tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 9, 2009 7:00am-10:00am EST
store today in the newly times -- "the new york times" -- reid says accord resolves impasse on public option. this story says the senate majority leader said on tuesday night that he and a group of 10 had reached broad agreement to resolve a dispute over a proposed government-run health care insurance plan. under the agreement people ages 55-64 could buy into medicare. let's take a look at comments he made last night in the capital. >> rapidly expand medicare. so what is becoming clear is
that the majority will make any deal, agree to any terms. host: we will take a look at that kind just a moment. looking at more of this newspaper piece, looking at the deal in play -- we do not know all the details yet. we will find out more from a cq reporter shortly. "the new york times" story it says that even members say late tuesday they do not know -- did not know if an agreement had been reached. >> this is a consensus that will help insure american people win in a couple of the freeways. one, insurance companies will
certainly have more competition. two, the american people will certainly have more choices. i already know that all 60 senators in my caucus looked at every piece of the bill. what have sent over there to cbo, will send to them tomorrow, not everyone will agree. but that does not mean that we disagree on what we sent. i applaud and congratulate the 10 senators led by senator chuck schumer and pryor -- here are the names. as i have indicated we cannot disclose the details. believe me we have something that is good and that i think is very -- for us it moves this
bill way down the road. host: looking again at this newspaper story on what happened last night in the senate, and also what happened in yesterday regarding the abortion amendment, democrats are tried to find the middle ground. so that they can attract the 60 votes necessary to move the bill forward. looking at what happened with the abortion vote last night, advocates of abortion rights held of the senate's rejection of stringent restrictions -- it was shot down in the senate. let's go to the calls coming in. from new jersey we have a democratic caller. caller: think you for letting me
have the opportunity to share this information -- thank you. i am hoping that c-span will help us by showing all those senators who are on the take from the insurance industry. to tell those senators that this proposed bill is not going far enough you have people calling daily about how they lost benefits and they're not 55 or over. please help us. we are paying you to be there by paying our cable bills. help us by showing how many senators are on the take so that we can choose not to support them anymore. host: next caller on the independent line. caller: good morning. i will take up where she left
off. we need single-payer healthcare. that is the only way to really cut of cost and to break up the drug companies. this should read has been going on for months. all the time taking millions of dollars from insurance companies. a lot of us have had enough. i propose that for the next election everyone vote for someone besides a democrat or republican. host: russ, what he think about the potential for having a deal? do you think it goes too far? caller: yes, because it is always the corporations and the people are last. we are tired of it. independents should have a real chance on the next election. let's go people. host: let's go to cathy in travers' city, michigan.
caller: good morning. -- travelrse city. i like to know what senator mc connell knows about health care and what is his knowledge about medicine? when i watch c-span or read the newspaper, magazines, what i am really disturbed by is seeing white men who are stooped over with grey hair and i don't mean this in a vicious manner -- who do not seem to be in touch with the reality of american people. i pay approximately 20% of my gross income to provide comprehensive health care for my children and myself. under the plan a red the week before last it would probably be
about $200 per year. i use the health care very little because we really do focus on being healthy, not that we don't need treatment. it is an outrage that people cannot go and secure any type of treatment for themselves when they needed. it is a failure on the part of congress. it is a failure on the part of the american people. i think this should be put on the national ballot and let the american people vote. host: let's look at how republicans are reacting.
let's go to dennis calling on the republicans line in las vegas. caller: good morning. i feel like this healthcare bill is being rushed on a big decision for america's future. i work in nursing. a decision like this needs to be exact. it should be rethought, take a break. see what the people want. then come back. maybe even the new republicans on your side. i feel like democrats will do anything to get past. host: let's go to ivan calling
from georgia. caller: concerning the bill itself, to be honest, i think we should scratched the whole bill. look at some of the other countries. on the abc news report that i saw recently if i go to the u.k. or any part of europe if i enjoy myself -- if i enjoy myself, they will take 100% care of those issues, yet if someone comes to america you will be billed for that. -- i would get 100% care if i were to injure myself. this is a human rights issue, the right to have health care. it is the right for my children and my child who just turned one a few weeks ago to have health care. we need to sit down and decide
to do the right thing. not to do the political thing. host: looking at this possible deal that has been brokered, senator reid did not give a lot of specifics. let's go on to mississippi where pimm is calling on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i honestly think they should have the single payer system, but i don't think we will get that. i am sometimes appalled are republicans that no matter what is on that table everything is always know. i so many republicans and democrats have been bought off.
there are some democrats in mississippi who got a lot of money from the healthcare industry. you have eric canter the got over $2 million last year from health care. i hope that anything that they get through will be a good king. to wait any longer is just absolutely appalling. we have been doing this since 1993. host: joe on the republican from new york. caller: which should really be careful as to what kind of additional movement we put in the federal government. there was once a place called the single payer plan it ruined
-- and it ruined everything in their economy. it was called the u.s.s.r. i see the same thing happening here with healthcare. as we move on in banking and automobiles and everything else -- the people better wake up to realize that we move things to washington there is no free lunch. i think we should stop and start all over. i don't want bureaucrats making all the decisions. host: let's look at the vote on abortion restrictions. also, tuesday the senate defeated a proposal to tighten those restrictions.
about it. the second issue is with harry reid who does not know his history. democrats were responsible for segregation, slavery, and other means of subjugation toward women. he should remember that. the last thing, more importantly, why would we by a car and then not be able to drive it? the majority of americans do not want this bill. let's get the people out who supported a get america back to being prosperous. host: david on the democrats' line in baltimore. caller: all right, i want to try to correct the last caller that if this plan were to go through as of now, if you are 55 years old you will be able to go in as soon as june next year.
the question to find out -- if you are 55 and older and working can you leave your job insurance and go over to the medicare? that would save a lot of small businesses a lot of money. this plan does not have everything i want because i am a progresses. but if this plan can save one american life, then i'm for. we need to get what we can get now and work on some stuff later. we have to stop acting like selfish babies. host: david, we will have a guest from cq, drew armstrong, a little later in the hour. we will ask that question of him. let's go to chicago where which is on the republican side. caller: i think this this is a
lose/lose for the country. they are all former communists -- not former, but they are progressive communists. they read these books by -- one guy who was in jail, she is -- and she is married to a woman. they are trying to ruin our country. host: taking a look at what the healthcare bill means, "the washington post" says "nearing the finish line."
let's go to henry on the independent line calling from hot springs village, ark.. caller: lobbying means influence. influences' bribery. bribery occurs -- influence is bribery. these companies hire these people to influence which is to ride. they should be put into jail. my second comment is on the healthcare plan. the over 2000 pages or so confusing that if they took and read the first page and then read it 10 more, they would be unable to explain what was on the first page.
this is going to be so controversial that the supreme court is going to have to be the umpire. they will have to decode all the stuff in that 2000 page health plan. nobody will be able to understand. so, after months and months of writing this thing is still does not mean a thing to anybody. and they keep changing it. how is anybody going to be able to explain or go to the process of what it means? host: let's go to chicago with doors on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i have a problem with the media
calling democrats -- host: this is doris. caller: these are bush democrats, they voted for every bill, every tax cut and every bill that came forward during the bush administration with the republicans. in this bill there's nothing that will reduce the cost so far, that i have seen. i have been listening to people and then i rea land-- from miche
says that the republicans have become the party of anti intellectuals and anti-science. you hear that all the time. talk about how fast this health care bill went through? we have been trying to get health care cents president truman. what do they want the world to stop? host: let's go to drew armstrong staff from congressional quarterly concerning the tentative bill brokered last night. guest: good morning. host: what was the mood at like among senators when they came out? did the comments from senator reid give any indication of what they had been doing? guest: it gave an indication that they have done something, but everyone is tight-lipped on detail. while they have an agreement on policy there are still a lot of steps to go. the need to go to the cbo and get a cost estimate which could
make or break it. there are 50 other democratic senators who will also have a say. it only takes one person to slow it down. host: review for us what we do know. guest: we know that the public option as it was is essentially gone from this deal. it has been replaced with a series of non-profit healthcare plans that would be offered and administered, or least organized by the government. there is also a medicare by and for people from 55-64, which is a big win for liberals. -- that is a medicare buy-in. there will not be subsidies for people to buy those before they are 55.
we're waiting on the toes. some of it will probably depend on what happens with how much this bill costs. host: a caller, david, asked the question -- can you leave your health insurance plan at your work and join medicare? giving what he said would be a break to small businesses. guest: we do not know at this point. the details of this medicare buy-in will be very important. there are many questions. let's say that you are 55 year- old man and your wife is 52. maybe you have children who are 17 or 18, still on your insurance. will you be able to enroll your dependents?
that is one big question. another will beat -- is there a financial firewall between the medicare under 65 program and the one that is 65 and older. we have concerns about tying a new population to the bank account. these are unanswered questions so far. host: tell us about the group of 10 who have been negotiating. does it believe anyone getting what they want it? guest: you have about 10 moderate and 10 liberal democrats in the room working over the last week to hammer out a deal on the public option. that has been the most contentious political issue. senator reid sent these tin into the room and said you recognizrt
the political problem. he told them to work it out. when you have politicians come up with a solution without policy folks come all of times you have problems in industry. when you have people in industry write the bill then you have politicians with problems with the bill. you are seeing some trade-off. lobby groups will not wait and over the next few days. they may not like a lot of what is in here. it could create a whole new set of problems. host: let's return to calls. this one comes from maryland. caller: good morning. i have a very unique situation. my doctor performed surgery on me this year. i originally laid off my job in
2008 because i had a diabetic situation. why can't we do something so that my doctor can get paid? i had to apply for medical assistance through social services. the first medical card to 10 months and ran out at the end of last year. we have to reapply. toñr this day nothing has been cleared -- the surgery has been done, but my doctor wants to be paid. no one knows when anything will be cleared down in baltimore. would you will want to go through this? host: drew armstrong, the caller brings up the point of reimbursements and concerns the republicans are bringing up.
guest: the reimbursement issue for hospitals and doctors getting paid, which obviously has an impact on patients -- there will be some concern, especially over the medicare buy-in issue. many in congress have had concerns. if you expand the public program, will it paid just medicare rates? they argue those are too low for many doctors and hospitals. expanding medicare to people 55- 64 will put an entirely new population under medicare. doctors and hospitals will not necessarily like that. host: taking a look at a piece in "the washington times" -- do i like it?
no, but i will support it to the hilt said senator tom harkin, an iowa democrat. is anyone happy with this? guest: no, but they do not necessarily need to be. senator harkin makes a good point. this is a broad, big caucus. democrats brought in at a more diverse set of the points from around the country including rural, suburban, liberal -- it is a big tent in the democratic caucus. when you need to get everyone in the caucus to agreeing, as a result, not everyone will be happy, but they have to vote for it in the end. host: the next call is from seattle. caller: i wanted to say something about the health-care
issue. i wish that americans would understand and maybe viewers will remember a year or so ago when a girl called in and use the metaphor of a wagon-pulling. she said now we're just a nation of wagon riders. it is in ideological for us as citizens to understand the constitution. you are either a person who believes that you are entitled to write on someone else's wagon, or that you want to pull your own the wagon. as for the gentleman who was to sign up as soon as he turns 55-- in almost 55 and i don't want something for free from some 19
year old boy or girl who was forced to buy something for me. america is about freedom, standing up to pull your own weight. if i am riding my wagon across a landscape and someone has a broken wheel, you bet i will get off to help them. but if someone jumps on my wagon i will take my shot gun and shoot them. we did not want to be exported. harry reid does not tell his own party will happen before the vote on it. we need to get away from the model where leadership rules like kings and queens. we are country of laws, not of men. host: let's go to a caller from virginia. caller: i was recently reviewed by social security and medicaid, social services because they said between me and my husband
we had too much money and i was losing my ssi check and lost my medicare. i am on this bill be given to me by a federal judge because of the mismanagement and mis diagnosis and improper of occasions i am now dying physically besides finding not in 1988 that i have a deadly disease of the esophagus. i cannot lose my disability, but i also have no way to pay for it. there has to be some kind of health care plan that not only helps to pay these bills -- because seventhi have been gett5 bills and i cannot even afford the $3 co-pays. host: list of about home health
care with concerns about the cost for that. wondering if that is the place to save money? where is the debate on that? guest: there are a variety of issues that lawmakers have looked at as an opportunity for savings. in the senate bill i believe it is a little under $500 billion over a decade in cuts and changes to the medicare program. a lot of those will come from provider payments, hospitals, home health, and a number of other programs like oxygen services. there are perhaps two dozen small program areas with the individual reimbursements carved out and that lawmakers have for many years thought were too high. this has created a really big debate. it came up early on on the senate floor.
are the medicare cuts or changes? democrats have argued that this will make the medicare program stronger. they say they're getting waste out of the system and will not cut benefits. they want to do it to make the system sustainable over the long term. they say it will put medicare on a sustainable path. republicans argued this will cut benefits. that it would hurt seniors. it should be noted that both sides have regularly proposed these sorts of adjustments in the past. oit is a predictable pattern in deserves more scrutiny. either side is immune from the charges and counter-charges made
here. the vote on this to strip these medicare cuts that republicans were able to get, they have lost that. democrats claim that it will make the program stronger. host: let's go to the independent line independentoregon. caller: i cannot agree anymore strongly with the gentleman who called. -- host: let's cut to the independent line in oregon. caller: my folks were thisthose the first across a trail. there are a lot of free black folks are here to.
i remember my mother telling me that i had to pull my own wagon. to try to legislate it is a joke. i have watched the annenberg focus group. i'm surprised by what we call media that i call a propaganda wheel. it is amazing what they do not bother to cover. we have the government that we deserve. host: drew armstrong, what may be the reaction from those involved in the tea party protests who were concerned that some town hall is happening over the summer? guest: it is going to be interesting to see the final outcome. of the most a think that you
will see one or two moderate republican senators -- in all likelihood olympia snowe or susan collins. this will be a democratic product with a moderate amount of republican influence, probably from one of these main centers. the result is that this will be the democrats' horse to ride. i think that you will continue to see a substantial vocal part of the country that does not like this. they do a good job of showing up to d.c. to organized marches and the media gives them a lot of attention. but the other thing to realize is that it is unlikely that these people will everever like with the democrats came up
with. that particular wing of the conservative movement and so far from where the democrats in washington are right now that there was not going to be much area for compromise. the republican position on this is pretty much to kill this bill, scrap it and start over. democrats want to move forward with what they have. that does not create much environment for compromise. host: let's talk about nelson's abortion amendment and its implications yesterday. guest: he had a bill on toughening up some of the language in the bill. earlier he said he absolutely would not vote for the legislation. he said he would filibuster it. he said he would work with republicans to stop but it's the language did not get in there. he lost the vote.
now he says it will be harder to vote for it, but is not necessarily ducking out. senator nelson has a skill of making sure that he stays in the center of the process when they get down to the final session. one way is to never get completely written off. now that he has lost the vote on the abortion amendment, if he was not willing to work he would probably be out of the room but he is still in play. he has a seat at the negotiating table for a public plan issues. he will find a way to continue that. host: senate democrats voted to have the abortion language included. what does this mean for the final vote? guest: it will be important to
find out how from their opposition to the current abortion languages and how strong is their support. how necessary the language they wanted it in there is. there are many issues we will see play out on the senate floor. it is not something that if the senator who wants it does not get the language that there will vote against it, but they need the chance to feel their voice is heard. to show constituents that they fought for them. i think that you will see a lot of votes like that. they will be a necessary component to bring the democratic caucus toward a final vote. the need to give people a chance to express their views in this technocratic process.
let people feel they got a fair shot. it will make them more comfortable to vote for final passage. host: allen is calling on the republican line from atlanta. caller: cents our schools and not taking this anymore, we have six issues -- health care is a ride. we have personal responsibility to pay for it whether it is from our own pocket or otherwise through insurance company. but i don't have the right to something someone else must pay for. to say that i do is to say that someone else has the obligation to provide it to you. i do not see where the mentality comes from. host: let's go to mark on the
democrats' line calling from west palm beach. caller: good morning. there are several things i would like to say. you're pretty much cut off from nature. we have forgotten about all things that are growing nearby that could help us. we need to become more educated. that means more involved as patient. a lot of doctors do not like patience to note too much. doctors go to school to become, perhaps they study specialization is to get paid more. to serve small segments of the population. for instance, treating premature babies that cost $80,000. in the past this should and would have passed on because there would have been no treatment for them. while it sounds compassionate --
i have been on both sides. i have had onuses needing treatment, but the treatment available was not the most up- to-date. -- i have it bonuses needing treatment. there were other options out there which would have included going overseas in trouble in my own expense. -- i have had illnesses needing treatment. the insurance companies make up rules and are like gods. they have a sign over the desk that says "just say no." we absolutely cannot have a system of this and which says that he must receive and accept treatment or you will be cut off. you'll be imprisoned and fined. that goes toward a totalitarian
system of medicine. much of medicine is a already hurtful. and hurtful doctors make mistakes. they do not take enough time with patients. -- madison is already hurtful. -- medicine is already hurtful. host: let's go to drew armstrong. guest: the constitution guarantees life, liberty -- but cannot guarantee happiness. one caller brought up this idea that people would be required to except free -- that is not in the legislation to be required to accept certain treatments. there is a tremendous amount of misinformation on both sides.
it is imported for people to educate themselves as much as possible. it is a long bill, but there have been long for. there are a lot of good publications out there doing an excellent job. i hope that we are one of them -- in summarizing. in summarizing -- and some are rising. host: a piece and the business section today, finding the nerve to cut costs.
can you review for us what some of these amendments on the table will be? guest: there are three different packages right now all focused on cost-cutting and cost control. behind did is an important thing. for a long time congress has been in the business of dictating and the setting medicare policy, essentially on a service by service basis. when congress feels that reimbursement for a certain area like physicians is too low or high they deal with it. these folks are professional politicians, not professional medicare reimbursement experts. there appears to be an honest effort of getting congress out of the business of deciding
healthcare system cost payments. whether or not this is something congress will stick to over the next decade a think remains to be seen. but there is an effort to get congress out of the habit of deciding medicare payment policy piece by piece. they want to leave it to experts. not to politicians. they're considering an independent medicare advisory board. if they think that once service is paid too highly, take it down a little, take up a different
one. this is to make sure the healthcare system is efficient. that we pay for what works and not or what does not. it will be an interesting test to see whether congress can stay out of it over the next decade while things go into effect. if they are it will be big for science and experts, and if not, things will not be that different from how they are now. host: good morning, tim, on the independent line. caller: republicans have had eight years. they screwed up everything. i do not understand why people would even listen to them. they need to go away. they like to take care of everybody in the world. i have looked at all the republican presidents.
if you good to the hospital you have ileus from different countries to have four or five different babies and you cannot even see the doctor. -- and you have illegals. the healthcare industry -- all of it connects directly. the republicans have brought us this problem. they are for big business and like to have people come over here for cheap labor. every time they need to do something for the american people it is always a problem with illegals. host: what is the discussion about how to deal with illegal immigrants? is a coming up in the senate? >> yes, it is coming up in the senate although we have not seen
such a vigorous debate about it yet. off there are a number of republicans in the senate who have serious concerns about illegal immigrants. there are some provisions of that say that no illegal immigrants will be allowed to get some tax subsidies and other benefits here. the reality is that any time you set up, have a nationwide program and set of services they're will probably be some and get into the program illegally whether immigrants or otherwise. you're not going to be able to stop every single case. you can do your best. there are legitimate arguments over how tight the control should be concerning identity requirements and how far you go to check those. that is the important debate.
what is the burden of proof to have? i think there is room for debate with that. on one side you have a lot of people were very concerned about illegal immigrants getting into the program, that they need to make the identity checking and people work requirements as high as possible. on the other side, the concern is that if you make the requirements to high, the people who are legitimately in the country cannot overcome the administrative hurdles. you're probably not going to be able to prevent every person who should not be in a program from getting in.
host: on the democrats' line from louisiana, good morning. caller: thank you. i want to let in no time for health care reform. i wish you would have the public option, but i will take what we can get. republicans have never been for helping the lowering come -- the lower income. they're always for the rich. host: are you seeing people reacting on the democrats' side? st. i may want the public option, but i'm willing to get what i can? guest: yes, that is an astute
analysis. for democrats getting health care is more important probably been any single provision in the bill. they do want a public option, but will take what they can get at the end of the day. they have promised this to the voters. ruben, you are deadon on. host: catherine, on the republicans a line from washington, d.c. caller: centsince it has been in the senate most of the discussion is about money. if people go to www.lc.org, the attorney matt of liberty
university has written out in very concise language exactly what is in the bill and on what page. www.lc.org. there is an action center. host: let's go back to drew armstrong to see if he agrees. are we talking more about cost than content? guest: no, we're talking a lot about cost in the bill, but not exclusively about it. one of the reasons we're talking about cost is because in some ways it is central to the healthcare debate. it is how much it costs for them to get insurance and how logic costs for medical paved it'll
have it. there are serious policy arguments about how to provide those most effectively. how extensively to rely on science to make decisions about what to pay for. there is a wide range of debate. i'm not familiar with the particular website your caller brought up. thomas.gov should have the bill. get as many sources as possible for your information. host: barry from south carolina, good morning. caller: i'm very happy that the healthcare bill is going for
ward. i don't think that the abortion or the public option issues should derail it. it is more important than that. if the bill goes all the way through how with the supreme court weigh in? i'm sure that republicans will try to defeat this until the very end. guest: i will lay out with the next steps are over the next decade. i will begin with the short term. first, the senate will probably pass the bill, then go into negotiations with the house that will produce a conference report both sides will vote on. will send it to the president who will likely sign it. once the president signs it
there is the rule-making and administrative processes. most do not spell out in exact terms with the bill does. it is specific, but when it comes down to implementation it goes to the administrative level. they do rule-making, going to the nitty gritty. a huge amount of the policy process happens at that level. then many of these programs will go into effect around the country. that process can take anywhere from 90 days until a few years to implement. as these programs going to affect if there is disagreement or people who wanted jones them in court, then you will see some of this going to the court system.
there is always an effort when writing some laws to avoid court challenges. you don't your bill undone by the judiciary system that you have no control over, so i think there is an effort to avoid constitutional issues, but it does not mean they might not come up. host: thanks to drew armstrong, a staff writer at cq. now we will go to beckworth with the website, congress.org. we give people information. we try to give information, break it down. we also give tools so that you can write congress directly. host: this is part of cq? guest: yes, it has a lot of cq
reporters as contributors. host: congress.org -- tell us more specifically what issues your tackling? guest: we are also talking about copenhagen. getting people up to speed on what the cap and trade bill does. the looking closer at some provisions about the health care bill that will be in there, regardless. for example, requiring fast-food chains to level the calorie count on the menus. so you realize how many calories you're getting with the hopes it will spur you to get a different, healthier choice. host: you mentioned reporters are working on this to create the website and get out content.
you are taking is from the capitol. where else? guest: we're strictly focused on congress. there is a much going on up there on the hill. there are some bills. it is so confusing to read yourself. we thought this would be helpful resources. it gives more information on how the bill's work. there are enough places on the internet to find out who is angry with nancy pelosi this week. we stay away from politics and try to tell you more about policies that will affect your life. host: our readers hungry for that? guest: yes, many e-mail's are from people asking what this would do. these are not written in a language for you and i.. they're generally written so that administrators can go
forward writing regulations. we state what is at stake and with the issue is. if you get into an argument with your father-in-law or a taxi driver, you could probably win, regardless of which side you are on. host: thanks for being with us. we will go now to an update. >> president obama meets with bipartisan members of congress and this morning at the white house to talk about the nation's unemployment rate. later the president makes remarks on a plan to spin nearly $600 million on community health centers and digital medical records. we will have his remarks later for you. more on health care debate this morning from the former vermont governor, howard dean. speaking earlier he says he is encouraged by senate plan to open up medicare to people 55- 64. .
c-span has partnered with them throughout the month. find out more at our c-span health care hub. >> "washington journal" continues. host: anna burger, thank you for being with us. tell us about these groups. guest: sciu is the second- largest -- seiu results -- second-largest health-care fund cooperative in the company -- country. host: what are your initial thoughts? more jobs in this country, what is your response to what he said yesterday? guest: jobs are the number-one issue in this country. we cannot borrow our way out, we have to earn our way out.
i thought that his approach in getting small businesses going again -- the fact that big banks are not making credit available is a big problem. i think it will need to address those short-term jobs and long term jobs and creation of those jobs. dealing with retrofitting, weatherizing, those other kinds of things we need to do. host: in the business section of "the new york times" it says " president obama is ending the year the way he began, with spending raising the costs of anti-recession levels over $1 trillion. incentives include small businesses, hiring more workers, money for roads and construction " -- projects, and
rebates for homeowners that invest in energy saving whether improvements." was there anything that the president talked about yesterday in that short term situation? guest: first, he was very clear that we needed a safety net for families getting back to work. expansion of unemployment compensation and food stamps. but it went right after the creation of jobs short-term and long-term. that commitment to getting america to work, through programs where we can really help homeowners and renters bring down the cost of utility bills, bringing people to work in dealing with climate issues at the same time. investments in long-term projects like roads, bridges, they are often very important for our economy in a long term but it will take time to build up. there are other things that we need to do.
host: president obama made his comments yesterday at the brookings institution. he did not submit a price tag. did that concern you? guest: no, we need to spend to get america growing again. investment in small businesses will create jobs in the short term and long term. host: our guest is anna burger, secretary-treasurer of the seiu and chairwoman of the change to win federation. we are talking about jobs, creating jobs, and reaction to the president's comments yesterday. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. you have laid out things that you would like to see happen to make jobs happen. one of those was using tarp funds to increase credit for small businesses. guest: correct. the big banks came one year ago and said bail us out.
which we did. unfortunately they did not make money available to small businesses. we need to actually do that so that we can expand and grow small businesses. many small businesses have no access to credit. we think that it is a great investment. host: another point did you make is to leverage private investment of public dollars into a green bank as a source of job creation. >> not only is a good to retrofit these commercial office buildings, we also need energy at home as well. leveraging public dollars for private investments that we can invest in, new technologies that we need. host: dominick, republican line. good morning. caller: i listen to this program all the time with people calling in about the illegal immigrants
not paying taxes. hello? host: you are on the air. caller: they are taking all of our jobs. it is not 12 million, it is more like 20 million. all of us guys are out of work. i remember coming up with what's his name from new york. he wanted to give them identification cards just to find out where they are and maybe we can get them paying taxes. guest: we believe that everyone who is working should be paying taxes and treated as a real worker. we also think that we need to implement laws so that employers cannot exploit immigrants and undocumented workers. that is why we need real immigration reform. host: let's take a look at comments made by the president yesterday.
>> we need to expand relief in the recovery act, including emergency relief to seniors and relief to states and localities to prevent layoffs. this will help folks weather the storm while boosting consumer spending and promoting job growth. of course, there is only so much that government can do. job creation will ultimately depend on the real job creators. businesses. we were encouraged today to hear from the business roundtable that the surveys showed greater confidence in investments coming out of the business community. government can help lay the groundwork in which the private sector can better generate jobs, growth, and innovation. small business tax relief is not a substitute for industriousness, but it can help those with ideas grow and
expand. host: your response? guest: his comments were right on. he was talking about getting the economy going, then expanding it. the idea to keep state and local governments operating at the right level is very important. we need to create new innovators so that we can create new jobs and ideas. host: are you thinking about that creation? guest: i think that we can create debts and jobs at the same time as we expand the economy, then we bring down the deficit. that is economics. host: roger, democratic line. go ahead. caller: we have to stop outsourcing. [no audio] guest: i agree.
caller: we do. everyone says that we have won all of these wars and stuff, but what we are doing is we are rebuilding countries. everything is going overseas. guest: i completely agree. two of the things regarding the president's recommendations yesterday, the investment in jobs creation technology in our country. as we retrofit america, we need to make sure that we are using in those homes energy-efficient products that are manufactured here in this country. the entire investment in new technology and energy is about creating jobs here. we should be building turbines, solar panels, inventing the next energy technology here in this country and manufacturing and here. i also think that the commitment
infrastructure in major construction projects are jobs that we need to do here. we cannot have an economy going again if we import everything and have no exports. host: what do you hear from members of the service employees international union as a deal with this situation? guest: workers are struggling to get by and are very worried. every day people wake up and they are worried. they are scared of losing their jobs, home, health care, in a chance for their children. i hear that from our members and from people on the street. that is what is going on across america. unemployment is even much higher than 10% in some states. that is why they are trying to create jobs now. host: jim, alabama. caller: how you doing?
host: welcome. go right ahead. caller: my theory is that we have a lot of jobs overseas. 2000 people losing their jobs -- give these people had jobs, they would go back to their jobs. everyone knows that computers that do not make shirts and sheets. we need to have jobs back in america where people can purchase their own insurance and everything. we are slowing down. there is no jobs. guest: i understand your concern. i think that that is exactly what the president is trying to do. we need to manufacture things that we can use here and export as well. over the last 15 years there has been too much focus on offshore
and not enough focus on job creation in this country. host: how would you like to see that movement happen? regulating what comes into the country? guest: i think that we have to be the country we have always been. new technology, creation, and manufacturing. investment in technology and development, investment in jobs to manufacture those products, are critically important. we can be the driving force behind new energy technology in this world if we set our minds to it. we have generated new ideas throughout our history and we can do it again. the entire idea of a green bank is a way where we can measure private and public dollars, making the united states a great country again by creating the economy that drives the world. we can do that.
energy and health care. this is a time to add 36 million people to the health care rolls. we could have the best health care workers in the world by investing in training and recruitment programs, coming up with the best way to provide care. host: republican line, tennessee. hello. caller: good morning. the he 4 c-span. i think that sometimes his administration is on the wrong track. not only them, but the bush administration as well. you cannot just give this money to the banks and expect them to turn around and give out loans. i think of the best thing that we can do -- what the banks did is they gave their executives $150 million in bonuses. in a small businessman. -- i am a small businessman.
i would rather that the government give direct loans to small businesses so that they can consolidate their debts. if you do not have money in the first place, how will you get it done? consolidate your debt. the banks can pay their money. 3% to 4% interest over 10 years. go back into business again, by the way, 80% of the jobs created during the bush administration were created through small business people. if we can get to the place where we can lower the rules a bit so that people can get some money, we will put people back to work. guest: we actually agreed. we think that they should be putting tarp money and putting it into small businesses, lending to state and local governments as well. there are many ways that the
government can use that money that the big banks did not. you are right on. the big banks took that money and did nothing for the economy. they did not say people from losing their homes, they did none of the things they had committed themselves to doing. this is why we need financial regulatory reform. if they are too big to fail, they are too big and you take them on. host: john mccain has said that "tarp is a line of money to the treasury, it cannot simply be diverted as it is not simple government spending. the money is simply not there." he and tom colburn support using the funds to build infrastructure and try to get small businesses lines of credit." taking that money and putting it
towards stimulus. >> the good news -- guest: the good news is that we all agree on giving money to small businesses. we should not follow the last stimulus, which was focused on job creation. we need to use all the money available to get america working. we need to put people into the weatherizing programs. host: gramm, arizona. caller: i do not think that we are focusing on this correctly. we need to focus on retaining jobs. the government keeps shipping them off with a one-way trade agreements. they make sure that they keep the open borders for the illegal immigrants. i think that the source of the issue is our election process, where our senators and government is not working for us. they are working for trying to
be global when they are benefiting themselves. we are going to spend all of this money for creating jobs, he bought meanwhile the government is shipping everything out of here. guest: one of the issues we have across the country, people's experience in losing jobs. as a result, people do not trust the government or business in terms of creating jobs. i think it will need to focus on both. we need to enforce our trade agreements so that when they are violated, those countries doing the violating are penalized. we need to become an exporting country again. if we do that we can create jobs. i understand it is a critical problem and until we actually begin to move the manufacturing base, people will love believe.
host: jamie is calling on the independent line. caller: good morning. people shouting about creating jobs and stuff, when you have people that do not even know how to write their names and i want to get paid $20 per hour, that is ridiculous. you cannot create jobs with morons. the american people do not want to work today. they all one big money. free money and less work. your ideas, which i do not agree with, that is why we are going over. there are too many restrictions on businesses. workman's comp, insurance, social security. and then they get a big paycheck to go with it.
guest: i think that the workers in this country work very hard. they work two or three jobs to make ends meet. the reality is that wages have been stagnant for the last 25 years. people are working harder for less money for the first time in the last 25 years. that is why we need to give workers a voice in their jobs. that is why i think we need to do all of this together. host: let's look at president obama at the brookings institution talking about spending. host: one of the central goals of this administration is restoring fiscal responsibility. even as we have had to spend our way out of this recession in the near term, we have begun making the hard choices to get the country on a stable fiscal footing in the long run. despite what some have claimed,
the cost of the recovery act is only a very small part of our current budget in balance. the reality of the deficit is that it has been building dramatically for the last eight years. we have a structural -- structural gap between the money coming out and going in. tax cuts and entitlement programs without paying for any of it, even as health care costs kept rising, as a result the deficit has reached $1.30 trillion. host: when is it too much? when is the deficit too large? when is it a sign that we need to move backwards? guest: there are a number of things that we have to do before we worry about the deficit. we have to pay for the health care bill, getting health care off the backs of the citizens. second, we need to put people to work again.
we cannot borrow our way into an economy, we only earn our way in through jobs. once we get america working again we will have an economy that is working. after that we will begin to cut down on the deficit. i think that those things will do it. host: frank, republican line. guest: good morning. caller: the industry is sick because of health care. the cost of health care must be taken off of the back of the employer. there are other systems that pay for health care. until we do that, companies are leaving the united states. when whirlpool went to mexico their cost for 1000 employees is $3 million per year for health care. why would they not leave?
new companies are not staying. i invested in countries -- companies that are out of the country now that started here. why do we incumbered them with the cost of health care? it must be avoided. guest: i agree. that is why we must pass health care reform. right now an automobile manufactured in the united states is different in price from something manufactured in canada because of the cost of health care. we can bring down costs and cover more people at the same time. host: joy, democratic line. sacramento. caller: good morning. the previous caller talked about the legal immigration. ñii have worked in construction for most of my life. talk about illegal immigration. -- talked about illegal immigration.
i have worked in construction for most of my life. this gentleman said that the legal immigrants do not pay taxes. that is a big mess. not once in my career as an illegal immigrant not filled out all of the proper paperwork and had their taxes taken out of their paycheck. guest: thank you for calling in. immigrants, workers, documented and undocumented, they work hard, pay taxes, and support the community as well. we need a transformational system that will treat people fairly. host: john, florida. caller: good morning, libya. i have a couple of questions for her get -- for your guest. can she give us insight into the seiu association with acorn?
can she shed light on the town hall meeting in st. louis? that is when acorn thugs beat a black tea party member and calle dd him the n word. fenty. guest: thank you for calling in. we think that organizations like acorn are important. we will continue to support organizations like that. i thought that the town hall meetings were incredibly tense and difficult. at the end of the day people had the opportunity to hear a debate around critical issues of health care. some of them began as screaming matches that did not help the debate. we are all trying to figure out a way to have their issues heard so that people are not just
screaming at each other. coast don't read you, republican line. maryland. -- host: ray, republican line. maryland. caller: can they cut back on the tip -- trimming of the trees along the highways? we often lose our electric because these trees fall on the power lines. they have not been through here on these roads where i live for the last three years. guest: that is why it is so important for federal governments to provide stimulus to local governments. as the economy is in a difficult place with workers not working, states and local governments having less resources, if we cannot figure it out we cannot keep basic services going.
that is why i think it is a good and important thing, the president has committed himself to state and local governments. host: you started your career over 30 years ago. how have things changed? guest: i work -- grew up in pennsylvania in the 1950's, when one out of three workers was in a union. my father, a teamster truck driver. my mother worked the night shift in the nursing home. if she raised five kids so that i could go to college and graduate. ever since then the voice of workers has gotten smaller. the share of prosperity has done more to the top and less to the bottom since then. it is important for workers to be engaged in their community.
when they speak out they speak out about what is good for america. that is what i have tried to do, making this a country that works for everyone. host: anna burger is the treasury secretary of the seui. thank you for being with us today. we will be back with a representative paul cantor risky. ♪ >> we will cover a second day of congressional review of the afghanistan strategy today.
the senate foreign relations committee hears from general david petraeus and carl icahn berry. coverage begins this morning on c-span 3. this afternoon a senate homeland subcommittee looking into how the security force is handled. that hearing is live at 2:30 on c-span 3. also online. tomorrow, live coverage of the nobel peace prize ceremony. president obama is the recipient. beginning at -- beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, live coverage on c-span 2. also on line at c-span.org. this week senators continue their debate on the health care
bill. live, unedited coverage on c- span 2. get the latest from the congressional quarterly roll call group. they have called for coverage throughout the month. find out more at the c-span health care hub. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman paul kanjorski, thank you for being with us. tell us what you think about the health care bill. guest: it is not the most perfect thing in the world, americans seem to want absolute perfection. the reality is that it is surprisingly refreshing and i think that the american people will be pleased. i know that we shock to the devil out of the industry. which is a healthy sign.
people are attacking both sides of it, which is a healthy sign. it is the beginning. we have got a long way to go. we have got to work out a lot of philosophical problems in the congress. we are trying to do that and yet the first phase of regulatory reform done so that some of my colleagues can brag in the future that what happened in the past will not happen again. not quite true, but this is the best that we can do to anticipate major problems in the future. host: what work has been going on in your committee lately? guest: we have about eight bills that we are taking to the floor today. calling for regulatory reform. of them i have probably drafted four or five of them. i have participated in the
amendments to two others i look forward to it. host: let's talk about some of the elements. the consumer financial industry? guest: probably a new theory. how it will work, we are not sure. it sounds more radical than and is. it sends a clear message that consumers have not been adequately protected. that there has been an overemphasis from the regulators on safety and soundness. but the reality is that there has not been a great deal of attention and protection paid to the needs. it takes on some of the leveling out of the regulatory process so that not everything is spent on
safety but there is a direction in payments towards the protection of consumer rights. which is good, many of the problems that occur in this country are excesses' that occur from sticking it to the consumer. the effort we are going through in the credit card industry today is just horrendous. you get the feeling, as a member of congress, that you would like to grab some of these people and ask -- what you mean 29% when there is no default and a good record? but you can arbitrarily raise the interest rate at will? that is wrong. we cannot constantly be passing pieces of legislation to right every wrong. this agency is going to have the authority to look into that and appropriately sanctioned companies that are abusive in their interest rates and how they handle these things.
so, we will have to see how it works out. it will certainly be better than in the past, but it is an intrusion of the government into private enterprise. this last year shows the government has to do that, to an extent, to save and protect people from excessive abuse from the business community. host: critics say that that might be too far reaching. but the agency might affect companies and businesses outside of the typical realm. guest: a legitimate criticism. we will have to watch that that does not happen. the nice thing about a lot is that you've analyzed as another. -- nice thing about the law is that you can always pass another.
on the other hand, if you do not provide the authority to right wrongs, they become so egregious that they are destructive. we will try to find a balance. host: too big to fail -- talk about the work you have done on that front. guest: glad to get the opportunity. that does back a long ways. i always doubted that we have the constitutional authority to become so heavily involved in rearranging companies of interest. as we move along systemic risk, which mr. frank is the drafter of the legislation of, did not work last time. we needed something before bankruptcy or during bankruptcy, or in preparation for handling a crisis, a
financial crisis other than bankruptcy. with that they came up with the resolution authority in the form of a bill as prepared by the committee. we have another alternative. we do not have to force lehman brothers into bankruptcy. they could take another route, and it would be a managed downturn. when the secretary performed by questioned his legitimate authority under the commerce clause to go one step further and preemptively prevent getting to the point where the company is having such a systemic risk to society than they may bring it down. if they do, why wait until that critical stage? why not look at what has happened and recognize that there are some companies -- is
not just size, it might also be interrelationships and interconnections. there are all different reasons but they have so many tentacles in our system that if they are individually to fail, they could bring down the system. to prevent that happening we have a council of regulators that will constantly review the top 50 countries -- companies in this country. if they see that something is wrong, i propose that we should have the authority that if they determine that there will be a grave effect on the economy as a whole by the attributes of these companies that day can move in, restructure, lead, stop them from merging or getting larger, what ever is the effect to lessen the chance that they would cause systemic risk.
this came about in a serious way last summer when members of the committee and myself went to europe. at the european union they have the same desire, finding a way to force companies from becoming so compelling that taxpayers have to stand in for them. because america and europe are responsible for 70% of securities, we have an open opportunity right now to get our hands around how we would do that. otherwise we are fast on our way to the mega corp. in the global market that exceeds in strength the size and power of any single government to regulate. if we could wind up with one gigantic corporation that is above and beyond everything else. that will put into challenge
democracy and capitalism in the form of corporate governance. there is a political difference between them. the united states government operates on the democratic process. corporations are essentially authoritarian. we do not want to have that fight. can we provide a 48 break -- -- we do not want them so they they can cause the collapse of the economic system in this world. host: georgia, good morning. caller: i have a joke and a question. the joke is that the dictators are the ceo's, which was evidenced when the stakeholders in the insurance debate got
their say by any insurance company. i would like to ask you, are you aware that mr paulson and what's his name had written up tarp bill back in august? hank paulson met with the entire board of june -- the entire board of aig in 2008. they're counting on this building broke mess. they took all of their stocks out and the taxpayers pay for everything. were you aware that they had this tarp written?
guest: whether or not they had it written as a bill before the crisis occurred? i know that treasury had ordered certain studies to be made. they do this all the time. they do this in the pentagon. at the treasury they have contingency plans for everything. , that was of the first situation where we knew that we were headed to a financial disaster. when there was a failure in of breath the secretary ordered a study as to what could be done under the of this in law to a
into the matter. -- pertinent to the matter. we are pulling out all sorts of information. we still are. yesterday a professor at the ratings agencies called my office to offer some suggestions because he saw my name in the article and his name was in the article. that is happening all the time. look, i welcome everyone. if anyone has a solution to these present economic problems and they can add something, do not hesitate. talk to me, members of congress, anyone that you can. don't know one can capture the right process or what should be done. it is amazing how many good ideas come from simple
conversations. host: rep paul kanjorski is our guest. we will continue this topic later in the hour with representative office. -- baqucus. pat, republican line. caller: barney frank to be in jail. he has done so much damage to our financial industry, turning intervention into established banking regulation and practices. the government and treated it to the established banking practices by forcing them to lower their standards. you can see where that has gotten us. guest: i would like to defend my
chairman and most of us do that all the time, but i would have to defend it not necessarily on your particular challenge, but just generally. look, there is a lot of information and misinformation in this country at any one time. some of it is for political advantage, some of it is philosophical difference, some of it is misinformation and understanding. and some of it is true. the reality is that mr. frank is not responsible for the disaster, one. two, he has had a sympathetic ear in the past and has taken encouraging steps. he was not the final regular -- regulator. none of us are. we pass laws, regulators implement them. contrary to what you might
think, they do not always agree, they do not always implement them in a way that we would like. they have a separate function as a regulator. i think that to try and find at this 0.8 justification for -- find at this point eight justification for the problems, but there is no one person. when i was in france, i said that the one thing that is lacking in our crisis today is we have no one to put to the guillotine. which is true. in past crises we had a criminal, a scandal. someone who could be identified as being previous wrong. this is the case of society going to extreme excess.
having all the signs over the years that deregulation could cause problems. none of the finest economists in the world really picked it up in time. there were a few that said that there were problems coming, but not in sufficient, significant numbers in describing the potential catastrophe. in the end of we have no villains. without a villain is a difficult thing. if we could just get over that and think of the positive side. one year ago this country was on the edge of total destruction. the world economic system was on the edge of total destruction. leadership from past administrations and democratic congress, coming together to construct bills that put us away at that time.
then it transitioned into a new presidency, creating a psychology that since the last year we have saved the economy. that is the judgment across the world. what would have happened, we will never know how bad it could have been, but we took steps to prevent it. we are in the recovery stage. you can tell because the shock has gone away and some of us want to find fault. the reality is that that is a sign of health. i do not want you to feel guilty about it. i do not feel guilty about it. half what i am trying to say is that we are not out of the woodwork. it is on its way. i am optimistic that we will get there. thank god that we had the
strength of george bush, secretary paulson, ben bernanke, president obama when he came in, and timothy geithner. all of these people have emerged in performing a great effort. quite frankly the congress on both sides should be thanked, they did their job as well. not all of us agreed, but everyone tried. the real beneficiary? the american people. guest: -- host: josh, independent line. caller: congressman, you are a master at filibuster. why should i believe any word that you say? you are one of the biggest crooks in congress. guest: let's try to be intellectual and ask questions. i do not care about your
personal opinion of me. if you can be convinced of my ethics and moral turpitude on the basis of some politically influenced program, that is great. i feel sorry for do, not myself. if you have a legitimate question, ask it. i am happy to answer it. other than that, save your slander for the cheap tabloids and sub channels on television. they love that kind of work. host: josh, democratic line. caller: i had a couple of questions for you. do lobbyists' influence the committee? are they any part of your job? do you deal with them at all? i was also wondering about inflation. i know that with tarp part of
the problem that we clearly avoided was the the fashion -- depression with job loss. i was a machinist at john deere at the time. they lay off hundreds of people to try to save money at the top and. a lot of companies do that. you talk about ethics and stuff. in my area in iowa, illinois, we have a lot of manufacturing. i worked in a place that shut down. i worked at a machine shop and they closed their doors and there are not any more jobs popping up. can legislation be drawn up to prevent outsourcing? can you punish companies for outsourcing these jobs? guest: an interesting question. sometimes we do. sometimes it is difficult.
your first question, do lobbyists have an effect? for me to say that they do not, that would be ridiculous. the title comes from the speaker's lobby, where people of interest, or the white house lobby as you enter, people with interests with the government, whether it be that president or congress would assemble and get a chance to talk with them. that all grows out of the riding of the petition in the constitution. quite frankly, the right of petition, while not well understood in america anymore it is extraordinarily important. who do the most of lobbying in this country? citizens, constituents of
congress. i meet with them every day. they come by and they talk. that is the private citizen lobby. i think you are directing yourself for the professional lobby. lawyers in the washington area, generally hired by interest groups, corporations, to make their case. yes, they serve a role. the last time that i looked there was something like 12 south in any single year -- 12,000 bills in any single year. if you had to view every one of those and read them in their entirety, a member of congress could never get through them. it would be impossible just to do one reading. what lobbyists basically do is try to describe and argue to the
point that they are interested on one or the other side of an issue. what people do not realize is that on every bill there are at least two sides to the issue. as long as you have strong people and proper people -- when i say proper people, i mean those that gained access to members of congress generally being people that you have tested over the years. you find out whether they mislead you and give you false information. if they do most of them cannot get access to the staff or the member of himself. they are cut off. it is to the detriment of a lobbyist to not fulfil a professional function. they do not just lobby on a single issue, they make their living representing people on all sides of issues. they want to maintain those
relationships and credibility, which is important. i do not think that we should fear that. i should say that we should watch that it is not misused. the there are not improper advances or offers of interest made. can we get along without them? i do not think that you absolutely out law the right of petition. if you did, america could not be america. can you separate the professional lobbyists from citizen lobbyist? very difficult without some of these provisions in the constitution. we have registration all the time, ethics committees and all sorts of protections. are we always perfect? hello. will we ever be perfect? held no. but that is what life is all about. host: christopher, detroit.
the morning. caller: i am 61. i served in vietnam. i play by the rules. 20% down on my first home. i used to have a great deal of hope for this country. a couple of comments, we appear to be the same country only on the surface. i am sorry to say things like this and be down and out, i used to be an optimistic person. i would never take the judgment of a stockbroker ever again in my life. i do not trust most politicians. i am not sure who to trust, anymore. to tell you the truth. i do not give up entirely. apparently the color of red is not in the spectrum of people that run this country. a wide spectrum of long-term
capital management, we would think that we would have learned from that. the asian contagion. even the former secretary of state under clinton said that they made a mistake pouring money into thailand and suddenly the currency was not worth what they thought it was and a collapse like dominoes, speaking of -- and it collapsed like dominoes, speaking of domino theories. this is a structural and i am sorry to see that. one more thing, if you do not mind. as long as there is a pentagon with a budget there will always be worse. other than that, good luck to us all. guest: i do not divide -- i do not think i discerned a question there, more extreme frustration with the system. the message out would like to leave with the caller is take a step back, take a deep breath.
do not be so frustrated, although i can understand why you might be. the great and noble american experiment has been unusually successful if you look at it over its lifetime. even today, with all of our problems, we are the most sought after nation to be a part of in the entire world. we have been contagious to the rest of the world. we have spawned so many other nations that have the desire for democracy and freedom. we are still, i think, the most free nation in the vernacular of any person. we intend to keep that and we will keep that. we have frustrations. none of us like to see fallen stars. i just watched a news program this morning on taggart. -- on tiger.
he was a hero of mine. i am not a gulf war, but he was a hero. but there are fallen angels. sometimes all of the people disappoint us. that does not mean that we should lose faith in humanity or human existence. the fact is that all of us, every day, are trying to do the best that we can. host: let's try to get one more call. george, maryland. guest: how are you doing -- caller: how are you doing, congressman? caller: you have got to be nice to me. i have been getting some pretty rough questions. [laughter] caller: why not replace glass stiegel with something that is similar? it prevented this, and now we
have this big issue. the solution is real simple. we have to regulate the banks where they will not have systemic risk to destroy the economy. my question is, what are we going to do about that situation than on making a lot or reinstating the previous? guest: we have a committee meeting on that regulatory point going back to quasi glass stiegel. it is hard to put the genie back in the jar. . .
a majority of citizens represented by their representatives decided it was time to do that and now it is hard to put the car in reverse and go backward. i think what we have to do now is try and recognize that we are in such a different economy. we do need regulatory reform. look, if you had said to me even a year ago that i would be in favor of a government involvement in telling private corporations what they could buy or how large they could get,
that was pre-pulsative to me. will be honest i wouldn't have supported it a year ago, but i am supporting it today because i think we were abused. we gave liberty an opportunity to the corporate interests in this country and they have misused it, not illegally. it was under the laws they did it but they put at risk our economic system, my livelihood, your livelihood and the existence of this nation. that, we cannot afford. i think rules are made by men. we can make such rules to correct the bad rules, as need be, and that's what we're trying to attempt to do today. we're trying to reform the regulatory scape. will it last as long as it has in the past? probably not, but we're going to try our best to stabilize the economic system and keep the economy going and growing, and that's going to, we hope, benefit most or all of people. host: chairman of the financial
services subcommittee on capital markets, thanks for being with us, paul kanjorski. >> my pleasure. host: now a news update from c-span radio. 9:03 a.m. eastern time. politico reports that president obama is to meet with chief executives of major banks monday and expected to urge them face to face to lend more money to help promote economic recovery. the president focuses on the economy with members today ahead of a trip abroad as silence continues in afghanistan. lieutenant general rodriguez speaking to reporters said an attack in eastern afghanistan possibly resulted in six civilian deaths. the number two commanding general there went on to say the coalition and afghan troops are continue to investigate. several committees have been looking at president obama's new
strategy for the war in afghanistan. today general petraeus and carl eikenberry testify before the senate foreign relations committee about the plan. hear it live in one hour at 10:00 a.m. eastern time here on c-span radio. lisa jackson, head of the environmental protection agency, speaking earlier at the 192-nation climate conference in copenhagen says she will take common sense steps to regulate carbon emissions to protect the health of americans, adding that her newly declared power to regulate greenhouse gases will be used to complement legislation pending in congress, not replace it. the president leaves tonight for the climate summit, then will stop in oslo to receive his nobel peace prize. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. we'll cover a second day of the afghanistan strategy, hearing from general petraeus, the head of u.s. central command and u.s.
ambassador to afghanistan, carl eikenberry. live coverage begin beginning at 10:00 eastern and on c-span radio and at c-span.org. this afternoon, a senate homeland subcommittee looks at how government ensures diplomatic security. the state department spends nearly $2 billion a year on a security force of more than 30,000 agents an law enforcement professionals. that hearing is live at 2:30 eastern on c-span 3 and at c-span.org. tomorrow live coverage of the nobel peace prize ceremony from oslo, norway, president obama the recipient this year, beginning at 7 a.m. eastern, live coverage on c-span 2 and also on-line at c-span.org. this week, continuing coverage on the healthcare debate, commercial free.
now the latest update from the reporters an editors of the congressional roll call greep. c-span has partnered with cq hol call for coverage of the healthcare debate throughout the month. "washington journal" continues. host: congressman spencer baucus joins us now, republican from alabama and ranking member on the financial services committee. thanks for joining us. guest: thank you. host: what is it about wall street reform and this act? >> it is government financial services, and with healthcare and energy, we have seen massive government proposals to come in and call the shots and make decisions whether it's in healthcare, whether in energy policy and now in financial services or matters of credit, and i think it is always dangerous when the government begins to make decisions that
individuals have made historically in our country. individuals have made those decisions. there has been competition between private companies. we have not had a government managed economy. you do in europe. the idea is to go more toward the european model. we have the largest economy in the world. it is three times larger than the japanese economy. you need to put the japanese economy, the chinese economy, the french economy and the brittish economy together, and our economy is bigger than all of those. we didn't get there by the government making decisions and managing healthcare. we didn't get there with the government making financial decisions, and really, i think shifting responsibility. i heard a caller earlier that said i bought a house and put down a 20% downpayment. i'm not behind on my mortgage.
why am i having to pay for someone who, you know, isn't able to pay? for whatever reason, and i think that is a valid question, and in this country we have always allowed individuals to succeed and sometimes to fail, and the same ought to be true of corporations, no matter how big they are r if they fail, the taxpayer shouldn't underwrite them. host: how does republican legislation differ? glenn: well, guest: well, it differs in many regards. we don't impose a tax. the democratic plan imposes a bailout tax. it is $150 billion tax on large corporations in this country. $150 billion out of our economy right now is going to cost jobs. we don't tax corporations in the event that other corporations, their competitors fail. what we do have is we established a council, and that council would look at consumer
protection. i think we failed with consumer protection. now, we had laws in place to protect the consumer, but many times government regulators did not do their job, and in other cases, we have gaps. we closed the gaps in the regulation. we make sure that someone is in charge of consumer protection. we don't separate safety and soundness in consumer protection. in other words, we think that for a bank to operate in a safe and sound manner, that they ought to protect them sooner and if they don't, if they make bad loans, it's time for both the consumer and the financial institution making it, so we think there ought to be -- the same person ought to be looking at the practices of the banks and not only seeing that they protect the consumer but that the loans are sound and not
fraudulent. host: let's talk about tarp. you said it's time to bring the tarp money back in and not use it for what president obama has proposed, new projects, job creation and the like. tell me about your thoughts on tarp money. guest: one is our biggest dhal eng is really what got us in the mess in the last two or year. we borrowed too much money. people borrow too much. corporations were overleveraged. they couldn't meet their obligations. i fear that the government today, we've taken a lot of private debt and shifted it on to the taxpayers' back, and today the government struggles to pay its debt. we have deficits -- we have a large deficit, of probably approaching $2 trillion. we're having trouble funding that. we have debts as far as the eye can see. this idea that we have money to spend and we need to spend it, i think, it's just wrong.
it's a contradiction. the federal government is running a deficit, so we don't have any spare money to spend on this program or that. we ought to put it on the debt, and, in fact, that's one reason that we so vigorously oppose chairman barney frank, and this is a 1,300-page bill, bigger than the original healthcare bill. this is a massive bill, and it reaches every segment of our economy. whether you extend credit or whether you want to, you know, want to receive credit, you make a loan or receive a loan, you're regulated and the government will make a lot of decisions that individuals and financial institutions in the past have made. host: let's go to our caller paul on the republicans' line in wilmington, ohio. caller: yes, basically i have a comment and a question, and i don't know how we got to this
point, but my point is, i am a workingman, and i have never received any check from a poor individual t has always been the rich man who has allowed me to support my family. now, in '0 a, the company i worked for, and i was a tool and die set up man. we had high sales, went from $15 million in three years to $40 million, and the sticks from the democrats, whatever legislation was drawn up to allow the companies to outsource our jobs, that's when we started sending them to mexico and china. i was forced, and i was scared by this to switch jobs. then the housing market fell through. how do we get to the point to where people don't matter, just the individual matters, and that is a job killer, because then the greed sets in, and then you
have more rich people in this country than you have people working. guest: well, you know we did have a lot of greed at all levels. we had people that misrepresented their income to get a house. we had people that extended loans knowing the person couldn't pay it back. we had fraud on main street. we had fraud on wall street, an i don't believe the regulators did a good job at enforcing the laws. look at madoff. for years people tried to blow the whistle on madoff, so, yeah, greed is a problem. i think greed undermines our society. i think it undermines our values, and i think one thing about greed, it's somewhat self regulating. in other words, if you com%it a criminal act or you get a loan
that you can't pay back, there are consequences, but if the government comes in and short circuits those consequences by saying ok, you failed but we're going to bail you out, and we did that last year. we did that with some very large corporations, who had acted recklessly, and we came in, and we intervened, and we used taxpayer dollars to pay them back, taxpayer dollars, and they didn't suffer the consequences. i think that undermines individual responsibility, and individual initiatives, so i believe that in many cases the government shields people from the consequences of their actions. there is really -- the other thing, i think, you mentioned, caller, is jobs. let me tell you, the government doesn't create a lot of productivity. that's the private sector. when you take capital, and this
bill proposes taking $150 billion of capital out of the private sector, it proposed making regulations which are going to cost companies a lot of money. that's less jobs, less money to hire people, less capital in the private economy, and i believe we've already reached that tipping point to where the private sector is being bled dry by the high level of tax and the high level of regulation, and, you know, regulation, we have a lot of regulations in washington. i don't think we need more regulations. we need to enforce those that are on the books. guest: marianne on the democrats line from mentor, ohio. hi, marianne. go right ahead. caller: yes, what i would hike to know is when are the banks going to be paying a fair interest on savings accounts? i think that if they are
charging 13% interest on a loan, they should at least -- not a loan, but on credit cards, they should at least pay 6 1/2 to 7% interest ron savings accounts. that seems fair to me. guest: caller, that's a great question. in fact, i think that's one reason that we opposed this bill the reason they don't have to pay you a lot of money on the accounts is they are supplying banks with cheap money at almost no interest rates from the feds. as long as the banks can borrow from the government and as long as they can into cannot borrow m you, it is safer to borrow it from the government, number one. i say it's safer, at least in the short term. they're not going to have to borrow from you. i tell you, senior citizens and
people that save are really being penalized by this easy money. i think the easy money got us into the housing crisis. it got us into the credit bubble we saw in this country. i think that's what is happening right now is the government continues to take money out of the real economy, and they continue to deploy it in ways that drive down the savings. host: what should consumers do who get letters in the mail from credit card companies saying they will be charged 26, 29% interest rates? >> part of that was as a result of legislation we passed recently that said credit card companies, if someone's credit starting dpee tear rating, that they still could not -- they could not take certain certain steps to proprotect themselves.
you know, there again, i think if you make a deal with credit card companies and they change the deal on you, the federal reserve because of the prodding of congress has said you have to continue to give people that old interest rate. it is a disappointing thing. i don't really defend that practice. the congress has passed legislation which i think makes it fair for credit card users and some of the practices in the credit card industry, quite simply, i can't defend some of them. host: connie on the independent line. caller: hi. my comments are general. i have been listening to the show and the different topics
and the people calling in have made. there is something missing that nobody has brought up, that if the people of this country don't come together as a nation, and put aside their differences, their recriminations, they're you're wrong because you're a republican, you're wrong because you're a democrat. if we can't figure out a way to be americans, we're not going to solve any problems. we have to do this. our country is in deep trouble. we have to learn to be able to talk to each other. my ideology is right. this rhetoric is the only one that has any value. that's not how it is. everybody has opinions. if you have a problem with your neighbor, you solve it. you may disagree but you find a way to come together and compromise.
we can compromise, but when compromise is not a good thing is when we compromise our values or principles. i see in this country that there is too much compromise of our principles. there was a caller earlier that said she has a savings bond, and -- or a savings account at a bank and they're paying a very low interest rate. what we saw last year is we saw banks that in many cases, financial institutions that made a lot of money, but when they got in trouble, the taxpayers bailed them out. there is a lot of anger out there among the american people that their tax dollars were used to bail financial institutions out that took risks, so i do believe there is a lot of frustration. there is a lot of anger. it is important that in the midst of our anger, and i'm
angry and frustrated with what i have witnessed in the past year, too. i'm frustrated with the levels of greed the caller mentioned. it is astounding the amount of criminal behavior we saw in the subprime lending markets. it is disappointing that the reg haters didn't champ down on that, so what i think we should do is approach this but not compromise our principles. one of our principles ought to be that the government doesn't pick winners an losers, that when someone takes risks and fail they lose the money, not the taxpayers. another principle we should have i think that's the responsibility of every american. we teach that to our children. we should not treat adults like children when they are overleveraged. we should not treat wall street firms when they take outsized are risk make tremendous profits
when they then fail to bail them out. that is wrong, and you're going to always have a division in this country. if there's some people, that want to establish a bailout in the regime, a permanent bailout is that already for the government to bail these companies out. there is going to be a lot of anger, and there is going to be a lot of disagreement, as long as people want to push legislation like this. glenn: there guest: there is concern about understand of the year bonuses about to be given out to wall street firms and the financial services industry. tarp money? >> i think it's fair to the extent that if they have taken government assistance, well, a lot of these firms made a lot of money and there was executive compensation, high levels of executive compensation, and then when they got in trouble, they came down and convinced the federal reserve and treasury to
bail them out. i think that's what the anger is about. it's anger on the part of the taxpayer of the unfairness of this whole thing. in fact, that's why we oppose this. you know, the last week that the democrats could get this bill through said ok, we're bailing out some of these large corporations. we're going to bail out main street. the answer is don't bail out anybody. host: should the companies that took tarp money be giving out bonuss? >> they ought to pay the government back, and we ought to shut tarp down. that's the answer. get the government out. the government should not be in it. last september, there were three or four actions we took. i think of all those actions, the one that it appears actually may have actually proved to get@ the taxpayers' their money back is when they loaned money at 5% and issued warrants to some of the large banks that. is the only program that seems
to be making money. freddie and fannie, the money given to fannie and freddie, we're not going to see that money again. i fear that we won't see a lot of the money that was loaned to general motors. i think that's a loss. host: you have talked about phasing out fannie mae and freddie mac. >> that's right. the first crisis was not last september. we had a failure of fannie and freddie about two months before that, and secretary paulson asked for $300 billion to bail them out. we said we want to reform them and get the government out of the business, and really even the bush administration, and chairman franks is always saying, well, the bush administration helped us do this. it wasn't just the obama administration. it was the bush administration.
well, the anger on the american people is directed it everyone. it is not any certain political party. it is at anyone who continues to, i think, intervene and bail people out, and shield people from their consequences of their actions. host: do you see a purpose to fannie mae and freddie mac? do you think they have helped americans? >> i believe they did supply liquidity, but i think what happened, if you go back and you didn't have it happen, then the main street banks would have done that. i think what actually happened is they became into the market and crowded out a lot of small and medium-sized lending institutions, including small banks and community banks and i think if we had it all over to do, we wouldn't have the interventions we have. i have always said the large
companies on wall street, they can hire lobbyists and come to washington. some of their former executives are working at treasury rand the fed. they're well connected. you heard they can get along if there is a lot of government regulation. they have the lawyers to cope with. small businesses don't, and the more government vox and management you have, it's almost impossible for small businesses to participate in that. host: republican line from indiana. cape thank you for c-span and i really appreciate the opportunity to express myself today with senator bachus. i am a republican and have been all my life since goldwater, and that was when i was about 7 years old, so that goes way, way back, but really,
we talked about too big to fail, and i can tell you that i am one who is small enough to fail. my wife and i had to re consolidate. we overspent. it was my fault. i took the blame. i'm taking the hit, and we are repaying back the money. we've got a five-year program in front of us. i can tell you honestly, as a republican, i'm a right winger. i'm an extremist because i'm a christian. that's not funny, but that's a fact, but the real letdown in my opinion on our part as republican voters is that our men and women that we have elected to congress, the house and the senate, have not done the job that we sent them to do,
and the first primary job, if we don't get this one right, none of the rest really matters, and that is abortion. don't cut me off here, because i'm not quite done. i know it's hard to tie all of these problems in with abortion, but believe me, christians can't understand that if we are willing to continue to kill in the womb our living offspring, then we aren't deserving of the blessings that come with that which christ has given this nation since it was founded. host: het's get thoughts from congressman bachus. guest: kevin, i'm congressman bachus from alabama. you didn't confuse me with senator baucus from montana. a lot opá you said, first of
all, and earlier i talked about our principles. we shouldn't compromise our principles. in healthcare, we shouldn't compromise our principles. we have -- you know, i believe and i think you believe that it is an abomination for the government to fund abortions, and yet, you know, the senate just yesterday or the day before rejected tight restrictions on this government-managed plan paying for abortions, which i think is just outrageous. when you said to start, you called, you had trouble managing, and you had trouble with the loan, but you were too small to save, and i think that's the expression i have used. i don't believe in too big to fail. i believe that the fact that you are a certain size shouldn't
give you certain privileges. it is unfair, because if you have too big to fail and then you have too small to save, a lot of small businesses in this country have failed a lot of homeowners have lost their homes, and i think they have the legitimate right to ask, if you're going to bail out the big guys, what about me? that's why we ought to end the bailouts. finally, you said something that i agree with, the republicans, we were in the majority, and we failed. i don't think there is any way that you can dress that up or put lipstick on it. it just -- we did. we had an opportunity and we blew it. i think there is a core in the republican party that believes that given the opportunity again, we won't let that happen, so i appreciate the caller, and i appreciate your views.
host: let's go to delta, alabama where david is on the democrats line. caller: thank you. that last caller about abortion. here we go again with these republicans. the republicans can't keep their nose out of girls' private parts. they want to take our daughters and our wives and get their nose all up in them private parts. host: let's just move on. how do you work on a bill like the healthcare bill bringing issues like abortion? do you see it as a red lettering or distraction from the other issues? guest: i consider it one of the most important things about healthcare. that caller, what he is talking about is the woman. i believe it is about the baby. i believe it is about life. he was talking about what i think he missed the mark. i think he forgot that there was
somebody else there and that is a baby and that life is sacred. that ought to be a core principle, not of a republican party, but of this country. host: dawn on the independent line from new mexico. good morning. i want to thank you for admitting for admitting the republicans were in charge when the economy blew up. it blew up while george w. bush, while ben bernanke, while hank paulson, and while christopher cox were there, and early on, you mentioned the whole issue of leveraging. christopher cox, when he was in charge of the s.e.c. enabled companies to leverage one to 30. he was a republican, and that republican has enabled me to lose my savings on wall street. now, to come on a show and jen ewe dplect genuflect may be good
for your party but it doesn't do anything for me, the person who is out here, who invested, who lost his savings. guest: we have a lot of anger and a lot of anger towards what happened. we did have republicans at the treasury, that's true. we had the credit expansion that went on for 20 years. it went on under bill clinton and it went on under george bush. there is plenty of blame to go around. i don't think -- if you look, i don't think you would find too many innocent people in washington. one thing that i will say, and that's republicans in the house, during the clinton administration, we warned that these no-down payment loans, and
extending loans to fannie and freddie and a lot of banks to people with bad credit without any money down and we did warn about that. we said that this was going to create a disaster. i don't think anybody knew the magnitude of that disaster. yeah, i think what's important, and this is where i think we can all come together is where do we go from here? ,and, you know, to the caller, i would say, ok, all these mistakes were made and there were bailouts made, but do you want to continue the bailouts? that's what i have to say to the caller and ask her -- i don't know if she is still on the line, but i would say do you want to continue to bail these companies out when they fail? one thing that i think is important is that we have not -- there are several commissions that are going back and
examining everything that happened, and they have yet to report what we have got a bill that is 1, 300 pages. it is a bigger bill than the original healthcare bill, and we're going to do all these things, and it is the government doing them, and the caller said this, you know, washington screwed this up. well, i acknowledge that a lot of what happened was as a result of bad policy here. why would you give the federal reserve -- she mentioned the federal reserve, why would you give them more power? why wouldn't you have what we calmed if we had a four or five five-year problem, why not declare a timeout? host: you are a nine-term congressman in the house of representatives. thanks for being with us. guest: i have enjoyed it and
enjoyed the callers and i think they are reflective of what the american people are thinking. there is a high degree of anger and frustration out there and there should be. host: we will be right back with "washington journal." >> cheer clear see the detail of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices and go beyond the vet vet ropes into the rarely seen spaces of the white house and explore the history, art and architecture of the capitol, one of america's most symbolic structures. american icon, a three-disk d.v.d. set, $24.95, plus shipping and handling. order on-line at c-span.org c-span.org/store. "washington journal" continues. host: during "the new york times" today new data shows
warming increased in the last decade looking at how the last decade was the warmest on record. give us a call -- this news, of course, comes in the midst of the copenhagen talks going on right now. the story starts out the decade of 2000 an 2009, appears to be the warmest in the record, the meterological association reporting in a new analysis tuesday, the announcement is likely to be viewed as a rejoinder to a renewed challenge from skeptics for global warming and as international negotiators seek to devise a global response to climate change. looking on later on down in the story, jumping down "the international assessment on temperatures largely meshes with
an interim analysis by the national oceanic administration which independently estimates global temperatures and other weather trends." it was the gulf between rich and poor nations that was the topic tuesday as delegates talked about reg haigs, a 13-page document drafted by den denmark including language calling for mechanisms imposed by poor countries for delivering aid to them to help deal with the impact of climate change, including more oversight by donor nations than the developing nations want." david on the republicans line in phoenix,s arizona. caller: yeah, if you calculate the amount of carbon in the air, it's like 10 to 16th points and they're talking about releasing a billion or so pounds per day.
it doesn't work out. you are not putting enough carbon in the air to affect the climate. host: our next caller we have annie who is austin, texas, on the democrats' line. hi, annie. caller: hi. i just wanted to say that a few days ago, there was a lady from idaho that called about how cold her summer and fall had been and that the crops were not growing. i know how cold your summers were up there. but apparently you don't know that we were the second hottest summer in our history in austin and san antonio. it broke every record back to 1926, and the next few hottest summers were very recent as well, and so just once you go to look around at other parts of the country and not just be so
blinded by your own little area, that's all i wanted to say. host: next caller, diana, independent line in indiana. caller: good morning. i appreciate you taking my call. ma'am, these records that they keep referring to, they have only been kept for the past 100, 120 years. we have to go back farther and speak to the arcologists and people of that nature, because of what our weather is about. this is about elected officials and money. we do have to filter our waste. oil companies shouldn't have open flames and things of that nature or throwing waste into our water, but i don't believe that we should lose jobs. i believe they have a way of
counteracting this if they use the money in the right way. host: a piece in the financial times from today, also on this topic says the current decade will be the warmest on record and this year probably the fifth hottest, meteorologists said yesterday in a blow to one of the central arguments used by skeptics. in some parts of the world this year is likely to be warmer than any since records began in the 1850's, according to the data. the global average temperature was 44 degrees so .44 celcius above the long term average from 1961 of 14 degrees. let's go to the next caller, jim on the republicans line in kansas. caller: thanks for taking my call. the global warming issue is about sixth or 7th on the list of what is going on in the economy. i just don't think that it is a topic we should be spending a lot of time about.
it should be about the economy and wars and everything else going on. thanks a lot. host: let's look at the comment terries in the national papers today. in "the washington post," sarah palin has a piece, copenhagen's political science and starts out "the publication of damaging e-mails with of climate research center, the environmental movement appears to face a tipping point, appalling actions by climate change experts allows the concerns of so many on this issue," and she goes on to say the scandal calls into question the proposals pushed in copenhagen. "i always believe that policies should be based on sound science, not politics. i took a stand guess politicized science when i sued the federal government over its decision to lift the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has more than doubled." tom friedman writes in "the new york times" today, he weighs in
on his perspective on what's going on right now. he says "be serious, the evidence that our planet has been on a broad warmer trend with periodic mike he crow cooling phases has been documented by a variety of independent reer is centers, and as this paper just reported despite fluck fluctuations in global temperatures year to year which fueled flames of global cooling, and the global warming trend showed no signs of ending according to the new analysis." he goes on to say "because the climate sis sem is -- system is so complex we don't know what else factors in or what might rise temperatures and raise sea levels. it is all odds. we have never been here before." that is by tom friedman in "the new york times" today. let's go to democrats line in west palm beach, florida.
good morning, john. caller: good morning. i want to follow up on what you were just reading from the newspaper there. the fact that -- i mean, i know why we have these fluctuations, why some people say if we're warming, why is it cooler this season, and if we're cooling, why is it warmer this season? it's simply because global temperature doesn't rise in a straight line. global temperatures are not a straight line phenomenon. it is a periodic wave kind of thing, which means that no one can really tell what part of the phase we're on, if we're an upside phase, which means temperature is going up or on a downside phase which means the trend would be going down, and it is complicated and to try to say that one factor is contributing to the overall temperature changes is very unscientific and hiewdz crews. this are several factors that are involved in the climate
change, and for us to think that we're going to get a handle on all those factors, they tried models with that and the models fail after a period of time because they don't reflect the reality, so we need to take a step back and take a step back and not jump to conclusions about one way or another. we need to take more evidence and try to find out in a more scientific way, in a more unemotional way which way the phase is going. are we in an downward trend or upward trend? host: randy on the independent behind in st. louis, missouri. caller: on that note, i would like to hedge my bets, and if global warming could happen, it would result in real structural changes that would fall into the structure of our economy. i think in terms of what was told to me in 1985 by a korean
banker, he said at the time that there were growth rates of 900% in the asian industry -- economic growth, and he told me that i needed to beware, you know, that he has hooked at the u.s. as being a country that wasted resources. he could not believe the sizes of the homes. now i think in terms of legislatures, who must have known this, also. i'm just a slob. i'm not smart money. i look at the people that we send to washington as those who should prepare us for economic problems that we've got to confront in terms of competition now, and maybe in 20 years of global warming. i look at it kind of as the same problem and i have the same fear about it. host: working off something you
said, tom friedman writes "if we prepare for c building a clean power economy but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? well, we would have higher energy prices but gradually drive battery powered electric cars and power more and more of our homes and factories with wind, nuclear and solar and biofuels and be less depend dependent on oil dictators who have a bull's eye on our back and the trade deficit would improve and the air we breathe would be cleaner. in short, as a country, we would be strong remember, more innovative and more energy independent." let's go to vinnie on the republicans' line in reston, virginia. caller: i want to say a few things. you can go to climatedepot.com and read the independent thinkers. there is a bunch of great facts there it tells you. it is very simple.
all anyone needs to know that co2 does not drive temperature. temperature is followed by co2 by hundreds of years. it is documents, and all these people saying it is getting warmer, there is no evidence it is man made. it is all because of people, just people. there are articles that suggest otherwise, 30,000 scientists that agree with al gore and the whole global warming idea that it's man made. host: governor sarah pail inagrees with you, vinnie, saying this is not proof to show that climate change necessarily is man made. she writes in her op ed piece in the washington piece today "we're not the only nation where people are questioning climate change schemes in the european union energy prices skyrocket after it began a cap and tax program. australia's parliament defeat add cap and tax bill. surely other nations will follow
suit, and particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold. " kenneth, independents line in roseland, virginia. good morning. caller: this copenhagen conference is the most important item. be sure to start your series this morning with it. now, associated press brought out the fact that the developing nations who face huge climate change burdens are demanding that wealthy nations shoulder more than their share. there is a split there. ing another news program reported that james sensenbrenner reported that he is going to copenhagen and despite any promises obama made, no new laws will be passed in the u.s. until the scientific questions are solved by the fault fiction of data, which is startling. now, in addition, lord monkton,
he was interviewed last night on the alex jones program and he says he is going to the chief of police in the united kingdom and report on violation of the law by the university of east anglia where the climate unit is headed that sets forth the data for the international, intergovernmental panel on climate change and he's going to report it. he said that when he was over there, he said "i want to see the latest working data, working treaty" and they said, well, what do you mean? the bureaucrats giving him a runaround, and he finally kept insisting and said if you don't give me this treaty, i will blow
this whole place wide open, so finally they relented and gave him the treaty and it calls for all kinds of new taxes on practically everything, and he says that if the united states doesn't go get their senators to do something about this, if this treaty is signed, there will never be -- you will never be able to go back. host: het's go to the financial times story today, the g2, the key to co2 copenhagen summit. there are 1r 90 nations represented at the talks this week, but arguably only 2 that matter, the g2 are the u.s. and china. between them, they account of more than 40% of global carbon emissions. each has the chance to set an example. others will follow. they are also the nations watching each other the closest. let's go to rich in colorado, republicans line. caller: everyone here is
freezing to death, but this whole thing is just like a big ponzi scheme. it might have worked for 30, 40 years going back to earth day, when they started brainwashing the children in schools on all this garbage, and it all leads to this point where you got a president and a congress in there finally willing to act on all the hard work that they have put in on this global warming lie and now they feel they are ready to finally start implementing the taxes upon the people and give them to other governments to spread globally, and that's what this is all about. it is taking down the united states. the businesses and the people are going down to another level more like the other countries that obama admires. that's what it's all about. thank you. host: a democratic caller, chris
from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: hi. i was surprised at the intelligence of some of these callers questioning global warming. i don't know when reality is going to strike home, when the water is at your chin. the science is clear, if you do any reading outside of crappy papers like usa today, and you look at the data, it's pret pretty clear global warming is real, like do you not go outside? come on. there is a lot going on. i'm really proud of obama even though i'm an independent but he is actually doing something about t earth day and all these incentives in our children will keep them on green watch. i question the intelligence of anyone who thinks like that. you better buy a boat because we need to i do a lot more f there has to be a tax, then bring it on, because there won't be no economy. there will be no country for the world. this will be no humanity if we
don't do something. it's pretty obvious. host: there is a story in "the washington post" "farmers refuse to buy into climate change, and australians are on the front line of experiencing life altering experiences of climate change, the awbts is subject of scrutiny this week in copenhagen. brushfires killed 170 people this year in the heat wave in southeast australia. rising temperatures an declining rainfall is pushing it into a crematorium for kangaroos, livestock and farm towns. jumping on this story "the politics have paralyzed some of this country's response to climate change." dan, independent line from fort scott, kansas. hi, dan. caller: hello. this deal in copenhagen is really all about political posturing. the purpose of this whole thing is to have another way to tax
everybody in the world, and i don't really believe global warming is happening. i don't think there has been a science -- enough time and science to figure that out. you know, lewis and clark in 1803, when they made their famous expedition, carried are with them the latest in scientific instruments, and one of those was what they called the thermometer. it has only been around since the 19th century, and there just hasn't been enough time for science to really figure out what's going on in the world. that's really all i wanted to say. host: let's look at the story in "the new york times" talking about the cost of climb plat negotiations and what they may bring. the short answer is trill imrons of dollars over the next few decades. it is a significant sum but a small fraction of the world's total economic output. in energy infrastructural loan, the delegations to the climate
change conference are expecting that the costs will are an additional $10 trillion in additional investments up to 2030 according to estimates from the international energy industry. william on the independents line in indianapolis. good morning. caller: i think it is green socialism. china and india won't participate. al gore has his business interests. this copen copenhagen thing is as bogus as his nobel peace prize. the private sector will take care and make products that are economically efficient and a couple of other items. man did not cause volcanoes, and global warming has not solved cow flatulence or breathing, and i would just like someone to prove how did we achieve the ice age or how did the ice age come
about without man's input? thank you. host: let's look at a comment on twitter. james writes "even if it is warming and co2 is really causing it, i still need evidence to see that that it will cause any harm. " kevin is on the democrats line from hensonville, new york. good morning, kevin. caller: good morning. i would just like to make a couple of observations. one, i had a greenhouse put in recently. you know what? it's warm in there. the sunlight heat is trapped and it warms up. this is such a simple thing to understand. sometimes i am astounded by people's comments. what i would like to ask is for all of your listeners who believe that this is a hoax or that people think it's socialism, i want them to write all their feelings down on paper, and i want them to make
copies of those feelings and then i want them to hand them out to their children and their grandchildren so that those people, those children and grandchildren will know who to blame when we reach a tipping point, and if they would do that, it's not going to help anything currently, but at least someone will know who to blame. host: long island, new york, independent line, robert, good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to say that the earth has been warming up ever since the ice age. they seem to know what created the ice age, but they don't seem to think what is creating the hot age. it is being slowly warmed up all these centuries, and we can do whatever we want to do, but it's going to keep on warming up. thank you. host: thank you. let's go to anderson in south
carolina where james is on the republicans line. hi, james. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i just would like people to think outside the box about the solar system, how it works and how the other planets in our solar system are going through climate changes as well. you can find these things if you search hard enough on the internet. the sun also has its own weather system, which cycles every 11 years. now, when i was in high school, they were telling us that we were headed towards an ice age, you know, because it was so cold , and i think the evidence that scientists i think are on the payroll maybe. i think it is another way to get money out of our pockets as far as the cap