicable standards of conduct occurred. whereas the office of congressional ethics is prohibited from reviewing activities taking place prio

the vat might have to be earmarked for health care.you need to coordinate it with the states, and this is a year cannot have some revenue sharing or some integration in order to try to solve the problem. >> that was exactly the point and i just want to follow up on that. i think we can think outside the box on that. if you did go to the vat tax, you might think of some sort of sharing on that. it will have to be on the table, for the reasons that everyone is explaining. >> i want to thank all of you for joining this conversation. the vision for this forum was to create opportunities for members of the university and academic community to engage with policy experts to have the conversations we have had to try to find ways of advancing solutions to the important and critical problems facing the country. that is just what we have had here today. we are grateful for the vision. from all of us here, thank you so much for joining us. they get so much to the members of our panel. good afternoon. -- thank you so much to the members of our pane

and, you know, i think earmarks are perfectly good, and being criticized for $300,000 earmarks. >> reporteris stuff, and came back and just complimented him on his expenditure of $3 million for one project, $5 million on another. they were good projects. >> reporter: ali, we've been talking about how, you know, for the politicians all around the country, their lives are open books. they always have been, but now because of the social media, you mentioned the projects that are out there and all this openness and transparency can be a good thing but also present challenges, ali. >> you and i have realized the benefits, not so many challenges from doing it. what happens now? you've talked about how republicans tend to use it more than -- than democrats do? robert gibbs got on twitter and i think he had, i don't know, how many tens of thousands of people he had within a day. is this sort of a useful tool for legislating? >> reporter: well, you know, that's something i was just about to ask him. and we will, because, you're right, in recent years we've seen republicans using the social media a l

. >> you mean because of earmarks? >> yes, payouts to juneens and constituencies. it had no effect on the unemployment. >> hang on a second. >> yeah, right, morton. >> first of all, we can turn this around and say, why aren't republican grandees getting into this race if it's so good? why is tommy thompson not running in with others? they're not. secondly on the economy, i know that obama and the dps won't get much -- democrats won't get much credit for fending off a new great depression but frankly, they did. there was a lot of traction because so much of it went to the individual states to make up for their declining revenues. final point is all of these congressional races, big losses, big defeats, their they're cyclical. just as they have been, they follow the big strings through republicans in '94. sometime one party goes badly, sometimes the other. the democrats are gonna lose seats. i don't think they will lose a small majority. >> let me get this in. could this be a trap that's being laid by the democrats because they want to build overconfidence in the par

earmarks are the responsibility of the congress. we're supposed to designate every single penny that we spend. we're not supposed to let the president do this. i do not like a strong executive branch. i want a strong congress that exerts its prerogative. [cheers and applause] what we need is not to tinker with earmarks, but to vote against the entire package, the of preparation bills, until we get the budget under control -- the appropriation bills, until we get the budget under control. also, the definition of an era armark is very important. it is when your congressman says, why do we not get some of our highway funds back and spend it in our district. when it comes to earmark for building an embassy, which we are now doing in london, which is a fortress, it is going to cost as $1 billion. what are we doing that? it makes no sense whatsoever. we're tinkering around with some spending bills here and trying to build a highway. we have spent $1 billion on an embassy in baghdad. we're spending and another $1 billion on an embassy in k

, there's no evidence he that members or their staff consider contributions when requests earmarks. whereas the committee indicated that with respect to the matters forwarded to the office of congressional ethics, the evidence cited or the o.c.e.'s findings, nor the evidence in the record before the standards committee provided a substantial reason to believe that violations of applicable standards of conduct occurred. whereas the office of congressional ethics is prohibited from reviewing activities taking place prior to march of 2008 and lacks the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents. whereas, for example, the office of congressional ethics noted that in some instances documents were redacted and -- or specific information was not provided and that in at least one instance they had reason to believe a witness with held information requested and did not identify what was being with held. whereas the office of congressional ethics also noted they were only able to interview six former employees of the p.m.a. group, with many former employees refusing to consent to interview

and no one considered contributions when requesting earmarks. the committee indicated that with respect to the matters forwarded by the office of congressional ethics, never the evidence findings or the record before the standards committee provided a substantial reason to believe that violations occurred. where the committee is prohibited from reviewing activities and lacks the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents. whereas the office of congressional ethics noticed that documents were redacted or specific information was not provided and at least in one instance, they had reason to believe a witness withheld information and did not identify what was being withheld. they also noted they were only to interview six former members of the p.m.a. group and others refusing to consent to interview and obtain evidence. whereas "roll call" noted that the committee report was five pages long and no evidence collected in any interviews conducted by the committee beyond the statement that it included extensive document reviews with numerous witness

earmarks are the responsibility of the congress.ate every single penny that we spend. we're not supposed to let the president do this. i do not like a strong executive branch. i want a strong congress that exerts its prerogative. [cheers and applause] what we need is not to tinker with earmarks, but to vote against the entire package, the of preparation bills, until we get the budget under control -- the appropriation bills, until we get the budget under control. also, the definition of an era armark is very important. it is when your congressman says, why do we not get some of our highway funds back and spend it in our district. when it comes to earmark for building an embassy, which we are now doing in london, which is a fortress, it is going to cost as $1 billion. what are we doing that? it makes no sense whatsoever. we're tinkering around with some spending bills here and trying to build a highway. we have spent $1 billion on an embassy in baghdad. we're spending and another $1 billion on an embassy in kabul, which does not make

might have to be earmarked for healthcare where there's no doubt we're going to have to have more revenues. and, you know, you need to coordinate it with the states and who's to say you can't have some revenue-sharing or some integration in order to try to solve the problem. >> well, i just -- 'cause that was exactly the point that i was going to make. i was going to follow up on that because i think we could think a little outside the box on that. if you did go to the v.a.t. tax and you go to the state's revenue base on conti

eliminate earmarks. and free market solutions on health care and education. energy independence.s it more complicated than that? that it? >> it's a symbol. we made it too difficult l is a financial services reform package is that involving big government. it's going to hurt applying credit. seven out of 10 people are saying it puts laws on the books and work needs to be done. >> good to see you. >> thank you. thank you. >> and coming up... we're going to say hi to greta. >> greta: it is loud tlchl i'm sitting in your studio in new york city. it's nice and quiet. it sounds loud there. there is a great show tonight. carl rove is going to join us to go on the record z guess what? in michigan pafrt of the country is tea party in the story z chris rock gives david letterman a hard time. and more, back to you. >> sean: greta take good care of the studio. i'm going to be with carl rove in kansas city tomorrow. john richards is going to be there. go to my web site. coming up live from southern republican leadership conference rick perry will be here and will join us and one of the leadin

if we eliminated port projects and earmarks -- now some are kind of ridiculous. and we should eliminate them because we do not have any money to be wasting, but earmarks are only 1% of the budget. if we could eliminate all foreign aid and earmarks, and we still have a huge problem, because most of our budget goes to social security, medicare, medicaid, defense spending -- those things account for about 70% of the budget. everything from national forest to the agricultural department doe -- that is 30% of the budge. that is a tough set of choices that we have to make. so when you hear the next debate on how we are going to reduce our deficit, understand we're not going to do it overnight. he would be irresponsible for us to try to do it in one year or a few years. we're going to have to do it over a stretch of several years and we will have to make some tough choices. i have time for two more questions. i know that i did not get a lot of clapping about the hard choices things. but remember when i was running for office and i said, i will not tell you what you want

>> absolutely we need earmark reform.n i'm president i'll go line-by-line to make sure we're not spending money unwisely. >> glenn: see that's what people, when they voted for change this is what they were looking for. they were looking for common sense. we haven't gone line-by-line. we had ear marks and they're doing nothing but adding to the budget. there is no subtracting what so ever. we added $1 trillion in healthcare, nearly $1 trillion in stimulus and he's now adding in massive tax increases. there is talking about there is no way to do this without the tax increases. yes, there is. if he won't go through the budget line-by-line, we will. it's going to take me about a year, but cato has done a lot of this work. this week we have been working with the cato institute on the budget. my plan hopefully will be finished, we'll have it out maybe by september. because there is a lot to think out. i had a meeting with people in new york and we were going over it. i said what do you think we really need to do? every time --

there is no need for earmarks' to be spent when we are facing trillions of dollars worth of debt.th our children having to pay for frivolous spending going on in the government. we need to look at every department head and they need to deal with their specific department as a business owner. how can i cutbacks we cut almost 20% across the board. we can also look at the department of education which is a huge spender of those dollars. it is better suited for our states. rather than the federal government trying to find more ways of spending dollars. karen k. leonard is a retired teacher from indianapolis karen, welcome, glad to have you kind of step up to the mike so these distinguished gentlemen can hear you what is your question tonight? >> my question is by what parameters would you determine whether to support a nominee for federal office? for example, an appointee like a supreme court justice? >> moderator: we begin this time with john hostettler >> thank you, karen that's a very important question in that there must be a philosophy of government that underlies >> there must b

. >> sean: fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, elimination of earmarks, transparency. everything on c-span. show you are going to be the ethical party. energy independence. you can't lose. i don't see in this environment how they could lose, especially if they put their john hancock down on a piece of paper. mr. speaker thanks for being with us. more hannity coming up straight ahead. >> also a requirement that individuals either have health coverage or make a payment on their tax return. >> sean: the irs commissioner says buy health care or you could lose your tax refund. >> now that the legislation passed people are so nice to me. >> sean: new poll exposes harry reid's health care hoax. >> he's the one candidate that we can trust to represent republican principles in washington. >> sean: mayor makes waves in florida. tonight he's here to tell us why he's backing marco rubio. plus report from colonel north in afghanistan. much more hannity, straight ahead. you've got to try it, let's take a look at the stats. mini has more than double the fir and whole grain... making

folks who swear off earmarks who want to repeal obamacare, who believe in limited federal government, keeping their oath of office. these are not right wing ideas. they are right in the middle of where most americans are. so i think that's why candidates like marco rubeo and marlin stutsman will do well. america has wakened up. it's not about political philosophy. it's about common sense. don't spend more than we are bringing in. stop adding to the debt. this appeals to democrats, republicans and independents. that's why i think we'll have a great election as republicans because america is waking up to the fact that we are on a financial cliff. >> you're not afraid to go up against, however, the republican senate campaign committee run by mr. cornyn. is that correct? >> that is correct. sometimes they're trying to do what's best, but i think it's important that we get folks who believe in principle. we saw in pennsylvania as soon as arlen specter saw he couldn't win as a republican, he switched to the democratic party and it appears charlie crist did the same thing in florida. we need

then earmarks would appear on the screen to let you know, how many obama's voted for. the graphics were not even that good it looked like pacman circa 1980. that was the heart reach. but obama higher stucco create better at of facebook and award-winning producers from cnn to upload to you today was a complete digital domination how they could learn. >> host: jason mattera is with us until 9:55 a.m. eastern. folks may also know you from your television appearances year on camera video and your confrontational interviews. perhaps most notably and one that we may have on your web site jason mattera.com with offering 10. what drives you to do these interviews? brubeck day. >> unfortunately they like to play patty cake gantry politicians like three pubescent girls tree to the jonas brothers at a concert they just not look at them and do not ask them hard questions. looking at the 2000 page monstrosity now "the new york times" is running article showing how premiums are going to increase and there is all of these provisions that don't line up to the promises the obama campai

that's why we desperately need things like earmark reform. moratorium on pork congress is spending.eed is another stimulus package or a one trillion dollar take over of the health care industry. >> sean: this seat has been held by a democrat for two decades. do you think the environment is similar to massachusetts or new jersey? do you think could be the year and what do the poll numbers show? >> absolutely. we are extreme sighted about this campaign. you know the poll numbers the only poll number that counts is the one taken by voters on election day. some of the recent polls show my campaign is either tied for the lead or joying a razor thin lead. the important thing is we have a great message. that it is more important toe electric a congressman who wants to hold down your taxes and let you keep more of your money or the congressman who wants to spend more. sean if you are a liberal you wake up in the morning and say i'm not paying enough in taxes, i need to pay more. i like the message of fiscal responsibility. >> nobody is stopping you from paying more taxes. >> sean: i den hav

i also would argue that anybody who does pork barrel earmark spending as mr.ayworth did and gets involved with abramoff is not a conservative. i'm proud of my conservative record. >> bill: all right, senator. >> i'm the same guy. >> bill: we appreciate you taking the time. we want to mention to the audience we did have mr. hayworth on a couple of weeks ago. we are fair and balanced on the factor. president clinton still pounding the drum that tea party rhetoric may ignite domestic terrorism. mary katharine and brit hume will all analyze that. bernie goldberg will reply upcoming. [ indistinct talking on p.a. ] okay, we're going to get going right away. [ announcer ] he's never met an appendix he couldn't fix! the abdomen-ator dr. bob bergowitz! yeah, woo! [ announcer ] she's the queen of clean! the 2009 surgeon of the year, dr. nancy mendelsohn! [ male announcer ] doctors and nurses are true heroes. at ge, we're working to give them the innovation, fresh thinking, and advanced technology they need to keep bringing better health to more people. are you ready, mr

i happen to not be a great fan of earmarks and i like congressman becerra's idea about taxpayers' bill of rights and about how we simplify the tax code and senator conrad's indictment of the general and fairness of that current tax. the congressman ryan said the income tax rate for corporations are too high and the loopholes are too big and we need to think about effective rates much as absolute rates and i agree with those on the panel who say that we need to address retirement security not just social security and there's a question because adequacy as well as solvency and i think there is a question about how people are going to have universal add-ons to what we have now and look at all of the tax expenditures we need for retirement and more integrated and better ways like congressman kemp's idea how we simplify the current tax structure and i want to and by saying senator creepo said to me in our meeting that the goal is not just about fiscal balance, but we need to make decisions that restore the economic engine of the greatest country on earth. so until we have an economic engine

to dodge them successfully and then earmarks would appear on the screen to let you know how many obama voted for. the graphics weren't even that good. it looked like pacman circa 1980. that was john mccain's internet outreach to young people. pork invaders. barack obama hires the cocreator of facebook to run his new media operation. he hires emmy award winner from cnn to upload videos to youtube. it was a complete domination, a digital domination. i think there's a lot the gop can learn from how team obama reached out to young people. >> host: jason mattera with us until 9:55 eastern. now, folks may also know you from some of your -- your television appearances. you're on camera. your video for lack of a better word confrontational interviews. perhaps most notably -- most recently one and i think we have it here on your website at jasonmattera.com with al franken. what drives you to do these interviews? >> guest: well, unfortunately most of the mainstream media likes to play paddy cake with a lot of leftist politicians. they treat these politicians like pubescent girls treat the jonas

. >> personal responsibility is used to me, -- huge to me, and i find it amazing that the earmarks thing hard for the republicans to get their hands around. the question is, why is it not something that should be something for republicans to sign their name to to say, no more. it should not be a badge of honor bring it home. if it can be done locally, do it locally. massachusetts, i wanted to send money, whatever you want. >> the republican party is going to move decisively toward saying no earmarks. it is the politics of the past, politics of the machine. we will win this fight. we will unanimously adopt the policy. and they have tho pass the courage to do it in office. don't promise things you can't do. >> what are your personal plans for 2012? [applause] >> that will turn out to be up to god and the american people. in 2011, we will have to make a decision about whether or not to run. this is very important. i am glad we have lots of great potential candidate. i like virtually all of them. let's all get out and campaign this year to win this year's elections. maximize this victory. >>

usa today," this morning, "in-house ban on the practice -- no hurry in senate to ban private firm earmarks." "this year a spending bill found that senate majority leader harry reid and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell represent the top sponsors of the earmarks for private companies. your march 4 -- mcconnell directed $21.4 million in year marks, according to the analysis. john murtha was top on the list as 63 million, daniel in a way of hawaii next. jerry lewis of california, $40.4 million. jim moran of virginia, $26 million. thad cochrane, $24.8 million. judd greg on the budget committee, $22.3 million. dave obey of wisconsin, $21.5 million. mitch mcconnell, $21.4 million. next is a call from danville, ohio. jim, republican, you are on the air. caller: my first comment is i think you need another phone number up there to call in. you need a phone number for people who are none of the above. because i do not think there is much difference in either none of the parties except who gives them the money. host: how come you are not on the independent line either? caller: i am none of the

question will start coming up, does gm need to start considering reopening some of the plants that it earmarkedlosure or delaying the closure of some of those plants, because it takes some time? >> i think we're looking, we're exploring a number of ways of how to get more capacity into this market on a number of products. >> reporter: but third shifts is the optimum idea for -- >> third shifts is the optimal. we'd like to get more capacity, even if it costs a little bit more, but we like to have flexibility, and that's important to us. we'll pay a little more for the capacity on the up side if we can get more flexibility to protect us on the down side. >> quickly, put on your analyst hat. forecast for sales rate for the industry their year? where do you think it's coming in yet? >> i think 11.5% to 12%. it's a slow recovery here, but there's signs of optimism out there. >> steve girsky, good to ee you again. >> phil, good to ee you again. >> a gentlemen i used to talk to all the time covering gm. now he's running gm. big numbers for general motors, the company officially paying off all its obli

of course they promised to curb earmarks, in fact, eliminate eeringmarks nearly paid for this bill, yet they've not kept that promise either. mr. speaker, we can do better than this. what unemployed workers really want are jobs and paychecks, not almost two years of unemployment checks and more massive debt for the country. unfortunately, jobs are something democrats in this congress have been incapable of delivering. instead of creating 3.7 million jobs as promised, their stimulus bill was followed by three million more job losses. instead of holding unemployment under 8% as promised, it soared to nearly 10% and remains close to that today. 16 million americans are unemployed, including record numbers for over a year. in fact, the white house promised if you pass the stimulus, 90% of the new jobs we create will be in the private sectors. the opposite is true. the private sector has lost 3.7 million jobs, but government jobs have been created almost 300,000. the people getting these unemployment benefits are the ones whose promises have not been kept by this white house and this democra

there is no need for earmarks' to be spent when we are facing trillions of dollars worth of debt. our children having to pay for frivolous spending going on in the government. we need to look at every department head and they need to deal with their specific department as a business owner. how can i cutbacks we cut almost 20% across the board. we can also look at the department of education which is a huge spender of those dollars. it is better suited for our states. rather than the federal government trying to find more ways of spending dollars. karen k. leonard is a retired teacher from indianapolis karen, welcome, glad to have you kind of step up to the mike so these distinguished gentlemen can hear you what is your question tonight? >> my question is by what parameters would you determine whether to support a nominee for federal office? for example, an appointee like a supreme court justice? >> moderator: we begin this time with john hostettler >> thank you, karen that's a very important question in that there must be a philosophy of government that underlies >> there must be

the problem is, there is all these different grants and programs earmarking, et cetera.burn is going to get some kind of accounting for all this money to find out what we are dealing with with these airports across the country. >> dr. coburn on the case. >> and so is drew griffin this morning. >>> we are crossing the half hour. time for a look at our top stories. two more survivors pulled from the rubble in western china, nearly a week after mate juror quake there. a woman and a 4-year-old girl trapped under a bed in the rubble of a collapsed mud hut. the woman is in critical condition and the child suffering from some heart problems. the china quake killed more than 1,900 people. >> keep your fingers crossed. do hope europe's air travel nightmare could improve. european authorities are hoping to resume at least 30% of all flights. to nudge authorities, european airlines conducted test flights yesterday. initial results indicated no problems during the flights and no damage to the jet engines. >> the same cannot be said for a group of nato fighter jets. several f-16 figh

programs harmless, closing loopholes, eliminating wasteful or low priority programs prohibiting the earmarks, things like that are not going to do enough to solve the problem. and fourth and finally, the public needs to be informed that the sooner that we start addressing the problem the last wrenching the adjustments will have to be and the more control the as opposed to market forces or creditors or extreme circumstances international agencies like the imf will have over the timing, the size and the composition of these unavoidable adjustments. having analyzed the budget issues over the past four decades and participated in several efforts to reduce the budget deficit, let me offer four pieces of advice. first, don't waste time and looking for a silver bullet or new approaches to hold out the promise of paying with a sacrifice. there is known to be found. the congressional budget office, the general government accountability office, past presidential budgets and think tanks university researchers and interest groups have put forth hundreds of proposals for moderating spending growth and en

programs harmless, closing loopholes, eliminating wasteful or low priority programs, prohibiting earmarks, things like that, are not going to do enough to solve the problem. fourth and finally, the public needs to be informed that the sooner we start addressing the problem, the less wrenching the adjustments will have to be and the more control week, as opposed to market forces or our creditors or in extreme circumstances, international agencies like the imf, will have over the timing, size, and composition of these unavoidable adjustment. host: congresswoman, your reaction. guest: i agree with a good deal of what he said. i think what is missing from that clip is the view of that right now our problem is not deficit. right now, because of this recession we are in that is caused largely by the collapse of the housing bubble, that we actually need to be spending money in order to continue economic growth and turn the economy around in order to create jobs and the vitality we need. most economists agree this is not the moment -- in fact, our mission is by this commission that by 2015 we sho

. >> and earmark is another person's post office. >> we say to not raise taxes. cut spending, somebody says do not cut my program. i think we have 30 years of people looking hard at the budget to find savings and have not been successful, republican and democrat. i would hope some of these ideas would be openly discussed and we have a more clear debate moving forward. >> i will ask you to respond to that, as well. at a time when americans are feeling so much economic stress, and did not want to hear from this, they do not want to hear about problems, how do you begin about -- to take priorities to speak to that? >> people are worried about spending and deficits and debt. they see the correct -- they see the direct correlation. i get that all the time at home. i cannot think it is wise to get into the table talk of what it should or should not do. we need to start hashing these things out. if we only do one thing which is public education, like the peterson institute has been doing, that is a huge service to the country. i hope it goes beyond that and comes up wit

we have earmarks that have noncompetitive bidding.we have contracts that the government does without competitive bidding. we could save $62 billion a year just in instituting competitive bidding. here's some examples: recently reported that the defense department awards no-bid work to small contracts for repairs at military bases costing taxpayers $148 million more than if they were competed for. that's in one year. just on repair contracts. that's just on repair of small items on military bases. we can save $148 million a year. federal funds were spent by the state of wisconsin, $48.5 million on two spanish-made passenger trains. no competitive bid. federal funds going to wisconsin, no competitive bids. the legal services contract at a corporation, 37 out of the 38 consultant contracts had not been competitively bid. department of interior inspector general issued a report on contracting within the department of interior. total savings, $44.5 million. had they used competitive bidding. and if you go through all the agencies, what you

i happen to not be a great fan of earmarks and i like congressman becerra's idea about taxpayers' bills and about how we simplify the tax code and senator conrad's indictment of the general and fairness of that current tax. the congressman ryan said the income tax rate for corporations are too high and the loopholes are too big and we need to think about effective rates much as absolute rates and i agree with those on the panel who say that we need to address retirement security not just social security and there's a question because adequacy as well as solvency and i think there is a question about how people are going to have universal add-ons to what we have now and look at all of the tax expenditures we need for retirement and more integrated and better ways like congressman kemp's idea how we simplify the current tax structure and i want to and by saying senator creepo said to me in our meeting that the goal is not just about fiscal balance, but we need to make decisions that restore the economic engine of the greatest country on earth. so until we have an economic engine pulling