tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 5, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
being seen following the oil spill in the gulf of mexico. a bp official yesterday told them that this whole thing could get a whole lot worse. we are going to start today with this question. it is about the times square bombing plot. do you think that the suspect is a terrorist or a criminal? of the big debate in washington now. "terrorist for criminal." it has to be -- it has to -- it has to do with being read his rights and all sorts of other discussions on the hill. what do you think? for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. i will read them one more time for you. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001.
for independents, 202-628-0205. one more headline regarding this lengthy piece from "the new york times." "this arrest were news debates about the rights of terror suspects in these cases. the rest of the attempted car bombing suspect revived the debate over terrorism policy as the president critics and debated. the suspect was interrogated without initially being read miranda rights under a public safety exception and provided with the fbi calls a valuable intelligence and evidence. after investigators determined there was no imminent threat to be headed off, he was read his rights.
authorities charged him as a civilian on thursday. they go on to say that the handling touched off the same kind of argument that touched off the christmas day bombing in detroit. some republicans urged the obama administration to interrogate him without reading and his rights and classifying him as an enemy combatant. democrats said that his quick arrest and reported confession show that the system could respond to threats of terrorism without resorting to extraordinary tactics." the first call is from california. matt, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: is this suspect a terrorist or a criminal?
caller code to me he is a terrorist, he packed the vehicle with explosives. i would say that rises above the level of common criminal. he was trying to do this for reasons not just of personal gain. i think we will be finding out that he has some kind of larger motivation. host: what you make of his being read miranda rights? caller: i do not have a problem with him being read rights. but there was some kind of delay i do not think that that should be the basis of him getting off.
host: roseanne, new york city. caller: good morning. i think that the entire situation is a farce. you can never believed a word of what the government says to you about terrorism. we have no idea what is going on. the government might well have known about this long in advance. they often do. they may have had a hand in for betraying the scheme. host: thank you for calling. democrats, for democrats, 202- 737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. "the new york times" goes on to say quote the president.
"the american people can be sure that the fbi and their partners in this process have all the tools and experience they need to learn everything we can." republicans quickly accused the administration of worrying too much about legal niceties and not enough about public safety. "we have got to be far less interested in protecting the privacy rights of these terrorists than in collecting information that may lead us to the gills a broader seems to carry out attacks in the united states." senator john mccain of arizona college a mistake to read faisal shahzad his miranda rights. "our priority should not be telling them that they have a right to relent -- to remain silent." terrorists or criminal, what you
make of the process? caller: we have a lot of criminals but i am not necessarily saying that this is one of them. there is such a thing as holding off until we determine he is fully guilty. it is call the rule of law and i think it is absolutely imperative that we return to them will of law in this country. one other comment, we are not all dumb sheep out here. we recognize as clinton said not terribly long ago, our former general, clinton told. -- clinton powell,. -- powell. many of us out here are no longer do. host: john, republican line,
kansas city, kansas. terrorist or criminal, what you think of the process of charging the man? caller: thank you for taking the call. host: you bet. caller: the terrorist in this instance is a citizen. the idea of reading them miranda rights, collecting information that can be used against the individual at trial, this evidence seems likely to convict either way. so, we way the conviction of the particular individual against the need to weed out a large terror cell, i say we should weed out the terror cell. host: " new york times" had line
to a separate peace, -- "the new york times" has a headline to a separate peace, "suspects charged, admits to roll in bomb plot." caller: i am happy that they discovered this calperson. he does not look anything like the one they have under arrest. i am changing -- i am confused. i am wondering if this was not touched up by local people. we were told that the fbi and the police department, the cia are having a fight right now right here in new york.
i am wondering if that has nothing to do that. host: let's hear from robert gibbs on all of this. >> it is important to understand that these are decisions that are made in consultation with the intelligence community. who are no less vested in getting every last bit of information from an interview for interrogation possible. i think that the insinuation that somehow that is not the case is an affront to law enforcement on a day in which i would hope that we would what would they have done. -- would laud what they have done. some of the comments have been
curious. "i know that he is an american citizen, but still." that is a unique one. host: in a separate interview peter king said that he was suspicious of the rush to charge a civilian. "a military commission can give you more information." jay, democratic line, mississippi. caller: thank you for taking my call. first of all, if he is in fact a criminal, that would make him -- and if he is a terrorist, that would put him in the category of a criminal. i do not think that that is the issue at hand. i think we are trying to make every effort to make certain that we have no more situations like we have had previously.
i think that if the democrats, republicans, and all of those would go on to do their job and let this president in charge now be the president and start working together rather than going back and forth and pointing fingers about miranda rights, if this was an american in another country we would want their rights protected. that is our obligation to protect them until we know exactly what they have done. it is important that we work together from jump street rather than trying to muddy the water. rather than taking away from what we are supposed to be looking at.
host: more from the democratic side. they say that the faisal shahzad case "has proven in this country that you can get valuable information out of people after you mirandize them. looking at the results of other interrogations' you will see that what we are doing is actually very effective." new york, independent line. caller: good morning. you have a great program. as a professor i would like to reflect on doldrums statement. this country is spending $14 billion on a submarine approved in a matter of hours. the question, i do not want this
country to become greece. $700 billion every year for a budget. two wars that we are losing, like donald trump said. host: bring it back to the subject at hand. a terrorist or a criminal? >> -- caller: i think that the terrorist concept is criminal. we do not have a war against a particular country. i am worried about the concept we are spending so much money. we have $1 trillion in a budget for military intelligence and this is really, i believe, a criminal police action. host: damascus, ireland. caller: thank you for taking my call. i also say you have a great
show. the problem stems from the fact that in the bush and administration following the september 11 attack and from congress they declared war on an enemy that is undefined. terrorists could be anyone. there is no uniform or country association. basically anyone who might disagree with the government. it is an affront to american rights and civil liberties. host: here is the front page of "of the new york post." -- front page of "the new york post." "he said he wanted to slaughter innocent civilians have in
retaliation for drone attack that wiped out the leadership of his beloved taliban." "secretly trained to bring terror to the city, the dreaded question is how many more." lee, a democrat. caller: thank you for c-span. i think that the concept of terrorism and common criminals are both the same. if you embolden them as far as being strictly terrorists, that gives them power. yes, they are common criminals. they do all sorts of bad things that they are criminals. is the same thing as gang members in the united states. when they're picked up their
given their rights. but they are common criminals. they do terrorist acts but they are criminals. host: we will take 20 more minutes of your comments before moving on to our first guest, but we are taking a quick call to talk about politics for a moment. primaries in several states. alexander burns joins me now. indiana, what is the story there? caller: a number of competitive primaries up and down the ballot. three republicans were competing for the nomination. dan coates capture the nomination but not by a commanding margin. he got about 40% of the vote.
not a particularly commanding win for a former senator. you really did see a conservative, anti-washington backlash against a number of republican house incumbents. they were fighting against a head wind and underperforming relative to what you would expect from people of their stature. host: ohio, what happened there? caller: on the democratic side in that race at the beginning of the cycle of look like democrats were going to make that into a pickup opportunity.
fisher really had the establishment on his side. they were very under-funded. fisher came out on top with a 36% of the vote. like in indiana, not a devastating majority, but he will start at a disadvantage. host: north carolina is one that we have been tracking. caller: you are seeing this across the board, incumbent members of both parties and the challenger candidates from both parties have struggled to make the case to voters who are obviously resistance to established candidates. in the democratic primary that race will come down to a runoff between cal cunningham and elaine marshall, the second of
which has not raised a lot of money. whoever winds of getting nominated is going to have the advantage over the incoming republican. these were democrats in north carolina. people that voted for the health care bill and were facing a backlash from the left. most of them did not have any real chance of losing, but there was 52% of the vote against them with a lot of unrest among voters. host: extrapolate this into future primaries, what are you looking for? caller: less night's election, you start to see the beginnings of this anti-establishment
trend, but none of these races were terribly dramatic. the day to watch for those kinds of elections will be 13 days from now, 13 senate primaries with all of them featuring strong, laid back establishment candidates. trying to win the democratic nomination, senator blanche lincoln in arkansas is struggling against the democratic primary. kentucky, cray grace in had the endorsement of mitch mcconnell, the senate minority leader. trailing pretty badly in the polls right now. what you saw last night in an early way was the establishment candidates ultimately winning but having a harder time of it than many folks expected.
later this month there is a chance for a much greater up said. -- of said -- upset. host: thank you for that coverage, alexander burns. we will be covering those elections in prime time as much as we can. we wear -- we are continuing to ask you this question, terrorists or criminal. which label should be applied to the times square car bombing suspect. "the washington times" has this headline, "bomb suspect trained in pakistan." here is that line from "the new york times." "on reignite debate -- terrorist
or criminal"? jackson, good morning. caller: i hope that i am allowed to finish my thought. pay attention, please. remember richard reid? the shoe bomber? his device started to smoke but did not ignite. i think we have a psychological attack on the american people. they want us to give up more and more. every time a bomb the size to go off. host: anything else? daisy, good morning. caller: i think that we should try him as a terrorist.
once you threaten the lives of americans, you have become a terrorist. being an american citizen or not does not even matter. if the bomb had gone off thousands of people would have died. this question needs to be asked of the american people. we do not deal with if every single day. this is not our job. the people that do are the ones that should make the decisions. host: bill, new york city. caller: i do not know what to call him. i think it we are the terrorist. george bush and dick cheney prove that. host: from "the pittsburgh post- gazette," "pakistani american
man confesses in new york bomb suspect case." here is the front page of "the houston chronicle," during a decade in the u.s. "he lived under the radar. a quiet, average guy, now a terror suspect. " back to the front page of "the new york times," "the friends and foes of obama are treading lightly at this point. if you who have criticized the administration's handling, the ranking republican said that he did not understand why the justice department touted the failure of the attack when they arrested the suspect as a win
for law enforcement. "our strategy cannot be near misses and calling them successes." montana, independent line. hello. caller: i agree with in the last couple of callers a specially. richard reid, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, i was kind of expecting to see a bra bomber with those new resonance scanners they're talking about. i thought maybe that is what is next. host: what about the charging of this suspect? caller: i think it is a big distraction. i do not understand what relevance it has to do with
anything except that i know that as far as being in court they are not charged as a citizen, they do not have to give them certain rights in providing your defense. so, if you cannot make a defense, like in a military tribunal situation, we do not actually have to know very much about what happened behind the story. host: let's hear from jenny, jacksonville, florida. treating the suspect like a terrorist or a criminal. what you think? caller: we should not give him or ran the rights. anyone coming to this country deciding to do harm to this
country should get the full force of the law. including aliens coming across the border illegally. including anyone coming from any of those countries. any one that decides to do harm to our country should not be given iran rights. host: here is eric holder talking about this yesterday. >> the investigation is ongoing and we continue to pursue a number of leads as we get useful intelligence. based on what we know so far it is clear that this was a terrorist plot aimed at murdering americans in one of the busiest places in our country. we believe that this terrorist fashion a bomb from rudimentary ingredients, placed it in an suv, driving it into times square with the intention of killing as many innocent
tourists and theatergoers as possible. make no mistake, this plot was a very serious attempt although it failed to detonate. it could have resulted in a lethal attack causing death and destruction in the heart of new york city. host: the lead editorial in "the wall street journal." "the arraignment in the manhattan courtroom yesterday on terrorist charges, he has been allowed to get a lawyer rather than being subjected to a more thorough interrogation as enemy combatant. the attorney general says that he is cooperating and we hope that he is, but the media goal should be trying to find out everything we can as much as we can, targeting the locations where he trained.
he can face military commission or civilian trials later. broadcasting this would warn other potential terrorists the they could face a criminal grilling. " dennis, democratic line. what do you say? of caller: thank you for c-span, first of all. i am a former deputy u.s. marshal. as i see what is going on in arizona, this attempted bombing in new york, this shoe bomber, the diaper bomber, this kind of thing, i see an assault on our legal system. is the best in the world, believe me. i have been a different countries. god knows you do not want to get
caught up in their bureaucracy. america is great because america is not afraid to stand by the laws and constitution. that kind of thing. can you imagine if 10, 20 states decided they were not going to obey the constitution of the united states? it is almost like some of these states out here that are putting out these archaic rules and what ever. like they are trying to succeed -- secede from the union again. my brothers and sisters in the self, the tea bag people, they must realize that this is the fabric that makes it possible for them to demonstrate and to
do what they want to do. noranda falls right in that category. if you face this awesome justice system that we have in you do not have any rights -- lastly, let me just say that terrorism is a tactic, but an ordinary criminal the breaks into your house in the middle of the night and, god forbid, tries to harm your family in the middle of the night. that is a terrorist act, but the man is a criminal, plain and simple. that is how i feel. these people are criminals. they must be given our ran the report -- the miranda rights and put into the justice system that
is more than adequate. host: if you are a user of twitter you can follow was at twitter.com/c-spanwj. you can also send your comments in. and here is one twitter message. "timothy mcveigh was a terrorist, criminal, an american citizen. so it is faisal shahzad. -- so as faisal shahzad. -- so is faisal shahzad. charge them similarly." caller: for a republican congressman to make a big deal about whether someone is mirandize, they keep talking about how it is not so great because he was going to tell us everything. just because you don't give someone ran the rights does not mean it will not talk. as far as treating him as a
terrorist or a common criminal, as long as he goes away for a long time it does not matter much to me. for them to say too bad that we gave him miranda rights, otherwise you would have told us everything -- whether you have the right to remain silent or not does not mean that if you do not get the rights that you are going to talk. host: one more message from twitter, "we must decide what kind of world we want to occupy. if we cheer more and unmanned drones, are we inviting hostilities -- cheer war and unmanned drones, are we inviting hostilities"? "24 hours after investigators of the times square terrorism case learned that he might be connected to the bombings, faisal shahzad was stopped
before it to fly away. first an fbi surveillance team had found him in connecticut and lost track of him. it was not clear for how long, as a result investigators did not know he was planning to fly abroad until the final passenger list was sent to officials at the federal customs and border protection agency minutes before takeoff. in addition the airline he was flying failed to act on an electronic message at midday monday notify all carriers to check the no-fly list for an important added name. that meant lost opportunities to flag him when he made a reservation and paid for is to get in cash. -- cash." and drew, virginia. the morning. -- andrew, virginia. good morning.
caller: is there a legal definition for terrorism? if there is, think about it. are all criminals terrorists? up all they all criminals? of the bottom line is that we have varying degrees of criminal acts the need to be dealt with. as long as they bring the highest degree of law enforcement to bear on this guy, that is what it is all about. making these decisions when these acts are committed, they know exactly how handle them. the understanding for how to deal with these situations and how to go. host: pagano beach, florida. larry.
what are your thoughts? caller: he is an american citizen. he should be read his miranda rights. is he a terrorist? yes. they did an excellent job in capturing this guy and every small win is a win. he should be read his miranda rights. i agree with the caller before me. host: front page of "usa today." "a dramatic arrest at the airport, suspect tied to bomb training." in "to the new york post" they have a piece, "refocusing a spotlight on pakistan as a global terror training hub, said
iintensifying global networks. exulting hitting harder on u.s. soil in terms of lives and money. u.s. officials seeking to resume relations have lavished praise on pakistan on the rest of afghan taliban leaders. " steve, good morning. caller: this is great. as far as the terrorist, he is definitely a terrorist. he has been living in the united states long enough. if i was arrested and as a criminal -- host: some of the reports show
that he was an american citizen for only a few years. does that matter? caller: yes, it does. you have become a part of a culture. committing the same exact act, down to every detail, you are a criminal. he is a terrorist. that is my definition. host: "the hill" puts it this way, "steny hoyer says that the obama administration has been more successful in preventing terror than george w. bush. a stream of administration officials found the man that
admitted to trying to detonate the bomb, looking at politico, suspect u.s. citizenship is an issue. a current law requires civilian trials. senator lieberman says that he thinks he has found a work around on the miranda rights debate. strip citizenship and move them to guantanamo. ending a decades-old law. "i am now putting together legislation to emphasize that if any u.s. citizen is found to be participating in foreign terrorist organizations that would be deprived of their citizenship rights." that is from "politico pure " shocked, republican caller --
politico." charles, republican line. caller: when you start taking citizens and tried to look for ways to turn them into terrorists, it is dangerous. several -- civil liberal media has lumped the footage together saying it could be a right-wing nut. since the left is trying to put them all together, putting the right wing citizens of america in with terrorists, we need to be careful to make sure that we have clear laws and not just call them terrorists. host: "gop leaders expressed outrage."
ron, democratic and collar. -- democratic caller. what are your thoughts? caller: the entire thing is something that republicans are trying to cook up for an issue. they're grasping at straws. the only thing they have left is the security issue. naturally they will drop everything right out of the thin, blue hair. eliminating the rights of citizens. he is a citizen and he has been naturalized. no way around it. for those republicans to try to remove those rights from a citizen, that is the real problem. not the fact that he is a criminal or a terrorist. terror is the initiation.
criminal is the planning. i would like to hear more from other people that think these thoughts. host: michael bloomberg, the police commissioner, frank lautenberg, and peter king will be testifying on the hill today. the hearing was set before all this. the topic is terrorist threats and guns. we expect they have quite a bit to talk about. mayor bloomberg is expected to give a strong piece of his mind on the subject. this is from peter king, there
should be added funding for security. adam, maryland. welcome. caller: it is clear to me that this is a terrorist act on american soil. conversely, if this were a foreign national it would be appropriate to try them with a new military trial. host of democratic line, your thoughts? caller: the bomber is a terrorist and a criminal. we afford everyone arrested on u.s. soil miranda rights and it has nothing to do with who they are, it is who we are as a people.
since he is an american citizen i certainly think that he should be tried in a civilian court. i think that people have it wrong here on the mirandize in question. everyone arrested in the united states is afforded million rights. host: more of the front pages on all of this. "l.a. times" "officials cooperating with others in pakistan." "the denver post" has this headline, "bomb making training, taliban link still murky." cuff more headlines for you here. "orange county" goes through the timeline, a 53-hour race to an arrest.
"no-fly list failed to stop suspect." kristin, good morning. caller: the thought of the state department taking away my citizenship makes my blood run cold. that is the craziest thing i've ever heard on your wonderful program. host: "in times square peter hoag stroke of michigan said that officials have long thought that al qaeda wanted to launch
an attack and officials are seeing people acting independently after training with groups abroad." jeff, good morning. caller: good morning. i think it was going on here, there is a hidden agenda. a hidden domestic terrorism agenda. getting rid of habeas corpus and rights and everything else. seeing you, a person of interest, and definitely if you say something they can lock you up if they don't like it. if you try to hold the government accountable, the only terrorist we need to be concerned with is the cia.
they call these blacktops operations. we have got people in congress that could be called traders as they violate the logan act on a daily basis. treasonous acts, people should be put in jail. we have a secret government. host: one more call from new york city. caller: i am calling to make a comment. stripping people of their citizenship is an outrage.
i question their sanity. trying to create chaos in this nation. rising up in a revolution, it seems they have no regard for the country. like they're trying to create fear in the nation. every republican this morning has been talking like the united states is open to terrorists. something needs to be done to stop them. they're not helping the country, they are hurting the country. thank you. host: a couple callers have reacted to this story regarding joe lieberman. "senator lieberman thinks he has found it work around on the miranda rights debate of u.s. citizens accused of terrorism.
he plans to implement a bill that would yank u.s. citizenship from u.s. citizens who fight for a foreign military. if you have joined an enemy of the u.s. in attacking the u.s., i think you have sacrificed your rights to citizenship. with one exception, americans are allowed to fly in israeli defense forces without losing their citizenship." lee, you are on the line. terrorist for criminal. should their rights have been read? all of that. caller: guess i am confused. seems like citizens do not mean
anything for if these people can be profile by that. down there in arizona on the border, if these criminals in both parties, they say that he learned how to make bombs and everything in afghanistan. or somewhere. but i think that the democrats learned it all from chicago. god bless america. host: i have one more call from new york. donna, independent line. good morning. caller: hello. i have worked for a major airline for 30 years.
this man should definitely be tried as a civilian terrorist but moran was. also, the airlines should face some kind of flying. maybe it would put more of an onus on them to weed out these people that are traveling with cash on one-way tickets on no- fly lists. they're not doing their job correctly. if they were fined maybe they would do a more correct the job in weeding out these folks coming over with these agendas.. are you still with the airline? caller: yes. tell us how it worked on the inside. tell us about the attentiveness
in terms of following the rules in place. host: i was actually -- caller: i was actually on a flight during 9/11. it was clear the airline knew about it before the people hit the buildings. nowadays they have these weekly and monthly updates on what is going on in the news and the threats that are directly facing us. i think the major airlines are much more on board about it. the other carriers, they do not have to follow our laws. something that came out of their pockets, maybe they might be more on board with that.
host: barbara, republican line. caller: by support joe lieberman is reposal 100%. people have to wake up. we are living in a world where we can lose our lives and the moment. we need to cooperate with people that have common sense, like joe lieberman. these callers are unreal. what world do they live in? if you are not guilty of something, you have nothing to hide. this individual trained in pakistan. they already had the plan to do with a bid. -- do what they did. we must support joe lieberman and people like him. look at your children. do you want them to be alive
tomorrow or not? host: a couple of stories regarding the financial regulation bill, they might try to push this through by the end of next week. "liquidation funds are now out of the bill, senate democrats have agreed to drop plans, cutting a deal with republicans to produce controls in overhauling regulations. republicans contend it would have been a source for future bailouts. that without the fund they can oppose sales firms alone. $5 billion plan for retirees to take pressure off other employers to keep early retirees on their medical plan.
the administration announced they're making $5 billion available until a new health care law is in place. these low subsidies will allow employers to recoup a big chunk of the cost for those that are not yet eligible for medicare. older baby boomers looking to downshift could see immediate benefits. democratic line, you are on the air. caller: i am not sure if he should be tried as a terrorist, i do not know about the differences in the law. what i want to say to senator lieberman is i have a former colewort -- a worker whose daughter served in the israeli defense service. it was incredible to me. it should not be allowed. if you are a citizen of the
united states usually serve the u.s. military. host: brooklyn, new york. independent line. caller: i wanted to make a quick point. as a native new yorker, we know that we are a target. the biggest city in the country. we are not scared. we are not scared of terrorists and their terrorist activities. secondly, once you are a citizen you are a citizen. you cannot take away citizenship. you can do horrible things, but you will still be a citizen. third, the entire strategy of the terrorists is ratcheting up the body count.
a completely effective tactic. host: brenda, democratic line. caller: i agree with mr. lieberman. once you plant a bomb in times square you should lose all of your rights. host: economic related headlines. this first one is from "the financial fought -- the financial times." "euro zone that worsens. -- debt worsens. despite the bailout of the government in athens they had this -- u.s. citizens spending
more than they are again. the revival of the u.s. consumer has been seen that -- seen as a sign that the recovery is on solid footing. but u.s. citizens are once again spending more than they are earning. -- earning." joyce, good morning. caller: i would like to know where this man's wife was when he was assembling all of this equipment and material for bombs to make bombs. she must have known what he was up to. host: why do you ask? caller: why do why ask? host: yes. caller: nothing has been done about his wife. as far as i know. but i know this much, if my husband was doing all of this in my basement or my room cottage,
court through the eyes of those who serve there through the latest book, the supreme court. interviews and photos with all the justices that have ever served. in hard cover and also as an e book. washington journal continues. >> to the oil spill now. republican of louisiana, second district, new orleans. congressman, you were at this briefing i worry for the sea
food industry of louisiana and the small businesses of louisiana that will be impacted. i worry for the many fisher "american idol" whows livelihood will be affected after the initial feeling of worry, the second feeling was anger that we are doing enough to deal with this oil spill. host: when was some of the questions in the room? caller: much of the status to try to shult down the spill, what programs and what would be
with bp and discussing solutions to the problems. still, i'm some what disappointed that when we last friday had a briefing, there was no plan for the federal agencies to work with bp to address this issue. they were supposed to work out a plan over the weekend and hopefully, there's one in play. >> wanted to show you the times. it says bp attaches shut off valve. they say in a two-step effort, bp attached a shut off valve to one leak and today it will begin transporting the first of two giant containment structures. do you have hope that this will
costs. obviously bp is the responsibly party. i believe that the federal government will play a roll in the recovery process. one of the issues we've been pushing >> traditionally, louisiana has not received any revenue sharing. we've been the hub for the nation's oil and gas industry. our coasts have been devastated but at the same time, we are not receiving the money in order to restore our coasts.
they were concerned for their health, their businesses. many people are concerned about jobs. tour ix has been affected and people are rightly concerned. when i walked out of my house, i can smell the oil residue from my house. the emotional factor will be felt for a long time. first call from dallas, texas on the democrat line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'd like to know how come the congressman is not doing too much for the blacks down there
where that whole area down there voted in the end. he's not doing anything for the blacks or the whites? host: anything specifically on the gulf oil spill you'd like to mention? caller: he gonna give any of the black folks or the poor whites jobs on that sight out there. guest: first of all, my report is very clear. i have voted with the administration 68% of the time. i am one of the most bipartisan members in the house of representative. i have been looking at recovery issues to address what we need to do in order to move recovery forward for the past week and a half. we have been looking at ways in order to assist everyone involved we have provided
information to establish this issue to get agencies to be involved and fisher men to be involved. i was visiting a training center to get people to provide and provide them with the necessary information >> the independent caller. good morning. >> good morning. i would like to know about what are they planning to do if more oil rigs would spill? >> i know our administration is
committed. in order to address the needs of this country, the president has said that we need a prehencive energy plan which includes off shore drilling. i've spoken with the secretary and the commitment >> we have to look at better ways and safer ways to drill off shore. plenty of stories >> the pentagon is sending guard troops to aid in gulf states. what would they be doing in your particular district, do you think?
>> i would hope that they would be involved in the clean up. at the same time i guess the troop would be placed to help with security and to help with a number of issues that we would be facing. >> they point out that these oil dispersements may help destroy the oil spill faster one of the main concerns that
comes out of this would be the environmental impact on the gulf because stories have shown it causes issues to humans as well as to animals. those are some concern that's people convey to me that the use will somehow affect the environment as well as the health of people and of animals we have been assured by bp as well as by some of the chemical dispersements what are the
folks thinking and hearing right now? caller: mostly worried about the tourist impact. he just mentioned security down there. what do you need security for when people are trying to help? i don't understand why you need 1700 troops to come down when as far as i know -- i used to live on the bayou, all the people i know want to get out and try to help. nobody is allowing them to try to do that. host: go ahead and answer the caller squoo when you have people that are fearful and
angry and losing their jobs, this would be affected, than the issue of security might arise. so i'm pretty sure that much of the federal response would be focused on recovery and prevention. we have to look at all of the issues. >> memphis, tennessee, good morning to you. >> thank you c-span. quong resman, i heard about a year ago at least. mit announced that they had a product that would soak up oil but would not absorb water. the inventor said that he had taken his inspiration from the lilly pad and i believe the
the numbers they are throwing out there is $10 billion. >> you know, with congress, we can do almost anything if we have the will to do it. i'm sure with the impact of this oil spill, there will be the political will to pass a law. the second issue we have to push for is the excell operation of the revenue sharing for louisiana we will need all of the money that will be available from tax revenues and revenue sharing in order to restore our eek owe system and economy. >> so the u.s. congress would need to approve a revenue sharing plan?
guest: they have already. right now it is at 37.5%. you are looking at six more years down the road. right now, our coasts have been impacted because of off shore drilling. i blobe we need the revenue sharing now to allow us to rebuild our coasts it will provide a barrier for hurricane protection. what choice do we have? host: here is a twitter message. there's nothing in the constitution about the federal government cloning up oil
spills. guest: you know, there is not in the constitution for many things but i believe that we have a roll to address the needs of the people and to make people's lives more se occur so we can always interpret the constitution in ways that might get the government more or less involved. at the end of the day, the moral issue is, what is the role of the government. i believe that roll is to ensure that people's lives are protected and secure. those who are responsibly in the breaching of the livelihood
i guess breaching of their duty to keep the environment safe i'm sure we will look into the situation to prevent this from happening and to sanction the parties that are involved. host: r top executives rejected a campaigning idea before it even started. host: any reaction to that approach? guest: at this point in time, i believe we have to do everything that we can in order to shutdown the spill and help
with the clean up. the more people that we can put together, whether it is national guard or federal troops or volunteers, community members or fishermen, we have to get all of our forces together and make sure people are working with one another to address this problem. this is a national problem. host: look for hearings all next week. we'll get you deal tails. del mar, new york on the republican line. caller: hi. thank you. i think that the federal government has stepped in and did a very good job on this. i think it is up to bp. i think their damage control system fell down on this one. something, the federal
government has looked into this to see that their damage control should have picked up on this and has such as a cap and a box that they are building now and expect to get out of this site tomorrow. we know that there's going to be more accidents like this. you sit down and figure out when the greatest damage could be. i think they should have two or
though of these stationed at different locations. if something like this comes up -- you are going to have more of these spills. you don't have to wait for two weeks. they had this box on shore on a barge. you'd have had it out there two days and had it down there. guest: i believe the caller is absolutely right. as we go forward to push the issue of offer short drilling, the federal response has been very good from the beginning. i commend the president and his
host: part of that $25 million is going to your state to help the response. guest: that's only a drop in the bucket. i believe that the amount will be a lot more. we will require a lot more from bp. at this point in time, i believe that the focus will have to be shutting down the spill. and bp and the federal government will have to be focused on that task and won't have to spend as much resources as possible in order to be successful in that task. host: to texas, the democratic caller. caller: until we stop this spill, we are just whistling dixie. last time we had a disaster,
dick cheney was in the control room. now we have bp and his company haloburton. has anybody looked to see what dick cheney was up to at the time this rig blew? guest: i'm sure there will be hearings in the future. there will be other issues that we have to investigate through the congress host: from arizona on the independent line. caller: good morning. i've been awake about 15
minutes. it seems like we have to keep learning the regard way that when we put profits above all else, bad things happen. when i wonder is everything i see in the corporate media, i late to lump c-span in. i love c-span. but why is it that we don't refer to this as capitol concern as british pet role yum, not bp? could you explain that, please? host: didn't they change their name to beyond petroleum? guest: i believe one of their ads was to focus on some of the alternatives that are beyond
petroleum. i don't know, i guess it's up to you to answer. the media has been focused on the phrase bp. i guess that's just the abriviation. i don't know the answer to the caller's question. host: when are you planning to get back home and what is your mission when you get there? guest: i will fly home thursday afternoon. we are in session yesterday, today and tomorrow. one of the issues that i will be focusing on is to get the communities more involved and fishermen more involved to make sure that the fishermen will have the revenue necessary to keep their house and bigses because some of the fishing areas have been shutdown. we will have to look at ways to allow banks to delay mortgage
payments that will impact issues. as you can see already the problem that's we are facing is more complicated than to simply clean up the oil spill and make sure there's no impact. you are looking at people's home that's are going to be foreclosed. you are looking at businesses. the problems are so intesh lated that we have to look at all of this as once. you are on the republican line, go ahead. caller: in 1979, off santa barbara, they had a little spill. they said it would take 10-20
years to clean it up. it took only a few weeks. they keep talking about the valdez spill. there have been seven tankers that have spilled more than the valdez. there have been more oil spilled from tankers than there has from off shore drilling. if this would have been drilled on shore, we wouldn't have this problem. as for as the world coming apart, the oil coxes naturally from the sea is greater than the spill will ever be. it will eventually clean itself up. host: win last question for you. wall street journal disaster dims the comprimise. the president comes out and says, let's pursue more oil drilling. what should happen in that
area? guest: we have to continue with an energy plan that we wbt to push forward. if we can stop driving, if we can start using electricity in the home, we night not need more off shore drilling. at present time, we still drive and use cars that use gasoline, we have homes that use electricity that does not come from solar cells, until we have the necessary green structure in place, we will need oil. we will need off shore drilling. >> or guest, a republic can from new orleans.
guest: thank you very much. >> we'll turn to the economy. economic book will. sweel switch engineers and talk about the economy and the approach to things. in the meantime, more politics now. >> one of the closely watched races this year is that special election in philadelphia. the editor of the tribune democrat. there are three candidates running for the late jack murtha's seat. a democrat, republic can and libertarian. why is this being watched so closely. >> many are watching to see does this fall into the pattern of general anger and distrust of washington that will lead to
a victory. we are talking about a special election. we'll have two elections in this same seat. one is a special election to complete this turn. the other is a primary ee lection. >> why is this race important, do you think? >> it's important at a couple different levels as i said earlier as a bench mark to see what the state of people's thinking is to be closer to the
democrat. what's going on here? that's why tonight's event, we have a debait, thads why this event is so important. that's why what the candidates do say and what they spend their time with is so important. right now, it's a neck and neck race. talk about the legacy of the 12th district. one of the underlying themes of the campaign of what happens now goes forward locally, he was the chairman of the defense appropriations committee.
>> it is a relatively con serve tiff issue. you would probably see a republican do well jack murtha was not a lib rat democrat. he was more conservative. that's really not true. that poll that showed that he jumped to eight percentage points over those ads. we want to show our viewers the latest ads and welcome back to talk about them.
>> born in the coibt, he went on to become jack murtha's economic director. in congress, he is determined to get rid of tax breaks for company that's send jobs over seas. tim burns supports out sourcing and got over $6 million in tax breaks for out sourcing jobs. tim burns, not for himself. not us. >> tim is a successful businessman that created hundreds of jobs. mark scrnch is? a washington bureaucrat. investigated. and in charge of the finances of a company caught not paying their taxes. two candidates, one clear
choice. >> people are seeing that as a negative campaign. that surprised me a little bit. you have to take your gloves off and slug away. in both cases, the folks running the commercials portrayed themselves accurately and maybe zag rated their opponents is he making any head way? >> i haven't heard a lot about him in the community. a little late to the race and will be involved in our debate. he's a typical libertarian
perspective. i don't know that i expect him to make much of an impact at the poles. his voice has made it more interesting. we'll have it life tonight. you are the co-moderator what should we be watching for? >> we had a forum for primary candidates last week. i expect maybe double for the audience it will' a handful
there for both of them. part of any job will be to keep the house under control >> to the economy now. the book called, a presidency in trouble. the first question, what was that promise you heard or saw from the president on the economy? guest: tens of millions of voters were excited about this new comer to politics. history tossed him a grenade.
he was not expected to become a crisis development. he ran into a number of obsticles. one was the tremendous power of wall street. host: you write the introduction this in his fateful first year, there was a road not taken. guest: for starters, we need a simly if i indication of the system. the financial system is
supposed to be about providing credit capital to the rest of the country. it should have been a moment for more drastic reform. secondly, the stimulus package, while it seemed to be a lot at the time, this was spent out over four years. during the same four years, state and local governments were in the hole i come from boston where we had a blowout in a 100-year-old water main there are all kinds of other issues.
he's not quite do you doing it. host: our guest has written for a couple other publications. here is the title of the book, presidency in peril. phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen if you want to take part. it's early, the jury is still out. kennedy had a bad first year. one is the fact that there's no bipartisanship to be had. the other is the trophy mend youse corporate influence that
has been exacerbated by the resent decision. another is the fact that deficit and the president's own commission on fiscal reform hold that's getting the budget into balance quickly is more important than getting the recovery going. after world war ii, we spept a for tune, the byproduct of that was that we recap tollized american industry, we got a strong recovery. the deficit went down and the budget came back into ambulance. we need a strong commitment to put people back to work and create good jobs much we are nowhere near that. he will pay the political price. >> there's plenty of time left
in the presidency. there is six years left. it's just about six months before the midterms. what happens there. >> there's a risk of a blowout and a huge opportunity. he will be very paralyzed during the second few years of his first time. i was at a meeting there to talk about the economy. i was surprised by the level of scass peration. people said things like he's got two and a half more years, we'll be hung out to dry in november. he passed the jobs bill in december. he's just sitting there. they had a rose garden ceremony for a jobs bill that was a spit in the ocean. i wish him well. i hope he succeeds.
i hope the millions of american that's voted for him see him succeed. host: let's get to the calls here. go ahead. caller: i'm sorry, i hear it too. host: call back and we'll try to get you through with all the other calls, it's going to be really challenging to hear you. in the meantime, jeremiah, good morning. caller: i think we need a new commission where jp morgan and others are called in front of congress and investigated. i want to say the web cast on
saturday at 1:00 p.m. at larousse pack.com. he's saying we need an agreement to break from this wall street-london british empire. whatever you want to call it. guest: i'm certainlyly not a fan of his being a conspiracy guy. for those of us living in boston. from scott brown, there was a 48% swing of people in massachusetts without college degrees who voted for obama in 2008. the tea party is a classic
example of what happens. it's right wing populism. somebody has to take the lead. for now, tea parties are filling that vacuum. >> i don't know how we are going to get all these people become to work. there's not enough work around for everybody. the only people that are working are in the government. to try to get the government to do some work. they don't seem to be able to accomplish much. they shift points and point fingers to try to get elected again. host: how do you get the jobless numbers down? guest: it was the war.
they are mostly right. 1940's, unemployment rate almost 14%. how did that happen? a lot of people went into uniform. 10 million other people went to work because of all the stim luss they are spending. universal broad bant. renewable energy. good jobs in preschools. there's plenty of work. there's not the power to fund
it. the health plan most of those will be the best plan in the sector. i think it is a failure of politics and policy and will. >> moving on, charles on the republican line. i agree with you that it is a failure from the political stand hav all of these jobs filled. in the end, they are being paid for by tax dollars. what we need is private sector jobs unless we impress on these issues. we have a small business, we have figured out that the government did not charge us one lick of tax.
it's not a competition issue which i continually hear people on c-span saying, the u.s. gets to step up and start being competitive. we have the epa and all these guidelines. they are great guide libels. when china doesn't have any of that, we have other countries trying to build economies. we can't keep taxing people and turn around and put the money in to fix the drain or local road. >> if you look at the way china
has gone about developing industry. they make offers they can't refuse. they steal technology and require to produce products for exporter back to the united states. you can't even sell them. some of our biggest corporations take that deal. both of our parties have opened the united states to china. partly for political reasons. partly because we need to baro money from china since we are so badly in the hole. and partly because wall street likes it this way. we have given priority to finance at the expense of manufacturing. we are watching the industry be hallowed out. you need a much more assertive strat gee to get back into this country. you need industrial policies.
you need to insist china play on level playing field so that all of these good manufacturing jobs don't disappear. i couldn't agree with you more. both parties are agreeable for letting you go. there are some fine excemptions. i'm talking about the parties. both are culpable for giving what you locally want and not what's good for manufacturing. >> you mentioned a lack of bipartisanship. guest: 9 the pitty is that the one type of bipartisanship we've had is on trade and deregulation. host: i bring it up because of this twitter message. where would you get the votes for these programs in congress. how do you get this stuff done? guest: the game changer is
presidential leadership. those of us who have high hopes for obama, in the ninth inning with two outs when health reform was about to go down the drain, he gets involved. he starts putting a human face on this. parents with kids who can't get health insurance because they had preexisting conditions in the womb. cancer, he gives them fames. he starts working congress with one vote at a time. one of his best speeches, he said a lot of what the republicans were saying are not true. no one is going to take away grandma. kids can stay on their parents insurance until they are 26. host: how about this financial
reform bill? we are in the middle of a two-week debate. the house has a version. is this a good something in your view? guest: it's getting better. the goldman suit was providentally timed. i think until goldman started dominating the front pages. the game you play is that you create junk and sell it as if it is good stuff to investors. that's how a lot of these guys make their money. ordinary people displayed their game. we have seen a little bit of presidential leadership on
this. we could use more. backed by progressives on one side. this is ron paul, libertarian from kansas joining up with a republican from vermont. we don't want this secret society. it's turning more our way. the efforts to expand audits through the sale of the house. senator sanders pushing this amendment to the bill that would broaden the power to audit and compel the central bank about emergency during the crisis. you can watch all of this play
out. >> guest: if you read to the bottom of the story, it says the white house is opposed to this. he likes the fed the way it is. i'd like to see more sun light. host: back to calls. democratic line. thunching for calling caller: i'm a c-span caller from way back. i've heard some good opposite republicans say the same thing. i voted combens them from the very beginning. the only thing i could add is the only other thing i could do is thap keep watching. the sound bites are usually turned toward the rich and wall street. wall street is the problem.
call hem for what they did. us voting people have to vote these people out who let this country go as far as they did. what they did to our economy. mr. paulson and that guy up there now -- i'm trying to think of his name. guest: geithner. caller: i voted for him. i hope he succeeds. they need to be in jail. these people are criminals. guest: when the savings and loan issue happened. people stealing the taxpayers blind, hundreds of people went to jail . that was a smaller crisis. the taxpayers paid out. but it didn't sink the whole economy. the reason i call this book the
presidency in peril, if the president didn't live up to the promise that a lot of people saw in him. when you raise hope sky high the way obama did during the campaign. then you deliver a very slow recovery. you safe it from a great depression, the air goes out of the balloon. 71% of first time voters voted for obama. young people went to work for him by the millions. a lot of disillusioned people that hope he gets his game back. i'm one of them. . .
it up. the power of wall street, the fact that congress is divided, the fact that process taken a filibuster from something people out on special occasions to something you use on ordinary legislation. so absolutely it is unfair to blame all of this on obama. he inherited most of it. however, he did not have to make some of the choices he made. he certainly did not have to appoint tim geithner and larry summers to his economic team, the representatives respectively of the best of what the bush era and the clinton era. -- the bad stuff of the bush era and the clinton era. he could have made mortgage relief higher priority. harry reid, his own majority leader, was up for reelection in nevada, the single hardest-hit state in terms of the mortgage crisis in the whole country. one home in four is under water. home is worth less than the value of the mortgage. in nevada, it is 70% did you
think that just for crass political reasons they would be delivering more on -- would think that just for cacrass political reasons, they would be delivering more on mortgage relief. only about 150,000 people got relief under the administration. i would like to see him deliver more but i think this is constructive criticism. i wrote this book in that spirit of a benevolent exasperation. i hope that a friendly push will help him to succeed. and i know that i speak for millions of americans who were energized and felt hopeful because of obama and now feel somewhat dispirited. host: knoxville, tennessee, jim, our republican color for robert kuttner. caller: robert, i am a reagan republican, and i think that the
whole direction of the obama administration follows the same follow-ups of roosevelt -- roosevelt never got unemployment under 15%. look at the reagan-bush years, 16 years of low employment -- low unemployment. what is this stimulus stuff? it doesn't work. for example, eisenhower had low unemployment for eight years. there was no stimulus. reagan-bush, 16 years, there was no stimulus but all stimulus is is a reward to government employees. the democratic party is essentially a government employee party. they hire 200,000 white-collar bureaucrats that absolutely nothing except sop up energy, taxes, taxes, and more taxes. furthermore, i think the democratic party? these recessions. they are in no big hurry to -- i think the democratic party likes these recessions.
they are in no big hurry to get out. during the roosevelt era, unemployment was a problem during the war, and they loved it. they were not in a big hurry and they are not in a hurry now. they hurt the economy deliberately. when unemployment is high and industry goes to china -- and we had strong industry during the 1950's, ohio and the heartland were republican. they fear republicans more than they fear terrorism and inflation. all of their policies are to keep people from getting rich and voting republican. host: let's hear from our guest. guest: well, this is the principal debate we're having in this country but i differ from you. i respect your opinion you cannot look to the roosevelt era and not count the war. the war was the greatest stimulus the economy has ever seen. we live off of that stimulus for about 25 years afterwards.
we build these amazing new products thanks to the wartime investment. let me say something in response to what you said about the prosperity of the bush era, and i would add in the spirit of bipartisanship, prosperity of the clinton era -- a lot of that was a bubble. was based on debt. it was based on borrowing money from abroad. it was based on individuals going into debt because paychecks were not keeping up with the cost of living. a colleague of mine called thit the plastic safety net. people turn to credit-card borrowing and are against their homes. -- borrowed against their homes. warren buffett once said that you never know who was swimming naked until the tide goes out. a lot of people were swimming
naked. that is not prosperity. that is borrowed prosperity. we need to return it to real prosperity. when there is high unemployment, democrats get thrown out of office. if obama does not pick up his game, that is what i fear will happen. host: this is a message via twitter. guest: well, we still have some comparative advantage in making airplanes. that is partly the consequence of all the money we spend on the military. we still have some comparative advantage on these wonderful consumer electronic products, although he designed them here and we bill them in -- we designed them here and be billed to them in taiwan and elsewhere in asia. we have a comparative advantage on inventing things. but so much offshoring has taken place that all of the marvelous inventions don't get produced
here. we took the lead in solar and wind mills, alternative energy. most of that step is being made off shore. other countries are serious about reviving manufacturing. we don't believe in having a manufacturing policy. we should believe. host: when you look towards china and india and other major players, what do you see? guest: i see countries -- china, by the way, is so interesting in so many ways. it is like the case of the bumblebee or the engineer says it is not capable of flying except to fly perfectly well it is still a communist country, but it is also learn how to be a predatory capitalist country, with the state providing capital to industry at low interest rates, the state producing armies of a very, very low wage workers and making it attractive for american companies to relocate in china.
india -- i see a country that is a democracy, that has learned to be very competitive in areas of advanced technology. also, when i look at india, i see a country that managed to dodge the bullet and was not hurt at all of the financial meltdown. i was interviewing the governor of the bank of india and i said, how did you guys do it? he looked at me with kind of a wink and said, "we are a port, developing country, we don't understand these complex financial products. we leave them to countries like you talk as i said, "could you give me your business card -- we leave them to countries like you." i said, "could you give me your business card? i want to give it to tim geithner." host: "creek debt crisis deflates stock rally -- greek debt crisis deflates stock rally." they get a bailout but it may not work.
guest: one of your callers ask a question about what our wheat exporting to four years we were exporting -- for years we were exporting laissez-faire ideology. greece and four years ago had a healthy economy going. it is true that greece is very it lacks what -- is very lax when it comes to attacking tax fraud. you have people making a lot of money who cannot pay taxes. the reason i am modestly optimistic that they will come out ok is for two reasons. the big countries in europe have at stakes so much in the year wrote that they will not let one small country -- so much in the euro that they will not let one small country take down the
euro. i am afraid that if the belt- tighten is too tight, it could defeat the purpose. if you strangle the economy to save it, how will they pay back their debts? host: jim on the democratic line in florida. are you there? caller: yes. i was calling in about what you were saying earlier in the program about the stimulus and how effectively brought us out of the depression. but a lot of people don't realize that we were coming out of the great depression in 1936, and the government cut back spending. for instance, gnp was -9.4%. in 1932. but by 1936, where up to 14.1 positive -- we were up to 14.1 positive, and then they cut it back and we went into a deeper recession. that is why when we came up to a
world war ii, we still had 14% unemployment. if we had not cut back spending, we would probably be out of the great depression did republicans for years have been trying to say that stimulus spending does not work. it does work and it did work in the past. guest: well, i am glad you raised that i mentioned this in my book. there was so much pressure during the new deal with roosevelt c-span.or-- there wasl pressure on at the deficit is too big, debt is too big, and they reduced it prematurely, and the result was the recession of 1937. the same thing is still going on today. we need about 500 million jobs every month for five years to get back to where we were in 2006. finally, job growth turns positive, we have about 100,000 jobs -- we are not going to get
anywhere is about the full employment at this rate. they are already talking about cutting the deficit. that is putting the cart before the horse. ronald reagan knew it and democrats ought to know it. host: next caller. caller: how are you guys doing? i colleague -- i am calling because i think in the bond rate is -- the unemployment rate is -- host: we can hear you to keep going. caller: we should use the stimulus to keep the business cycle from going down to going up. the problem, i think, that we're having in our economy now is a structural problem. many of the jobs have got out because of international competition and because of technology. i think that if obama really wants to turn this around, and we talk about -- the thing that
he has to do is come up with a major project. for example, a high-speed rail. if he had expanded that mission throughout the state of florida and throughout the country, i think that would be a game changer that would drop the unemployment rate, because in order to have a high-speed rail, you have got to produce steel, produce the concrete. you have got to produce everything that makes that design. this would be a complete game changer, that obama simply has a small project done in south florida. especially in light of the whole notion of moving away from fossil fuels, he could kill a whole lot of birds with one stone. guest: well, i agree. when people don't have money in their pockets to spend, because wages have been cut and they are working part-time job and they want a full-time job, or they
don't have a job at all, the government has to step in and spend money on things that the economy needs anyway, like 21st century infrastructure, repairing 19th century infrastructure, or building new products like high-speed rail. you get the manufacturer of all components and jobs in the united states. i think the caller is absolutely right. i think we need more of it. again, this is another case where he is moving and the right direction, but at too small scale and too slowly. the real unemployment rate, if you have people working in voluntarily, part-time, on temp jobs and want to be on permanent jobs, is more like 17%. you have parts of the country where unemployment is at depression levels. when you have the kind of situation, folks don't vote for the incumbent party. they just don't he to be doing more, getting people to work, getting manufacturing going in
this country. as his own chief of staff, rahm emanuel, said, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. a crisis like this, turning the crisis into an opportunity, comes along once every 100 years. you just have to hope he rises to the occasion. host: one last call, michigan, michael, republican. caller: i have two points to make about "presidency in peril the country cannot wait for ." barack obama -- country came out big for barack obama based on him to win this season all this stuff. now i year-and-a-half into it, all the people that voted for him are hurting. no jobs, the unemployment rate is up. all of these people and got to be here in 2012. -- ain't going to be here in
2012. second, when you have the president coming out on tv and advocating for racial divisions -- asking the blacks, hispanics, and white women to come out for whatever it is, and leaving out the white male, he is obviously trying to divide the people. host: final thought on the president and economy and the future. guest: i agree with the first part. a lot of people and is about obama, then saw unemployment continuing to rise, will not vote for him again. i don't agree with the second part. i think he has done a remarkable job as a racial healer. but when people are hurting, they think the worst about him. the economy is on the mend, then they are going to give him a second shot. host: robert kuttner is the author of this book, "presidency in peril."
thanks a lot for your time. guest: thanks for c-span. it is wonderful, intelligent television. host: glad to have you here. we have about 40 minutes left in this edition of "washington journal." in a couple of minutes, we will talk with another author, michael chang plan, who has written about u.s. statehood and -- michael trinklein, who has written about u.s. statehood and secession. in the meantime, the news from c-span radio. guest: it is 9:18 in washington. the coast guard says that bp has capped one of three weeks and will not reduce the oil flow from the worn out well -- one of three leaks and will not reduce the oil flow from a worn out well at the gulf of mexico. the company spokesman says that it will be deployed on at the seabed by tomorrow. a homeland security official
says that the government is tightening procedures on the no- fly list after the alleged times square bomber went to board a flight out of the country. airlines will be required to check updated lists within a few hours of being notified of changes to the list. they had been required to check every 12 hours. in new york, authorities said that the man accused of trying to detonate the car bomb in times square is cooperating with investigators. they say it is still unclear just what motivated meizell shahzad -- i saw shahzad -- faisal shahzad. he has reportedly told authorities that while he trained in pakistan, he was allowed in reading the suv. three people are -- alone in rigging the suv. on capitol hill, there is a
tentative deal in place, but it is still not clear when the senate might act on the financial regulations reform bill. democratic and republican negotiators have agreed to drop a $50 billion fund to liquidate large failing firms. but there are disagreements on consumer protections and the regulation of complex securities. the senate continues working that bill at 9:30 this morning, live on c-span2 television c- span radio. >> i am glad that the only person whose rating fell more than my last year is here tonight. great to see you, jay. >> watch this year's white house correspondents' dinner, or watch out past dinner to search it, watch it, clip it.
watch what you want, when you want. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest is michael t. trinklein, a professor, and author of this book, "lost states." we are talking about u.s. state and secession. the first question for you -- we have heard of texas and oklahoma, but what was texlahoma all about? guest: it resulted from a need by the people in the panhandle of texas and oklahoma to get something they did not have, which was better roads. they felt like state government was not being responsive to them, so the best way they thought -- best way, they thought, to get better roads was to secede and form their own state. it was one of the episodes in our history where people want to add address grievances by
creating a new state. host: what are other examples over history? give us a couple. guest: 1 that is near and dear to my heart is the state of lincoln, and that is a the northwest. i lived in idaho for many years. lincoln would have been a combination of the eastern part of washington state and the northern part of idaho. the areas are distinct from the rest of their states. this idea has been coming up over and over again over the last century, because we could have drawn bitter borders and in that part of the united states. -- we could have drawn a better reporters in that part of the united states. similarly, california is a little too big. there have been a number of attempts over the years. one of them is a state called jefferson that actually might have happened. the northern part of california and the southern part of oregon combined. there was a fairly strong
movement in the early 1940's, and then the war came and holding went away. but there is a certain logic to that state, and a lot of these proposals. host: a lot of fun, and a lot of serious examples in this book, "lost states." our guest is michael to trinklein, who joins us from milwaukee. if you want to learn a little bit about the history, some specific examples, we will talk about what the constitution says. here are the numbers -- michael trinklein, what does the constitution say about all this? guest: the constitution does give up very well defined road map to create a new state from an existing state. there is the path the first requires the state legislature
of the state to give the go ahead, and once that happens, congress votes, and if those two things happen, you have a new state twice in our history has worked out exactly that way. host: you talk about something called transylvania. we will talk about what that would have been, somewhere in the area about -- the area of kentucky and tennessee. when did this come about? guest: this was a state proposed by daniel boone, and the people with unsettling that area. they were the first to cross the at -- people with him at settle in that area. they were the first to cross the appellations. they went back to congress and they said that they wanted to call the state transylvania. it sounds like a funny name, but it was not, because "vania"
means a pleasant, but it area, like pennsylvania. -- pleasant, wooded area, like pennsylvania. we have kentucky in pretty much the same place that transylvania would have been bid it would have been at the transylvania derby last week instead of the kentucky derby. host: there were movements at some point with taxes, something called south texas. also with new jersey -- south jersey. guest: texas is an interesting case, because when they joined the union, there was a special stipulation that said that texas had the right to split itself up into as many as five separate states. texas has been -- in the early part of their history, they assumed that what actually happened. it was sort of a given. it didn't, obviously. we only have one in texas right now.
texans still sort of coming to the notion that they have that right. -- sort of cling the notion that they have that right. the reason to do that is that you would have more senators. texas right now has two senators and congress, and if it split up, it would have kept it can -- would have had up to 10. the case of south jersey is emblematic of a lot of these proposals. you have the state has a disparate parts. new jersey as always, from the times of the quakers and puritans, and sort of divided -- in sort of divided, in terms of culture and geography. south jersey -- these episodes in new jersey go back to the very beginning. our states are just not terribly well designed. host: our guest wrote this piece
and it the weekend journal, "the wall street journal," this past weekend. you wrote that taxation without representation is the most common justification for these statehood proposals of the last 100 years. pretty serious thoughts about the country about the amounts of taxes people are paying, and what they are being used for. guest: one good example is a recurring proposal, long island. long island, like many people there, would like to be a separate state. this goes back 100 years, it was raised as recently as this year and last year. the reason being that long island police they send more money to the state government than they get -- long island believes they send more money to the state government than they get back. a similar example the place and west kansas about 20 years ago, when people in that region felt they were paying too high a proportion of their taxes to the
state government, and they were not getting back what they should. this is a very common theme in our country. i am glad we are in a part of a country where people feel like they are being treated unfairly, they don't take up arms. they just want to create a new state, a perfectly legal procedure. there is a negotiation, and people feel they are treated unfairly, they get what they hope for, a tax compromise. these always end peacefully and that is a good thing. host: let's take our first call from new jersey, james on the independents' line. caller: you guys got ahead of me. i got put on hold what your guest was talking about south jersey. as you can hear from my voice, i have an accent. do accent's or dialects have an
impact on the secessionist movements? host: interesting question. guest: that is not what i have come across, but it is true that cultural areas that are different spur a lot of these statehood movement spread i cannot speak the south jersey, but i lived in idaho for a long time. people in southeast idaho look to salt lake as their cultural hub, the place where they shop and recreation. people in northern idaho are closer to spokane. people will never make it across the gulf. cultural regions are not a part of what a lot of these -- cultural reasons are a part of what a lot of these movements are. host: we are a can-do people, and if we don't like our state
government, we are quite prepared to make anyone to read anything you want to add to that, professor? -- we are quite prepared to make a new wind. anything you want to add to that, professor? guest: we are a can-do people. we are very willing to mix things up. that is what makes america great. we are very willing to slice or stay up if it does not meet our needs -- slice our state up if it does not meet our needs. throughout history, this has been going on to it from the very early days of the colonies, when you had the first secession proposals without a state called franklin trying to s -- trying to secede from north carolina, they did not want to go to battle with the north carolina. they just wanted their own state. eventually the area became tennessee. but it was always an attempt to do it peacefully through the
american way of accomplishing our goals. host: georgia, jonathan, republican. caller: how are you all? do you think it is partisan politics and the climate with immigration and citizenship and state could that a particular party may try to gain power by using these aspects that i think are congruent to each other? do you think it has any political partisanship? host: michael truckline -- called trinklein? guest: this has always been central to these proposals. for the missouri compromise even to alaska and hawaii where both sides of the aisle thought they were getting something they wanted, absolutely. that is why we tend to get states in pairs. but you never know will happen. the alaska-call what the case is fascinating, because both receipt -- alaska-hawaii case is
fastened, because both receipt on separate sides of the aisle. alaska was seen as the republican state and -- alaska was seen as the democratic state and hawaii as the republican state. host: a caller from oklahoma. don, are you there? caller: yes. host: you are a democrat. go ahead. caller: is there a prospect of u.s. property becoming states? host: you mean the territories? caller: yes, the territories. host: go right ahead. guest: the one we are thinking about most recently is puerto rico. there is a bill that has passed
the house that would give puerto rico and opportunity to vote on their status. they would vote on if they like their current situation. if the date say no, the next stage would let them pick from a variety of options, state or, keeping the current status, a separate country -- a code, keeping the current status, a separate country -- statehood, the current status, a separate country. if you are a territory, eventually you get to become a state or you become a separate country, we set you free. in the case of the philippines, there was talk about making the philippines of state. eventually we decided that the best option was to make them a separate country. with hawaii, did we make them a separate country? no, they became a state. puerto rico has a population that is high enough or that is still an open question.
a lot of people in puerto rico what that resolved. the bill has been passed by the house and is at the senate right out and it is the first step in the process of making puerto rico out state. host: we know it has a population that is larger than several other states. they have touched on this in recent years. what have they voted on and how have they voted in recent years? what would be the advantages and disadvantages in puerto rico? guest: every time the state had option comes up, it is just below 50%. it is generally in the 40's for statehood, in the 40's for staying where it is, and there is a small percentage that wanted to become a separate state. that is kind of where it has been. some people see this current measure as a step for people who want state would, at some people would say this as an orchestrated event to get to statehood. but i think that they are a long way from that actually
happening. the second part of your question was? host: the advantages, disadvantages, economically, politically, that kind of thing? guest: when it comes to statehood, puerto rican residents are american citizens, they have the rights that americans have, except they don't get to vote for president. or we don't have the member in congress. that is the big advantage, that they get to have a member in congress and the vote for president. and there is this element that they want to be part of the club, in the game. there has been this tradition that eventually you get to be a state or on your own. for a lot of parker ricans, it is a matter of personal pride -- for a lot of puerto ricans, it is a matter of personal pride, or commonwealth pride, that they want the right to be like the rest of the united states. economically, i don't think the
differences will be as dramatic. clearly, puerto rico, while as a thriving economy, its per capita income is lower than what you would normally see in a u.s. state. but those are questions for people who know more about these things and then i do. i know that the topic is one they have long been discussing. host: arizona, independent caller. caller: i would like to ask if you think the united states was built on the principle of all, people to create a secure republic in uniting these people -- principle the right of the people to treat the secure or public -- create a secure republican uniting them in democracy. guest: we decided early on that we wanted to create separate
states, new states that would have the same rights as the original. you could argue that if you are going to bring a new state in, say, kentucky or ohio, and make them pay extra money or do something that makes them supported -- makes them insubordinate -- subordinate -- we decided not to do that. it is something we did not do at the beginning, but shortly thereafter, we adopted it for our country. host: our guest has been a professor at idaho state university for 20 years. what are you doing in milwaukee? guest: i am right thing. -- am writing. i grew up here and i am continuing to work on the next project. host: next call.
caller: i have a question that is kind of humorous. writers and readers caravan across the united states -- writers and creators caranved across the united states to make pottsylvania the state come from the "rocky and bullwinkle" show. unfortunately, it was the date of the cuban missile crisis. do you have any member of that? gues -- memory of that? guest: i do. i did not put it in the book, because the book focuses on things that are real and that was kind of tongue-in-cheek. there are plenty of other fictional states that might have happened but but what i put in the book wheras things that were
taken a little more seriously. gives some insight into what our country is. host: south texas was one of the efforts at one point. but the current governor of texas also talked of moving his state in his own way during this election campaign happening this year. can you tell us more about that, and the motivation? guest: i cannot talk about the governor's motivation, but i can talk about this notion of secession. there is a clear path and the constitution for but new state to be formed from an existing state. -- clear path in the constitution for a new state to be formed from an existing state. there is no path to secede from the union, which is what the governor was talking about. obviously, we fought a big war over this. we will not have anyone seceding from the union anytime soon.
people talking about seceding, like nantucket did in the 1970's, and key west did in a silly way in the 1980's, and the governor of texas talking about it -- it is always met not very seriously. the civil war sort of closed the door on anyone seceding from the united states. host: 10 you'd speak more deeply to the washington, -- can you speak what he did to the washington, d.c., district of columbia example? guest: along with puerto rico, washington, d.c. is often talked about is the potential 51st state. there are a lot of people in washington, d.c., who live there and do not participation in congress. you can vote for president, which approached ricans -- which puerto ricans don't get to do.
but there is a campaign for statehood. that is one option, to make washington, d.c., a separate state. i originally, washington, d.c. covered both sides of the potomac it the other side went back to virginia. obviously, you could do the same thing in the northern side, except a small area of the capitol lawn, to keep government a separate district. clearly, people in washington, d.c., feel passionate about this because they don't get the same representation every other american dance. on the other hand, it is very clear that if washington, d.c. became a state, it would elect democrats to congress, and republicans obviously don't like that. one of the points i made in "the wall street journal" is that if you want to become a state and you are heavily partisan in one way, you need a dancing partner
in that, someone on the other side to balance it out and push the problem through congress. that is some missouri and -- that is how alaska and hawaii got through, how missouri and maine got through. host: vern, you are up to it a democrat. -- you are out. a democrat. caller: what is the process to form a state within a state? guest: it is pretty simple. you just have to get the votes. it is laid out in article 4 of the constitution. the existing state legislature has to vote in favor of setting aside whatever region that wants
to become a separate state. once that happens -- that is the hard part, because no state wants to give up territory. but if the state legislature votes in favor of that, congress approves, and if that happens, you are at stake. this has happened a couple of times. -- you are a state. this has happened a couple of times. massachusetts had the northern district and these people wanted to be separated, and they complained for decades, and massachusetts became so sick of it that they said fine, and you become a state, and that was maine. the legislature voted in favor of setting them free. the same thing happened with west virginia, or west virginia was cleaved -- where west virginia was clipped from virginia. host: you also talk about other big cities in the book. boston, chicago, over the course
of history. speak to those, if you could. guest: i think every major city in the united states at one point or another thought it should be a separate state, what is new york, chicago -- whether it is new york, chicago. chicago grew rapidly in the 1920's and 1930's. in essence, they were not getting the representation they felt they should in the state legislature. they felt, well, we cannot get redistricting. if we cannot be properly represented, we will just make our own state. they attempted to do that. the example of new york is very similar, were often times the people of new york city feel they could handle their affairs just fine. they do not need the people upstate mucking things up for them. you have big cities with different needs and interests than the downstate and upstate areas.
with great regularity, there are these attempts to slice off at the city and make a new state. it has obviously never happen. it is a difficult process. but there is a feeling of unequalness a lot of times that leads to these proposals. host: we have the other call from manhattan, jay on the independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. you are awesome. professor, i commend you on the book, but i have a concern. very often, intellectuals' gloss over history you mentioned daniel boone and said he was the first person in the area. he was not. the native americans and other groups or their -- and other groups were there. do you tend to have this approach, or was that a slip on your part? and was there an incident where native americans or slaves were
successful in setting up their own state on land, basically native indian land? guest: glad you brought that up. obviously, i did make a slip. there were plenty of people in kentucky before daniel boone was there. there are a couple of issues in the book addresses this directly. there was an attempt to create a state for the navajo reservation. there was an attempt in oklahoma to create a separate state -- let me back up a little bit -- oklahoma was once two parts, the indian territory, and then it was oklahoma. and now we call the whole state of oklahoma. but there was an attempt by native americans to create their own state. they drafted a constitution and did everything they needed to do and it was quite a reasonable proposal. they went to congress and congress completely ignored them. there is an example where
clearly we did not take needed american desires and requests into account. -- we did not take native american desires and requests into account. we should have at least given them a hearing. there have been attacks by native american groups to create estate from the reservation -- at times by native american groups to create states from reservations to address grievances that have had. the state in oklahoma would have been called sequoyah. your caller is correct but clearly there was a bias against native americans that defeated the proposal, and that is unfortunate. host: take us to an attentive -- and attempted place that would have been in a little bit of mississippi. guest: this is one of the first great american scandal, basically.
and just like in the west, at the time, there was this desire to settle the unsettled land, which would have been most mississippi. they thought, we will give away 100 acres, at 200 acres per person if you settle the land that was quite reasonable, except that they gave millions of acres to these land companies, and the yazooo companies were owned by the politicians giving them away. it was very scandalous. it might have become a separate state had gone. this was the case of the american government and politics -- it might have it become a separate state had it gone through. this was the case of american government and politics where once it was exposed, the politicians were voted out of office and it ended their careers. yazoo was broken up and became
mississippi. host: davis on from colorado springs. -- dave is on from colorado springs. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to agree with the professor. i'm a jeffersonian republican, whatever that means. it is more libertarian. however, i agree with the jefferson splitting up idaho. it is just the way that is built. and the mormon influence in that area. i also agree that california and oregon should split into a different state and there should be something done with texas. the one question i really have that i have not had an answer for is that early on, colorado was territory of kansas, part of kansas territory. there was a plaque in old calo
read a city that said it was el paso county, -- old colorado city that said it was all paso county, kansas but i wanted to verify that that was the case. host: can you speak to that? guest: no, that is not a story i am familiar with, although i am glad the caller brought up thomas jefferson. he was really the first guy to sort of think through this whole state-making process. in a way that i admire. what a person it was sliced up a map -- what jefferson did was slice up a map of what we now think of as the midwest, and they were great states, better than the way they are divided now. i live in wisconsin, and northern wisconsin, opera peninsula of michigan, they really are a separate -- upper peninsula of michigan, they really are a separate unit and should be a separate state.
jefferson thought a lot about this. if we had followed his map, we might be better off in a lot of ways. but i don't know the story in colorado that the caller is referring to. i am sorry. host: there is a reference to superior on the front cover up the book. michigan, and you are on. caller: good morning. yes, we live in michigan, and there are a lot of disputes in michigan. there is one between at lower michigan, right by the border, and ohio still to this day, and people argue about it living in that area. my other question is, with the upper peninsula in michigan, it is funny, because a lot of people in low or michigan, often when they are retired, they move there, and yet there is always
this thing going on about them becoming their own a stake, getting their own representation -- becoming their own state, getting their own representation it is just funny how people to this day will still argue about being a ufer, as we refer to it here, and people in the lower part -- they migrate up there. can you speak to some of the history of michigan, and the disputed area there with ohio in michigan, if you know anything about it? and thank you very much. it is very interesting. i cannot wait to buy the book. guest: what happened in michigan was that michigan really wanted toledo. they did not get it, and they were very unhappy. there is a lot of conflict about
this. congress said, ok, michigan, we will give you a consolation prize, at the upper peninsula. they did not wanted. congress in its wisdom gave the upper peninsula to michigan. you could not get from one to the other until the bridge was built, only a few decades ago. so they always felt like they have been kind of left behind. there was an apt just use a guy that did not have the upper peninsula -- a map just a few years ago that did not have the upper peninsula on it. it is really kind of at poorly laid out state. if i stayed is poorly designed, the proposal to change it keeps -- if a state is poorly designed, the proposal to change it keeps coming up over and over again. the proposal was a state called superior, which would have
included the upper peninsula and portions of wisconsin. southern wisconsin has a lot of industry. we make a lot of cheese, a lot of farms. northern wisconsin is logging and extraction and a whole different lifestyle. it makes sense to divide these areas up. the biggest problem with the upper peninsula is that the population is not big enough, probably, to justify a separate state. but there are geographic reasons to do so. host: the state that covers a lot of ground is florida. here is a picture of florida on the mound. at one point, you write that west florida wanted to be its own place, and south florida wanted to be its own place. guest: south florida was -- not that long ago there was our
proposal. it did not get very far. most florida is an area -- west floor that is an area that has been part of five different countries. everybody seems to want west florida. everybody wanted this area, which is now having a trial with the oil spill. the other interesting for that phenomenon -- other interesting florida phenomenon was the area called muskogee, where there was a guy who in the 1800's left the u.s. army, consolidated and number of native american tribes and set up his own rogue state. he had his own navy, on bureaucrats, was doing pretty well. and the spanish could not get the guy did it kept trying to stop him and kept failing. because this t -- the spanish
were so inept at stopping this guy is sitting up his own little kingdom, the united states said, we can take them. that is how we decided to invade florida and make it part of the united states. a lot of these proposals may seem kind of silly and ridiculous, but often there is a story that is an important part of our history. host: wichita, kansas, michael, independent caller. robert, start all over if you can. i did not have the button on. caller: good morning. i find this talk about states and secession and all that stuff kind of interesting. you know, the european union is a confederation of independent nations. the united states is likewise a confederation of 50 independent nations. in the constitution of the united states, it's this -- it says that although it's not
specifically granted to the federal government are reserved -- that all rights not specifically granted to the federal government are re served to the states and people. i think that one of the rights is to go home and not be part of the federation anymore. i wonder what your guest thinks about that. guest: it is interesting. i am glad the caller brought that up. in "the wall street journal," i wrote that seceding from the union is illegal. i may have made a mistake there. in theory, the caller may be right. but we did have that big war and whether you agree or disagree, i don't think anyone will be seceding anytime soon. although arguably, if you could make the case, like the caller does, that we have that right, like the governor of texas argues that we have that right.
host: between illinois and missouri, it looks like -- what went on there? guest: like a lot of that state proposals, they felt like they were being left out. if you look at a map of illinois, there are a lot of freeways in illinois. but they did not have the one they wanted, i-72, which would create a shortcut from chicago to kansas city, which would create a boon for their area -- at least they hope it would be the case. as part of their frustration, they said that they would create their own at state called forgottonia. it was not a serious effort, but it was a popular movement. i-72 still is not done. it is an interesting area. they grow a lot of corn and
have done well economically that way, but they feel like they are left out in a lot of ways. host: if you could, thousands and thousands of miles away to a place called albania. they love america "like a stalker," you write. guest: when george bush visited there, they cheered him wildly. they had signs saying, "please occupy us." they are rapidly pro-american. they named kids george. when bill and hillary clinton were in, they named their kids bill. i make the point in the book that they used to be very pro-