tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 4, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EDT
about 45 minutes, we will talk with republican congressman allen west of florida about the house agenda and a gop's presidential contest. then documentary filmmaker ken burns will discuss his latest project on u.s. prohibition. later, stephen tankel of american university joins us to discuss pakistan and global terrorism. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: house and senate members are back in washington this week with a vote to keep the government running for six weeks scheduled in the house today. yesterday the senate moves forward on a bill to punish china for keeping the value of the currency lower. and on capitol hill, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke will appear before the joint economic committee at 10:00 a.m.
to discuss operation twist, the next efforts to boost the economy. live coverage on c-span 3 this morning. president obama will travel to texas to stump for his jobs bill, pledging monday to personally lobby congressional leaders to pass legislation. we will begin with campaign 2012 this morning and get your perspective on a presidential bid from new jersey gov. chris christie. he has not said if he is in or out but we want to hear from all of you this morning. we also have a fourth line for new jersey residents -- let me begin with the "the new york times" story -- urgency for
that puts chris christie's decision at an even more urgent pace. we want to hear from all of you. should he get in, should he get out, and why? troy, independent from new york. go ahead, troy. caller: good morning. my comment is i really just think the media is what has driven this to the point it is out. i would use an example from a past election. not really an election -- but
right here in new york, when the position was open for the senate seat and kristin gillibrand ended up getting picked by the government and the media kept typing up kennedy. i am a little groggy this morning so i am trying to remember the names. i want to say caroline kennedy. host: right, yes. what do you think? what does it mean as to whether or not chris christie should run? caller: i just think it is popular to get on tv. it is the popular thing. like the cool thing and the trendy thing to say. good morning, welcome, america -- chris christie, is he running or not? just because that is what all the other media outlets have said. i really do not think it was his intention. and i think unfortunately for chris christie, he will be put in a position that he really did not want to get into just
the trisha, republican. st. paul, minnesota. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do really like chris christie. however, it is too late -- i think, in may -- many people think. too much flirting, too much popularity, too much attention in the media. but i really like him. if he can hang in there 20 more years. but the biggest job in the world. this is the biggest job in the world. obama wanted -- so, stop complaining already. to i like is romney. i was just listening to him on your station and he is so intelligent. he is just the best. he is so even, so level, and a
great guy. who can get a more decent guy than him and his family? i like him. but i do think obama has to stop complaining because he wanted the job. so, do it already. put on your big boy pants. host: pine hearst, new jersey. what do you think? will chris christie be a formidable candidate to president obama? caller: i really don't care for christie. i don't like the way he talks to people. he is very arrogant. i did not like the way he did the school teachers, the fireman, the police officers. i mean, our taxes are sky high. he is not really doing anything for us. i really would not vote for chris christie.
because of the way -- my sister is a school teacher. she doesn't make anything, any kind of money. and she is a single parents. and they keep on raising taxes and they don't want to give the teachers and the thing. they don't want to give the fire companies anything. of the police. it pay as laying off people left and right. host: this is richard cohen's piece in "the washington post."
ben in burlington, new jersey. what do you think? caller: i am at a loss where chris christie actually said he considered running. all i have heard from his mouth is he was not running. i am wondering where the media gets that chris christie is still considering to run. host: some have said he asked a big republican supporters hauled off -- -- all of endorsing any candidate. that he could make an announcement any day. but this is what "the wall street journal says" -- that new jersey gov. chris christie told a prominent california fund- raisers -- fund-raisers and donors as recently as last wednesday he has no plans to seek the white house.
came, washington -- spokane, washington. caller: chris christie running would not be wise due to his yearlong campaign saying i am not going to run or seek the presidency. but i think with the republican party pushing -- certain people pushing for him to run, it really shows that the republican field currently is not strong enough, that they really don't feel they have a chance to compete and actually beat obama. host: hold on, because the opposite is said in this column -- thinking that obama is beatable in 2012 and people who are sitting out until 2016 may be thinking the future is now.
caller: understandable. but i would say the media blitz for chris christie and the question marks around him is similar to the former -- sorry, i am losing my thoughts. the last president -- for the last election -- last vice- presidential. there are questions whether she will run, too. host: what are your thoughts? caller: chris christie. i don't know why everyone is blowing this out so much. i don't see him bring him -- anything and the table. even if he does capture the nomination dead -- nomination. if anybody wants to talk about beating obama, they don't show ron paul polls showing him
capturing it 51-49. it is a complete blackout and christie should not even run. host: i want to show you what governor chris christie had to say when he was asked at the reagan library after an audience member asked him to run. >> i am just a kid from jersey who feels like i am the luckiest guy in the world to have the opportunity that i have to be the governor of my state. and so, people say to me all the time now, when folks like you say those kinds of things for as many months as it is being said livevernor, why don't they -- leave you a low -- alone. you already get your answer. is it a burden? what i say to you tonight and everybody else nice enough to applaud is that it is not a burden. i mean, fact of the matter is, that anybody who has an ego large enough to say, please, please stop asking me to be leader of the free world --
[applause] it is such a burden. [laughter] if you could please just stop. what kind of crazy egomaniacs you would have to be to say, please stop. it is extraordinarily flattering. but by the same token, that heartfelt messages gave me is also not a reason for me to do it. that reason has to reside inside me. and so, that is what i said all along. is i know, without ever having met president reagan, that he must have felt deeply in his heart that he was called to that moment to leave our country. and so, my answer to you is just this -- i thank you for what you are saying and i take it in and i am listening to every word of it and feeling it, too.
please, don't ever think for a second i feel like i am important enough in this world that somehow what you are saying it's a problem for me. to new jersey. kathy joining us from long branch. gov. chris christie in or out. caller: i don't really care. i can't stomach the man. our unemployment rate is higher than the national average because of him. my neighbor lost his job because of him. he despises teachers. he caused them bottom feeders. he does not apparently like women other than his wife. he is a huge disaster and he is a huge -- larger in person than on television because my congressman knows him. host: why does it matter to you? caller: his health is an issue if he wants to become president. and i don't want another taft on our hands. a disaster for this state. nobody -- nobody would be working. seriously. that is all i have to say but i cannot stomach him.
host: market is a democrat from florida. caller: i was listening to the last lady who commented on his weight. i think if he does not have control over his weight, how does he have control over a country? i agree with her -- like with teachers and things. and the lady in the audience, you have to realize, that is a republican -- i think they put a lot of them in there. but you know, our country is so bad. i think where we should be doing is these big businesses that are not hiring people. and they always complain about president obama but they never worked with him. host: front page of "the washington post" is out with a new poll for the republican field.
kendall, independent from new york. go ahead. caller: i think -- he is not trying to run this country. host: rob, republican from michigan. what are your thoughts? caller: i have a different edge. christie dishy -- bachmann -- they are all ex prosecutors. when i listen to than they did not seem they want to negotiate when they speak. it is all one way or the other. i really enjoyed romney, especially listening to him this morning. he was the governor in michigan for two terms and he was the
governor in vietnam and win he came back he said he thought he was being brainwashed. i think romney has come from a good family and it is time we negotiate -- and i think he can bring values back to the country. i think the mormonism is a problem. i am a presbyterian. things have changed out there. at one time when we went out we could not drink beer. of course things have changed. people have really americanize more. i think the religious right has an issue with it. with the smith brothers and all of that kind of thing. but there are 3200 different
types of religions -- religions as far as christianity in the world. to me it is not an issue. what i like about mitt romney is he will speak, he negotiates, and he will teach us. we have a real problem in our country as far as history and where we are going. i just know that the family background in michigan -- he was president of american motors and i think it is a chance we need to slow down a little bit and we all need to learn and i think this is the gentleman who can teach us. host: the interview you referred to is the one mitt romney did yesterday with the new hampshire union leader. he sat down with the editorial board. we will speak to the publisher a little bit later this morning coming up in about 10 minutes about that interview. but i want to show you how mitt romney responded to a question about why people are still searching for another gop candidate. >> i think it is so critical to replace barack obama and to return america to a posture of economic greatness and military
greatness that republicans generally and the american people want to take a very careful look at the candidates. and they want to test them well. and they want to see them debate. they want to look at their track record. they want to see what it is obama would use against them. so the fact that people want to take a very careful look and kick the tires again and again, i would say, yes, of course we do. this is really important this time. more than usual. and we have to have a candidate who can beat him. host: a new poll says a full 70% of voters say they are undecided about chris christie or have not heard enough about him. we are getting your take on chris christie's presidential bid. henry is a democratic caller from houston, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to make a comment. chris christie reminds me of a bully in school. he just does not appeal to me.
he likes to just bully people around from a power standpoint. i think his temper will take him apart during the debates. not only his temper but his policies, too. i think he is very beatable if he gets the nomination. host: republican from raleigh, north carolina. caller: definitely chris do not should not be running for president. i think he does not have experience. he does not show us what he can do yet and i did not believe he should be running for president -- and he does not believe he should be running. host: because of his comments? caller: yes. i truly believe that he is not ready and he believes he is not ready so he should not be running for president. host: if you want to send a comment on our facebook page, go to face that.com \ c-span.
just another new jersey gov. is about to leave to go run for president. i wish he'd sort of clean up the things he ran on here first, which was an extensive property tax reform. that has just not happened at all. host: all right -- that was jean in huntington county, new jersey. i want to give you some other news. congress is back in session this week. the senate move yesterday to end debate on a bill to punish china for keeping its value of its currency low. beijing responded by saying it would severely hurt trade ties. the editorial page of "the wall street journal" this morning agrees with that assessment, calling it the obama-run the tariff
that is in the papers this morning as well. missouri. talking about a potential presidential bid for chris christie at new jersey gov.. caller: i think he would be the candidate. palin and also michele bachmann -- if not, senator roy blunt -- our tea party candidate for missouri. host: baltimore, maryland. caller: it is amazing to me how the american people are so patient. barack obama is doing a very good job. first of all, i am a truck
record. and this headline -- "stumbles aside, perry to remain a top contender." pensacola, florida. independent emery. caller: first of all, i would like to say, i am not surprised to hear all of the democratic callers attacking christie personally. they should be scared of this guy. i believe he is the only candidate we have that is speaking the truth and not afraid to speak the truth. he reminds me of ronald reagan. and i am praying that he runs for president. he is the guy that i believe in. host: what do you think about the prospects of him beating president obama? caller: i think he has an outstanding chance. in this part of the country, he
stands for the conservative values that we love year -- small governments. i think president obama at this point -- i don't think he has a chance. abct: also in the interview president obama responded to a question about chris christie end what he said about president obama. here is what he had to say? caller: a guy who is thinking about running for president will say a lot of stuff. and republican primaries, saying nasty stuff about me -- >> he said in new jersey brought people together and you have not been able to. host: "usa today" --
atlantic county, new jersey. david, you are next. talking about your governor's possible bid for president. what do you think? caller: he is a republican in name only. he has many liberal stances. he will not when conservatives. he is no friend of the gun -- he wanted the assault rifle ban. he does not like a drill, baby, drill. he likes screen manager. does not mind illegal aliens -- if they are here, let's educate them, take care of them. you have to have a hard. in new jersey we are a very liberal state so he is conservative for us. host: are you a republican? caller: i am independent. host: do you like him? caller: no. to cut many programs that people need. the first thing we did was give his staff a raise and tell us we need to sacrifice. host: another call from new jersey. chris is a republican. caller: i think that was kind of
hypocritical that he said he is not a conservative but then he said it cut many programs that people need. one of the programs he cut was public education, and the money he cut and of going to -- i can't remember the company but a private school that christie was a lobbyist for before he became governor. i just think the media is not happy with the republicans running right now and i and my ron hall supporter. i have been so for a while. he is the only one who really speaks of truth about the devaluation of the dollar here -- not in china -- we are devaluing our dollar but the fed reserve system. he talked about the patriot act. military commissions act. he talks about nafta. warrantless wiretaps. mitt romney is a businessman. as a businessman you want cheap labor. he will do what ever he can to systematically drive down labor rates. and it is already happening. the unions in new jersey are dying right now. i am an electrician and i have
been out of work almost two years. it is not just christie's fault, not just obama's fault, we have to blame ourselves because we just vote the same people in. this is not a dictatorship we have 435 members of the house of representatives and 100 senators. it is not just obama. it is us because we keep voting the people live. ron paul, 2012. host: we will talk to a new member of the house, allen west, a republican from florida. a tweet from tony ervin -- st. louis, missouri. a democratic caller. caller: i think christie is a toned down the rush limbaugh personality. yes, i would like to see him run. i am a democrat. i believe obama will beat him. i also believe the republicans put us in this position. and now they are saying they can also take us out.
well, hopefully if they win, i hope they can but i don't see it because it looks as though every time we turn around and they are against the little man. host: the front page of "the wall street journal" has economic news. front-page of "the wall street journal" this morning. and "of financial times" -- starbucks seeks donations from customers for a job creation fund.
that is "the financial times" if you are interested in beat starbucks is the ceo's jobs idea. more of the potential bid from chris christie -- but first, the publisher of open but the new hampshire union leader." they sat down yesterday with mitt romney. i just want to get your take on mitt romney as a candidate. what is your impression? >> well, my impression is much higher than it was four years ago when he ran up here. i think he is much more comfortable in his own suit and
he seems to be engaged much more with audiences and it seems to be interested in engaging with them and not backing down on or giving people the answer is that will just satisfied them. i think he has improved quite a bit. host: this is david brooks' column in "the new york times." the essential problem is mitt romney does not fit the mold of what many republicans want in a presidential candidate. what is your reaction? brooks picked the same guy we did four years ago, john mccain, who was bold and brassy but not an outsider and a victim of circumstance. ason't think romney, off
quite the micromanage your that brooks seems to it think is the perception out there. but it is really interesting with perceptions. i don't think anybody is going to know for sure until the first votes are cast. a few months before the primary last time, the poles were all over the lot as to who was going to win. that is the nice thing about a democracy. people actually get to vote and decide. h., what do you think would surprise people or maybe change the opinion of mitt romney from this interview? guest: from this interview? i don't think a great deal. he was knowledgeable. i tried to throw him a curve -- everybody talks about the economy and jobs these days, as you just referenced in your earlier piece. so, i asked him about foreign- policy and military, because he
quoted a lot of that in his book. and he didn't back down from that and he knew the figures and defended an increase in military spending. so, i think that is a side of a lot of the candidates that has not gotten a lot of attention because of the economy. he passed the test. now we have to figure out how to do it with the others. host: at the end of october you are doing a similar interview with texas gov. rick perry. what do you expect to focus on? what do you want to ask him? guest: the same kinds of questions. but that is the good thing about seeing people over a period of time, which new hampshire gets to do. they get into the campaign and they can either surge ahead and get a good public reaction or they stumble and have to come back. so, you get to size them up.
i think it is on october 28. gov. perry, and who knows how the world would have changed then, and the issues, and the interaction there and they would have had another one of these debates by then. probably a couple. and we will see how they do. host: what about chris christie getting into this race? how do you think he will play out in new hampshire? caller: i think it will be just the same as it has been with from the bang and perry and everyone else. -- with romney and perry and everyone else. they always get a great humbug from us and you end up press and all of the pollsters and then they come through the door and have to start answering questions of the average citizens as well as the media, and the picture changes. i think that will certainly be the case with christie.
now, with the primary -- i think it is this morning, greta, you better check -- so fast it will be tough for any candidate. host: south carolina announcing it will be january 21 and that could pump up iowa to january 3 and new hampshire follows eight days later or so. can you given us any inside scoop about new hampshire and when they might set their primary and all of that? guest: the only inside scoop is when the secretary of state determines that nobody else was done to change their date, he will follow the state law which will say new hampshire is the first primary in the country. i think it is very unfortunate for the process that florida has moved as early as it has. there is no reason for them to do so.
they would still be that stand out southern state if they waited until the window that had been established by the parties. they would still be in the position they would end up being, which is after new hampshire and south carolina and nevada and iowa. host: now that the states are likely to move up -- why doesn't pose a challenge to governor chris christie, staffing and organizational, for him to get started in new hampshire? guest: because he is not that well-known, believe it or not. the only one who could throw the calendar and things like that out of the window would be sarah palin. not that she would sweep, but she is a better known entity that any of that these others. and for chris christie to just establish a campaign to -- to be
in those several states, to do the meeting and greeting, you have to remember -- what is it, two months from now this thanksgiving and then christmas and new year's. and as much as the candidates are going to want to make a dent and have their voices heard, the national election is more than a year away and new hampshire and -- new hampshire people like their primaries but also like their own lives. host: publisher of "new hampshire union leader." thank you for your time. if you want to see all the interview gov. mitt romney did with the paper go to our website, c-span.org. maryland. john, independent number. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was commenting. gov. christie bang seems to me to be more presidential as far
as his demeanor and everything, but i don't know whether he will run or not. the only thing is, what we have now in the republican party -- i like ron paul, but i know he will never get elected because too many people think he is out there. rick santorum is about finished. mitt romney, i guess, and rick perry i think would be the only two that would give anybody a run for their money. the only problem is rick perry has baggage. and chris christie, to me, when i heard him speak an interview, he seems to be more presidential than the others. host: front page of "usa today" has this story about the
unemployed. on craig's list, the jobless and desperate plea for work. and a story about the sun belt boom reaches its end. and also in the national section of "the new york times" this morning is a piece about justice john paul stevens retired last year, out with a new book, and he will be our guest on "q&a" this weekend at 8:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. eastern time. new jersey. bonnie, you are next. your thoughts on the governor and his potential bid for the presidency. caller: good morning. i do believe -- i might be wrong -- but regardless of our political ideologies and what party we adhered to, if any. we all recognize the fact that money has had a very corrupt and
corrosive effect on our politicians and our government. that is why we are in a standstill right now. i don't know of the listening public was aware of the fact that as a lobbyist he were to remove securities fraud on the securities fraud act on behalf of the organization run by bernie madoff. in addition to the last caller, he put that ceo of that major education corp. and took him and made him the head of our education department and then started a campaign for public- private schooling. we rank very high -- i think 10th in the country -- in education for the race to the top. his staff some house group of the applications and we never got the money but he did cut $2 billion from our department of education. he is being backed by alec and by the koch brothers and have
the same mission of the drought -- destroying our unions. he is not for the worker. i think people are starting to realize and wake up to the fact that we have to have people who not only respect the people who work and the people who created this nation -- because it was the workers. but affords a dignity to these people, because we are the people. host: we are going to have to leave it there. one last fall off from anita who is from mississippi. caller: good morning. i live in a state that they say nobody wants to live in but i appreciate the caller from the lady from new jersey who was spot on. i think chris christie needs -- if he is going to run for president -- and excuse me, i am a little nervous -- he needs to go check with the republicans, and there are about seven of them who went to israel until
the people and israel, don't worry about it, you go and do what you want to do and when we get our guy and we will come in and we will help you. and there are some people and house and people in the senate, republicans, who have signed a document saying they are not going to raise taxes on anybody. this is what i have to say. i have been studying history. rockefeller wrote a check once and got us out of our national debt. if all of these people who have all of this money, who are for hundred of the wealthiest people in the world -- just talking about 400 -- host: we are running out of time. we have to leave it there. as many of you know, it is national breast cancer awareness month. this morning the white house and the vice-president residence is colored pink to market that. here is the story on huffington boasts about cancer. it says breast cancer deaths are down but declines are slower for
poor women. coming up in about 45 minutes, we are going to turn our attention to a new documentary by ken burns on prohibition but first we will talk to representative allen west, republican of florida, about the freshman class and spending priorities. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> before the presidential election of 1916, charles evans hughes was a lawyer and professor, a two-term governor of new york and although he lost his bid for the presidency is impact on political history remains. serving as a post war secretary of state and ultimately chief justice. he is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series "the contenders." live from the supreme court building in washington, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. for a preview, watch and number
of videos about him on our special website, c- span.org/thecontenders. >> with congress back in session this week, the house will consider a spending bill that will keep the federal government open for another six weeks through mid november and the senate is proposing a bill dealing with china's currency. watch our live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. use our comprehensive resource on congress to get more information about elected officials with c-span's congressional chronicle, including video of every house and senate session, voting records, daily schedules, committee hearings and more. washington your way. the c-span networks. created by cable and provided as a public service. >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? our question and this year's studentcam competition open to middle and high school students. make a video documentary five minutes to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the
constitution that is important to you and why. be sure to include more than one point of view and video of c- span programming. entries are due by january 20, 2012. $50,000 in total prize and a grand prize of $5,000. all the details, go to studentcam.org. >> oral argument is actually the first time the justices talk about a case together. so, when justice giglio or justice ginsberg asks a question -- just as scalia or ginsburg asked a question, i can find out where they are leaning. >> by law the new supreme court term begins the first monday in october. this year hearing almost 70 cases. they already includes ups tracking without a warrant, profanity on television, and copyright protection. watch the justices from recent appearances on line at the c- span video library, all archived. it is washington your way.
"washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congressman allen west, republican of florida, representing west palm beach, fort lauderdale area. talking about gop freshmen and upcoming spending bills. guest: yes. host: many the money but the battle that was recently before this last break, the continuing resolution. the house will vote today on a six-week intensive -- extension but how you plan to vote? guest: i will vote for that. the most and borden thing is the reason why we have the continuing resolution, to make sure we finish the appropriation bills. we have 12 of those. i think we got seven completed and the house and senate has only taken up one. we want to be able to complete that business and we want to get fiscal responsibility for the country. one of the things we are having in the press conference today is the 188 days we have gone about a federal budget. host: there are others in the freshman class and tea party caucus who disagree, who say we
should not vote for this continuing resolution, particularly joe walsh, who says every dollar is worth fighting for. guest: true, and i believe that. but the thing is we are being consistent with the funding levels we agreed to in the budget control act. also, being principled is very important but you also have to be pragmatic. the most important thing we have to show as we can lead and we can govern in washington. but it is going to take some time to get maybe 30-35 years of fiscal irresponsibility corrected. and i think we have to look at it incrementally how we do that. when you think about how we have gone up. the past -10 months, the conversation has changed in washington about how much spending we can't cut, how to write size, and, with policies to ensure sustainable long-term economic growth. host: "usa today" editorial recently said both sides need to come together and that the republican freshmen in the house should be focusing their
attention, rather than on these continuing resolutions, that they should be focusing their attention on the deficit reduction committees, the so- called super committee. getting that panel to go well beyond the minimum of $1.20 trillion is a better place for fiscal conservatives to vote as their attention. what do you think? guest: i agree. i think that is an important aspect of this continuing resolution, making sure we keep the government funded so we can focus on what the budget committee is supposed to be doing. it is not that hard, i don't think, for us to find it necessary cuts. back in february or early march, the gao had a report of $200 billion or $300 billion of duplicative or redundant programs. we have to go line by line and look at things that have been failing and look at where we can make sure that now we can push back to the american people for the wealth that they need, especially small businesses, so they can grow and hire
americans. host: why hold the press conference today focusing on the lack of budget from the senate and not hold a press conference on what the super committee should be doing? guest: i think it is still important we do that. who can run a household without a budget? who can run a bit did what -- business without a budget? if we want a federal government that understands its priorities you have to have a budget. when i was a commander in the military, if you did not budget properly you did not make sure your troops or equipment and maintain, that your barracks were sustained -- we need to do the same thing. it all ties in. if we don't understand our priorities right here we will not find the right places to cut spending, which also dovetails with what the commission is supposed to be doing. host: where do you think there is common ground? what would you agree to that democrats like? guest: i think when i looked at the john chest -- a joint session of congress speech the president gave, i do believe we should incentivize " as far as our small businesses.
a piece of legislation i offered, 1663, which is the small business encouragement act. making sure our veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan -- we have three pieces of legislation on that. i think the most important thing is we have to come to an agreement that tax policy, regulatory policy, has to incentivize and spur economic growth. not here in washington, d.c., but in the private sector. last week that it came out 230,000 new government epa regulators are being requested that cost the taxpayer $21 billion. it we all should be able to agree we do not need new 230,000 epa regulators. we need the right type of regulation but we did not have a uber regulatory environment that does not allow the businesses to grow. host: president obama said he would personally lobby congressional leaders to put his jobs bill on the floor for a vote. are there parts of or some of it
you like? guest: sure. it is what we just talked about. but i do not think we need to look at a 445 -- foreign debt of $47 billion mimmie me stimulus. government will not create wealth and jobs -- government creates conditions for job growth what the right type of monetary policies, fiscal, tax, and regulatory policies. that is the type of thing we can find common ground on. host: what are the details of the small business act? guest: the president talked about tax credits and incentives to small businesses who are the economic engine. my legislation says you get a tax credit if you hire a person off of the unemployment rolls and if you are in a county with double-digit unemployment, you get an additional tax credit. those are the kinds of things we can be successful on. host: let's go to val, a republican from savannah, georgia. good morning, greta, and
congressman qwest. two questions. a great segue from the governor christie bid. i believe he does not have the gravitas at this point -- and when he is challenged to becomes offensive. my question is about what is it about african americans -- and i am one proudly -- that tends to be so publicly offensive and rude without apology. for example, about midsummer congressman waters told all tea party waters they can go to. she ran around the country wearing it as a badge of honor to applause for being so publicly belligerent. if a republican or some other candidates said it categorically for all democrats to go to or all african-americans, god forbid, there would be marching
in the street. and including, with all due respect, sir, your issue or banker falafel with wasserman schultz, your response was so uncharacteristic of how i have regarded and respected you -- your issue with wasserman- schultz. i am curious about what is this thing in particular about african-americans that tend to be very coarse and pugilistic when challenged. guest: i do not consider myself coarse and pugilistic and i am a former soldier and there is a certain amount you can take and you finally have to stand up for your own honor. i think that is something that has happened up here. there is a duplicitous the standard as well when you look at some of the language that goes back and forth. but the bottom line we have to understand -- when you talk about the black community -- we got 16.7% unemployment, 20%
unemployment for black adult males and 45.6 percent for black teenagers. these are of epic proportions and once again this is where you find common ground. i am very upset with those types of numbers and i think we have to address that. i did not agree with the president taken the stance of stop complaining, grumbling, moaning. if anyone else were probably sitting in the white house there would be marches on that and that is something the chairman of the black caucus said, congressman cleveland. once again, how we rectified the job situation in the united states. it comes back to, like i said, 888 days without a budget, no priorities. we have to understand the government cannot create wealth, government cannot create jobs. you have to turn it over to the people who are the jobs grazers and find out how to incentivize that growth. host: what was your reaction when you heard a story that "the washington post" wrote about the cabin that rick perry, his family rented, with the n-word
on it. guest: look, that is not my concern. i am not worried about whether not chris christie johnson, i am not worried about a shooting ranch or whatever thing like that. what i am worried about is in my district in south florida we have unemployment that is higher than the national level. when i drive by the district -- i see small -- closed store fronts that used to be small businesses. bankers telling me they don't have to -- they don't have access to capital because they are precluded from the dodd- frank law from having a relationship with the people they want to. that is my concern. not wearing about a hunting lodge. host: the caller mentioned as that between you and debbie wasserman schultz. guest: there is nothing there. host: i want to read what you said when an interviewer ask you to give us your unscripted reaction when you heard the word
association game. a person said debbie wasserman schultz and you said i need a bucket. guest: let me tell you what i think about -- when the chairman of the democratic national committee say they owned the economy. when i look at this economy when there is $14.60 trillion of debt, about 73% to 74% debt to gdp ratio, a lot of us need a bucket because we have to deal with this fiscal morass, this pile of debt. we cannot continue with those kind of economic policies that have pervaded here in washington, d.c. that is one of the important reasons that i was sent up here. if i have to carry a bucket to take away some of that pile -- host: it wasn't personnel. guest: folks in the media tried
to sensationalize. it helps to sell papers and things like that. i took an oath. i want to see the best for all americans. caller: good morning. i appreciate your service to the country. i am a democrat, but it blue dog democrat. guest: i'm thrilled about that. caller: my wife is a schoolteacher. we're probably think differently -- i appreciate you trying to do. i would ask you to try to get more african-americans in the republican party so that you'll not have to fight these battles
by yourself. i like to see us come together. i agree with you 100%. like said, all this controversy. how about us getting to the president? i respect president obama. both of you stand for what i respect, making the country better. guest: thank you. i want to do what is right for this country. i love college football. in football, you have to block and you have to tackle. when we get down to the principles that work for this country, we can turn this thing around in the country. i'm from georgia. we're democrats.
my parents were conservative in how they brought me up. i think we to restore those type of things. one of the things i want to see happen for the black community -- when you invest, you don't put all your money in one fund. the black community must be players across the entire spectrum. i would like to see more black conservatives. there are some great young people that i've been talking to that could be the next young generation. i do not want to go from 1876to to now. that's how long it took to get a black representative to congress. this is not about going back to bush policies. you can take a surplus and turn
it into a deficit. the highest deficit the president bush was $500 billion. we have seen $1.29 trillion. we have taken a bad situation and made it worse. i don't want to go back to discern policies. what are the right time of monetary policies? we don't have to go back to another qe3. printing more money is not working. stimulus packages. see us lose ao decade. host: qe3 -- guest: you can call it what you want. it is still another quantitative easing policy.
host: we will have live coverage of ben bernanke testifying this morning. an independent caller from colorado. caller: i was a huge reagan supporter. i worked on his campaign and now i'm an obama supporter. reagan cannot get nominated by the republican party today. he would just be pushed aside by the tea party policies. when you're trying to solve a problem and you take off the table any form of taxation, it seems like you're taking away one of the two instruments for the solution. you correct me if i have this wrong. when the bush tax cuts when through -- 4% down through the brackets so that the person who
makes $300,000 a year got a $12,000 tax break if we use that 4%. now obama is saying we need you to give back just when you make above $250,000. you keep $10,000. we're ask you to pay for% of the $50,000 above $250,000. $160 a month. essentially the cost of the cable bill. would be your position that if we were charged -- if we have that person take 4% tax, he is going to run back to its business and say, "we have to cut people. i cannot afford my cable bill." guest: when we look raising
taxes here, i do not think we should be asking the american people -- the 3% that are paying federal income taxes to provide more of their resources to a government that is not proven there will be fiscally responsible. i think we to get our house in order. we're not tightening our belts up here, but we continue to ask the american people to do that. we have to simplify our tax codes. let's broaden the tax base. i believe in a flat tax. you have the child tax credit and mortgage interest deduction. i want families to have homes. we have 39% to 41%.
then you eliminate all the loopholes. bring the capital back to america as well as international companies that may want to come there and do business. that is how we set the conditions in washington, d.c., to incentivized the growth in the private sector. host: president obama called on congress to pass his jobs packagact. >> it includes proposals that a been supported by democrats and republicans alike. if there are aspects of the bill they do not like, they should tell us what it is they are not willing to go for. they should tell us what they are prepared to see move forward. i cannot imagine any american that is not interested in seeing construction workers back
on the job of rebuilding roads and bridges, schools, airports, putting teachers back in the classroom and make sure our kids are getting the best education and making sure our vets get help when they come home. host: he said small business investment act but he did call on congress to pass aid for construction workers or to get back going, rebuilding schools, etc. guest: i would say he should call to harry reid and ask why he is not bring it up for a vote. dick durbin said they didn't have the votes with senate democrats. we have been down this road and it didn't happen. i think if we come up with the right top of policies and knock
down the road of the economic model of tax and spend it which is just not been successful. when you talk about construction, i would ask, why do we have these uber regulations that are coming down on the cement industry that will hurt their ability to go out there and continue to build in the united states of america? some of the cement is being bought by foreign countries. there was a letter that was sent to the president say we agree with you on these boys and this is where we can find common ground. i think david axelrod came out and said it was an all or nothing plan. host: eric cantor said there were parts that the house would bring up. one of them would be the trade pacts with three different countries. guest: south korea, panama, and
columbombia. we have the florida everglades. panama. i want to see our corporations down in south florida be able to export to these countries and help to grow our gdp. host: mary in washington. caller: good morning. i have two issues. how do you feel about our overseas spending, military spending? we have over 1000 military bases overseas. it cost us over $1 million apiece for each military member we have in the middle east. that money is not going to the military. it's going to the war profiteers and the industries.
my second issue is, our federal war on drugs, which has been a huge failure. i feel the drugs is you should be a local issue. the original anti drug laws were actually racist laws. there were passed directly against the african american community. the war on drugs has been on the african american community. those are my two issues. guest: i spent 22 years in the military. we have to move away from what i term -- 24th century battlefield is anything -- is different today thing we have faced. how do deal with these things on
the battlefield? you have to get away from nation-building and get back to strike operations. if he believes he can establish himself -- that means you after have a lethal force that uses maneuverability to get to these hot spots before the enemy can establish themselves strongly. they want to find places where they can train and bring in their resources and launch attacks against you. that cold war era of having that -- we have to collapse the power projections. look at our navy. 546 naval vessels. now we're down. the super committee. we cannot afford to have those cuts. host: that is if they don't come
to an agreement. guest: right now, last thing we need to do is to knee cap them. host: does that motivate you to vote for something that the so- called super committee comes out with? guest: it motivates me to get in their ear and to do the right thing. we cannot continue to see our military as a bill payer. they have to protect the american people. airplanes flew into a building 10 years ago. we have a problem in south florida with these pills. south florida is becoming a distributor of these pills. i'm not about to give up on the "war on drugs." the nextant to see
generation of americans being drug addicted. we have to defeat that. host: democratic caller from spokane, washington. the morning. -- good morning. go ahead. i will put you on hold. virginia beach. caller: i have two questions. i will be quick about it. these men that has a criminal record, i would like to know how would they go about getting jobs if they cannot give them a chance and give them a job? they are locked them up constantly for child support. if they cannot find a job because of their record. you're talking about money and
terrorists. you're talking about drugs. that's the reason these men go out and sell drugs. they are trying to -- i cannot speak for all. some of them cried out because they want things in their lives. they are tired of the lifestyle. when the want to turn it around, they cannot do with it the have a criminal record. guest: that is god's be up to the individual to hire -- that is going to be up to the individual hire. we have to get back to making and doing. in south florida, we have homeless and jobless veterans. we have got to make sure that we can't incentivized this growth. and then dthey have to
provide those opportunities for people who want to have that second chance to make an improvement on their lives. because nobody is perfect. if we are not manufacturing and if we're not having our small businesses and that base grow in our country, those opportunities are not gone to be there. host: republican in north carolina, will. caller: my comment is about the tax rate, the tax code. i would like to see them flat-based tax.a to a an exemption for child-support and housing. that is adit. guest: i think we are agreeing. i think you can move to a flat tax system where we broaden that tax base.
you left her mccain talking about the 9-9-9 plan. -- you have herman cain talking about the 9-9-9 plan. 67,000 pages is too long. we have to give back to the basics. host: the senate is not bring up president obama's jobs bill right away. they are voting on a bill that would punish china for attention to keeping the die of its currency low. do you support that legislation? guest: we are in an economic war with china. the belief that if we don't turn things around, they could overtake us. we did not defeat the soviet union militarily. we defeated them economically. china knows you can take
capitalizsm. the trade imbalance and also the fact we are allowing a communist country that owns 27% of our debt is not going to improve the standard of living of the average chinese person. it goes to building their military forces. we cannot allow china to of this incredible trade imbalance. we cannot allow them to manipulate their currency. host: so you would be a yes vote. guest: absolutely. host: there is an editorial in "the wall street journal" that was against this bill saying it would lead to a trade war. guest: we need to come to an understanding. people are acting against our better interest. i did not see saudi arabia is not our friend.
we know that russia is starting to revert back to some of the old characteristics of the soviet union. china is not exactly our friend. i was in israel in august. the chief of the chinese people's liberation army was also a visiting. where you are seeing raw materials in this world, you are seeing china. you're seeing chinese contractors working in the panama canal. this is something we better pay attention to. we better understand you can have free trade but you also need to understand fair trade. host: wellington, north carolina, chet. caller: good morning, sir. i was raised to be a conservative, as well. i had a responsible parents.
i am also a military veteran. i served in the vietnam war. guest: thank you for your service. caller: you are 80 party member -- you are a tea party member. i'm a christian. how can he justify supporting rich people -- i am speaking in terms of not being willing to raise taxes when ronald reagan himself did so. how can you justify? guest: we talk about this name- calling back-and-forth. for us to call people demonic, terrorists -- that is not how we moved the ball down the field. the key party stands for -- they
want to see the free market enterprise systems work. i did not see why any people would not agree with that. it is beyond me, the push back. it is not about raising taxes. i can show you a fiscally responsible government. why should i take more of your taxpayer resources? it comes back to the confidence and the policies of the come out of washington, d.c. it comes back to the access of capital that the small banks want to provide to the small business. it comes back to the certainty that we of to pay to provide. r a business leaderss understands the risks. he cannot understand and that creates uncertainty and
volatility in the markets. let's get back to the simple principles. calvin coolidge understood the marginal tax rates -- he brought it down to 24%. you get hoover and roosevelt that took up to83%. you didn't see the% of revenue as a percentage increase. you can conceive it to tax people. the top 1% pays 30% of the taxes. the top 25% pay 86% of federal income tax. what is a fair share? how much is enough? we need to get away from calling people demonic. host: congressman allen west is serving his first term in the
house and certainly armed services and small business committee. caller: hi. i was wondering if you're feeling about the protest going on in wall street and how they are to be dealt with. guest: the protests almost wall street? there are some problems we have on wall street. for young people to say they hate capitalism -- if we do not believe the free market will be a successful means, the united states of america is going to be lost. we've got to incentivize and bring about business growth. you don't need a government to
pick the winners and the losers. you can look at many different bad decisions the government made to get involved in the mortgage industry which ended up in a collapse. you have to understand the right and proper rules of government. the government gets rid of the glass-steagall act which have the separation from investment banking and regular banking. then all the things start to collude together and the next thing you know you are selling mortgages off and create fannie and freddie. this is an ex that there was waiting to happen -- that is an accident that was waiting to happen. i have been watching some interviews with some of the kids that are out there -- i say kids biggest i'm 50. i'm here because i believe in the human race again. this is a nice getting.
i did not understand if there is a serious principle desire that has them out there other than for people in unions that are funneling money and to create a raucous. i want to see this country turn around. host: george is a republican in florida. caller: i salute your service, sir. taxes to influence society paul 6, business, and commerce way to much. -- taxes due influenced society. i was born into a labor class neighborhood in west philadelphia. and i came up in a democratic family under fdr.
now i'm a successful businessman. i'm just the opposite of the other gentleman. i am a republican now. i did not look at the difference between color, gender, or any other demographic. i look between those that try and those that do not. there is no different way of living, no definitive way of living. republicans seem to be above the ways and let's do away back to pc and get personal responsibility. we have no savings in this country at all. if people were to put some money in the bank, we would not have to be borrowing from china. there's only a definitive
lifestyle and it goes back to the nuclear family. there be enough jobs for everyone. guest: i think he brought a great point. we got to get back to being investors and not debtors. that is from washington, d.c., and on down. host: david is next, our last phone call. go ahead. caller: good morning. would you explain the flat tax? what does it mean for small businessmen? what is the flat tax me for something like me? guest: right now is based upon the amount of vacant you're bringing in -- the amount of
income you are bringing in. small businesses operate -- they need to have some certainty in their tax system. now they understand it. 40% or 50% or whatever -- 14% or 15% or whatever. "now like to hire more people. milliken take people off part- time and bring back on full time because i understand what the rules of the road are going to be." right now there's too much volatility. we have to take away that risked. host: congressman, thank you. we'll turn our attention to u.s.-pakistan relations. up next, ken burns would join as
to talk what his latest project, "prohibition." >> 8:29 eastern. president obama wants to make it congress to make easier -- the administration says the change will increase collections. figures show the education department is the biggest user of private debt collectors. a government watchdog group said fannie mae knew about disclosures in 2003 but did not act to stop them. similar allegations being probed by state attorneys general. allegations that law firms ignored proper procedures in handling foreclosure paperwork. three american scientists will share this year's nobel prize in physics. two americans are being
honored for the studies of exploding stars that show the expansion of the universe is accelerating. when one got the phone call and heard the news, he said his jaw dropped. those are some the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that's our question in this year's studentcam competition, open to middle and high school students. make a video documentary five to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the consititution that's important to you, and why. be sure to include more than one point of view and video of c-span programming. entries are due by january 20, 2012. there is $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000. for all the details, go to studentcam.org. >> with congress back in session this week, the house will consider a spending bill that will keep the federal
government open for another six weeks through mid november, and the senate is proposing a bill dealing with china's currency. watch our live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house on c- span, and the senate on c-span2. and use our comprehensive resource on congress to get more information about your elected officals with c-span's congressional chronicle, including video of every house and senate session, voting records, the daily schedule, committee hearings, and more. it's washington your way. the c-span network, created by cable, provided as a public service.>> before the presidential election of 1916, charles evans hughes was a lawyer and professor, a two-term governor of new york. and though he lost his bid for the presidency, his impact on political history remained, serving as a postwar secretary of state and ultimately chief justice of the u.s. he is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series, "the contenders," live from the supreme court building in washington, d.c., friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. for a preview about hughes, watch a number of videos about him at our special website for
the series, cspan.org/thecontenders. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with ken burns to talk about his latest project, "prohibition." how did you come to decide on prohibition? you wanted to talk about the lack of a civil conversation. did you come to "prohibition" first and realize there were parallels? guest: we never tried to supervise our own -- we're drawn to historical subjects. the code as director and co- producer -- the co-director. we realize that we spent a lot of time historical in the 1920's
and other projects and we didn't know anything. the images of prohibition that everybody has of gangsters and floppers was about it and we just assumed why it happened and what americans could have made such a limiting decision of creating an amendment and the only amendment has been repealed. we understood it touched dozens of elements today that had to do with single issue -- a local campaigns and immigrants, it had to do with a loss of civil discourse, as you say, and smear campaigns during presidential election cycles. the question of what is the correct role of government? warrantless wiretaps. people wanted to take the country back. we just tell the story.
we're not trying to say is in it right today? we have the opportunity to remind our fellow citizens that history is still the table around which you can have a civil discourse. as we hear, the discourse has retreated to individual camps and we identify each other as " the other" whatever it maybe -- race, politics. history permits us to go back and see the way in which human nature never changes. americans always getting into these types of things and to see the way history might offer us suggestions on how you can get out of that. that is an added bonus. we're trying to tell a good and a complicated story.
host: the started airing sunday night on pbs. the second part was last night. let's go back to the first part, looking at the beginning of prohibition, or the making of it. what was the role of alcohol? guest: we had planned to series, but we found help long and dramatic the lead up was so expensive it to three. we go to when prohibition went into effect. we were awash in alcohol. people ritually had alcohol for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. you stopped a couple times in factories for what was called grog time. we drank five or six times the amount of of all that americans
per capita consumed. we were awash in liquor. the social concern comes up that we should figger out how to drink less. women find their voice and this whole incredible century of activism is initiated. host: i was struck by the economic impact of all was happening at the time. people were drinking two or three times a day. the level of alcohol -- we start growing crops, grain, then allow the country to start manufacturing whiskey and other hard liquor and that plays into the culture. guest: we have all of poor water supplies. sometimes manufacturing and alcoholic beverage is safer, at least initially. we have been fermenting or brewing things.
we have been able to distill and increasing the alcohol content that much more. it has much more devastating consequences socially as people, a percentage of the population has trouble with alcohol. that initiates a temperance movement that gets hijacked by the moral absolutist. they want people to sign a pledge for total abstinence. it is interesting to watch the interplay of movements and the interplay of single issue groups that vie for supremacy of this issue in the 19th century. one man was able to make the senate sit up and beg. it was the most powerful lobbying organization.
people began to say through propaganda and education and through decades of working on it that we think we can solve all society's problems if we give them the drink. the husband won't squander the project and, all meant beat the wife or the kids. there'll be no crime and the slums will clear. i think they went very naively. progressives wanted it. in-a west as long as the workers -- industrialists as well as workers. we woke up with it as the law of the land.
we realized it was an big uh- oh. because there were some gaps. we raised questions about should the government be telling us how to live our lives. were we going to use the government as punishment to change the way people behave? the we celebrate marriages and when we take communion. host: was the impact that laid the groundwork for the 18th amendment? guest: we began to see the constitution as some but they could make this a more perfect union. the conservative anti saloon league alied themselves with
the progressives who wanted to redistribute wealth. there were huge disparities between the rich and the poor. factory workers were at the low was wrung. they wanted to pass an income tax amendments. they wanted the abolition of all and said it was a great idea because then we could separate uncle sam from the revenue he gets from the beer and liquor industries. 7% were coming from the beer and liquor into streets-- 70%. the liquor industry and all the related industries is untethered from its dependency on uncle sam, and uncle sam is on tethered from its dependency on them.
we remained sauerkraut -- we renamed sauerkraut "liberty cabbage." we're on a straight path to the ratification of the amendment in the 36 states necessary. host: it was repealed on december 5, 1933. guest: more than 13 years. in some ways, we talk about all the unintended consequences. we would not have organized crime without prohibition. fema also went up -- female alcoholism went up. no and then it had never been repealed -- no amendment had never been repealed.
by putting it into the constitution, it would be in there forever. lots of unnecessary lives were lost. it changed everything. but we get rid of it and would get rid of it quicker than it came in. it made us americans even more suspicious of the notion of this group or that, from the left or the right. here is the magic bullet. if the only pass the amendment -- if you only passed the amendment, everything will be all right. if we just do this, we look here all society's ill. host: good morning, edith. caller: i am a second time caller.
i watched your film last night. you mentioned lots of people's names up and down the coast. i never have noticed that you say anything about the kennedy family. i know kennedy sr. was bake in bootlegging and let's stuff -- was big in bull leg and all that stuff -- bootlegging and all that stuff. guest: the rich were allowed to stockpile their alcohol. that was one of the complaints. it was so unfairly applied. they had a year to buy up as much out all as they wanted and could comfortably drink on their own. it was a law that was most difficult of the immigrants and the poor. joe kennedy provided the alcohol for is 10-year reunion.
he saw the end of prohibition coming any but a good deal of irish whiskey and brought it to new york and have it padlocked in government warehouses. when it was repealed, some of the first out all the people drank was kennedy booze. everybody thought he had been profiting all along, which was not the case. there's not a better proof that he was a bootlegger. another family is another case. they were canadians who were in the bootlegging industry and that is well-known. you can put the kennedy smyth to rest. host: you deal with that in the first part. father joe kennedy's ransom saloons in boston. -- ran
some saloons in boston. host: potomac, maryland. caller: 80 years ago it seemed necessary to draft an amendment to ban a substance. but now we can banned substances through committees. is is a cultural difference because of the substance -- is this a cultural difference? guest: that is a wonderful question. there's a difference in many cases between alcohol, which is something people have used from the beginning of time and as broad cultural and social acceptance, prohibition notwithstanding, and drugs which are more sub cultural manifestations of popping up here and there which have less of a sense of cultural familiarity to them.
we think marijuana and we think this is our latest cash crop and perhaps we can all benefit from taxation and perhaps take some of the violence out of the transactions. but we realize that violence is linked less to marijuana and then to cocaine and heroin. would you include those drugs in that mix? then i think you'd find a majority of americans on interested in that sort of thing -- uninterested in that sort of thing. it is important that we use of prohibition as lessons of unintended consequences to go carefully and slowly and to try to do what no one did back in that period. host: "prohibition" is a three as part series airing on pbs. guest: i think it is $19.95,
three discs. shoppbs.org. that is above my pay grade. we just work hard in the vineyards on these fillmms. host: how much "prohibition " -- how much did "prohibition" cost to make? guest: large corporate support from bank of america and foundation support from the park foundation. we started our own fund-raising organization. that civil discourse.
we received grants from foundations. it is a wonderful thing. i met president reagan when i began working on "civil war." we talked about private and governmental. he said, "just right." the motto is exactly that balanced approach. it is important that i assume everybody who is listening is a taxpayer. we should pay back our government support. it will be nice if that worked in all aspects of the government. we pay back our government grant. host: are other documentaries that do revenue-generating? guest: some do and some do not.
we put it back again into giving better salaries the what public television pays to some of the people who have been the hardest workers and help to pay for the development of the new projects that are outside the budget. we pay off our grand from the national endowment for the " civil wars" project. while the reagan felt the government have the role to prime the pump and allow others to, and like bank of america another foundation to help us out. host: does pbs give you a budget? guest: we go to them and we go about raising the money. some may come from pbs. some will come from the
corporation for public broadcasting. bank of america is our sole corporate sponsor. we keep the budget. we work with weta, the local washington, d.c., pbs affiliate. we use the bring it in on time and under budget and we move on to the next set of challenges. host: ralph from chicago. caller: thank you. columbus discovered america while searching for a c way for the spices including opium. the boston tea party. the tobacco war of the american revolution. the opium wars. alcohol prohibition. the civil war on drugs.
where is the road map to peace on drugs? guest: interesting story. the intersection of commerce, morality, social behavior, and the interest to alter one's consciousness. they're never going to end. i do not know the answer. this is one of the reasons that you do this. tell a good enough story so that we ask the questions that you asked. caller: ken burns. guest: good morning. caller: this is such an opportunity and an honor. guest: thank you. caller: it is outstanding. you realize the historical
importance of the railroad and how they build a nation. up to world war ii, it enabled us to rise above the depression and succeed in the world war ii. would you consider making a documentary on the historical and importance of the railroads? guest: if i live to be 1000 call would not run out of topics. people come up to me every single day and write letters will my next project should be. the winner is always railroads. we first started getting mail 20 years ago about what people thought our next project should be. we made a history of the west, a multi part series, seven, eight episodes, and we did extensive
stories of the railroads in that. and in other films we have touched on that. it is an important story. in the 19th century, the government did not do anything. teddy roosevelt came along and we started stretched the con fines of what the federal government could do. we forget that encouraging the building of railroads in the homestead act and so many other activities in the 19th century, a great deal of the prosperity that we enjoy to this very day came from the government actively priming the pump to get the juices flowing. host: next project includes the dust bowl, the roosevelts, and jackie robinson. guest: we're shooting a film and
i'm doing a major series on vietnam. we did the civil war. the next most important war is a vietnam. a lot of people do not understand it. it is not a war that has easy battles to identify. we think it is shoes important and going in -- we think it is hugely important. we're talking to generals and diplomats and helicopter p ilots. host: will that be a bigger project/ guest: roosevelt is a large series. vietnam will be a large series, at least six episodes. we're looking at the history of country music. i despise the red stakeout blue
states distinction -- the red state-blue state distinction. my work has been always about unem. "the dust bowl" will be out next year. we found more than six dozen survivors -- we found more than two doezen survivors. crime theyknown about th did not commit. everybody knows the story of the roosevelts, but they never been put together as a complicated
family as well as the larger social and military history that they touch on. jackie robinson is a hero in world history. we have a lot on our plate. hopefully we can come back and talk about the insides of those. host: ken burns is our guest talked about his latest project, "prohibition." caller: i want to say that i cherish your whole body of work. guest: thank you. caller: i used to work in public television. it was an honor to be affiliated with such fabulous work. my wife is a naturalized american citizen. i sat her down and said to watch this show. she was blown off the couch. guest: he is referring to our
series on the history of the national parks. we. america's best it " idea." in an age when attendance at the national parks have been declining, it went up 10 million to 15 million in the season after that aired. we felt that this was america's best idea because this notion that we could co-own -- this beautiful mall is all of ours. it brings us back to some of the very issues we talk about today. do we have some contact with the joe to make this a better country? if you feel the co-ownership,
then you can participate and it is a good way to share with new citizens and taken to the rim of the grand canyon and say, this is yours, too. caller: good morning. thank you for your work. especially the integrity you bring to pbs. i want to mention briefly how utrecht me by getting involved in your series. i have been moved through every emotion possible. it took me three minutes to compose myself during "the civil war" after that letter was read by the soldier who did not make it back. keep up the good work.
i hope you'll live forever. guest: i carry that letter. i've been caring that letter and my that letterfin my if we just see american history as only the series of presidential administrations, punctuated by wars, we miss the huge bottom-up story, so-called ordinary people who built those railroads that we're talking about, who fought for those national parks that we cherish, who were involved in bootlegging if that's the case who sacrificed their lives in the second world war, vietnam or the civil war. that's the history that we're telling. an emotional archeology. i'm pleased that it took you a while to get your composure. because i think history
shouldn't be dry, stuffy days but something that we feel, that it's emotional archeology that we're involved in. thanks so much. host: "prohibition," a three-part documentary film series that tells the story of the rise, rule, and fall of the 18th amendment to the u.s. constitution and the entire era it encompassed. let's hear from phil next, from kansas. caller: good morning mr. burns. how are you today? guest: good morning. caller: good morning, again. like everybody else calling this morning, i really want to thank you for the work you've done. a couple of points i've heard, one, the impact you've had in our household, particularly international students that we host. but the other thing is that i really like the work you do, particularly "prohibition," that you treat your audience like adults. too much we see now adays, some doom tearian is trying --
documentarian is trying to do the thinking for you. my wife and i have some disagreements, very civil, but it makes me wonder about the unintended consequences as to the possibility of your grandson or granddaughter some day doing a documentary on black market cheese burgers. [laughter] but at any rate -- guest: i know what your worry is. i don't think we're going to have black market cheeseburgers in part because of prohibition. it doesn't make sense it might be, you know, taxes on cigarettes, to cut down smoking in various places. but i think you won't find that wholesale government intrusion into our lives. we always worry about it, but it never quite happens in that way. you say makes me feel so happy that the subject that we've chosen touch you in that way. host: it's the lack of civility that we see today, mostly in
washington, compared to prohibition that seemed to be really a national discourse outside of washington. guest: i know. a lot of people see prohibition as this thing that the government did to people. it's not true. it's the people said we want be part of a solution. conservatives as well as progressives wanted government to be part of a solution. we weren't bifurcated the way we are now in which people say government is good or government is bad. we all assumed that government was good. it was just our version of government, if i was a republican, our version of government if i was a democrat, who's going to do a better job of government. it's only been in recent years in the last 30, 40 years in which government has itself been made to seem the enemy. it's an interesting development that i think those of us who are in the history business are going to have to deal with it at some point. where did that happen? when did we cross over that line? as you look around the world and realize the extent of our freedom, it's very real that we should be careful about
government intrusion. and one of the things that happened in prohibition is that in order to enforce it, we had to add that much more bureaucracy to the enforcement of dure jobbing is i that hasn't left. an earlier caller is referring to the trillions that we're spending, you know, in drug interdiction which leaves us with a huge super structure, an apparatus, of enforcement. and that can apply not just to drugs. we could be talking about defense, about entitlements, about any number of things that has grown as the result of that thefeeling government should be involved in, say, building roads or having a strong defense or putting a man on the moon or having an interstate system. or some things that people universally support or other things that are more controversial. so, to me, i think that sometimes taking out that fuel rod that the government is itself malevolent and evil and permitting us to look across the whole scope of our history and
saying the extent to which human beings, in the case of prohibition, brought it to the government and said this is what we want. we want you to outlaw for us forever, that had been the constitution, as an amendment, alcohol. you know, stop me before i drink again. and what we woke up to was, wait a second, this is not america. this is the only amendment that limits human freedom. let us figure out how to get out of this. and as horrible and as long it seems to be involved in prohibition, if you think about it in historical terms, it was a relatively short period of time. host: thomas, democratic caller, new york. caller: hello. mr. burns? guest: good morning. caller: yes. i want to praise you, first of all, for your wonderful body of work. guest: thank you. that's so kind. caller: it's truly a national treasure. but what i wanted to ask about was specifically the wording of
the 18th amendment. and it goes through all of these parts about manufactured sale, exporting, importing, and so forth. guest: transportation. caller: it doesn't actually say anything about buying it. i mean -- i'm not saying that people should have, you know, gone out to break the law -- i mean, gone out and bought bootleg liquor. but what i meant was, it doesn't actually say anything about buying it. so when people actually bought this illegally made alcohol -- host: they weren't breaking the law. weren't actually breaking the law according to the wording of the amendment. guest: so the amendment -- it's very interesting. it's incredibly vague, as you so correctly noticed. so what we did is we applied
what was called the volstad act to try to interpret it. and even though an efficient machine of the anti-saloon couldn't get a complete ban on alcohol it wasn't actually illegal to drink alcohol. people were allowed to buy up as much as they want and drink it for their own pleasure. americans were allowed to make 250-gallons of wine on their own if they wanted to. they could not make beer. they could not make whiskey. that was against the law. they could not sell or distribute any of that. that was also against the law. but you could also get a doctor's prescription for alcohol for medicinal purposes. and you could imagine the number of prescriptions skyrocketing during that period. there were other loopholes in which you could drive a prohibition truck through, and that's what happened. we created opportunities for entrepreneurial americans, full, organized crime. if you think about electronic it's an oxymoron.
criminals were hardly organized. but what prohibition and the enormous profits -- because the demand for alcohol never went away. the thirst for it among the hard-working people who didn't necessarily have a problem with alcohol never went away. so, you know, that organized crime supplied a need. but there's so many funny loopholes in it. you know, sacramento wine was permitted. so congregations quadrupled, 10 times the size. and jewish temples, who's to say who's a rabbi and not? so there were rabbis named o kelly, shanahan. there were black rabbis. there was an incredibly wide interpretation of all of these laws. host: gary, you're next in tampa, florida. independent caller. caller: good morning. guest: good morning, gary. caller: first of all, can we see mr. burns on "in depth" for
three hours, because i can listen to you talk all day. your head is so big now after all of these calls, you're going to have a hard time. guest: you know, i live in a tiny world in new hampshire. any notoriety plus 50 cents gets you a cup of coffee. caller: mr. burns, let me ask you this. prohibition showed me -- first of all, don't mess with americans and their beer. [laughter] it's too bad we can't get them riled up for other issues like that, like they got riled up for prohibition. but what did you learn as far as -- to me it showed the power of the american people when they really do get fired up and they -- you know, government doesn't control this country. the people control -- guest: exactly. that is a huge point. i'm so glad you bring this up. the broad coalition of folks that brought us prohibition was in place by another broad coalition of folks. in essence what we're looking at
is the very messy but very real results of democracy. i mean, people really struggled over this. it was and still is a huge social problem. alcoholism. we are obligated as a people, as a society, to figure out what to do with it. clearly prohibition had in everyone's mind -- was going do it, was going to solve all of our problems. it did not. we got rid of it. and we're sort of obligated to tinker. the founders thought that the constitution was a machine that would go of itself. that this is an experiment in democracy and would be just that an experiment. we're in pursuit of happiness. that's the key word. we're always focused on happiness. is that about material things, the marketplace of objects? or is it about ideas in a marketplace that's sort of the pursuit of life-long education? we can argue about it. i think it's the latter. what jefferson meant by capital h, happiness. we're in pursuit of it.
the constitution which is a dry document except as preamble says in order to form a more perfect union, we are obligated to keep tinkering with these things, to keep experimenting. and that's the real great beauty of this thing. and we get so distracted by our preoccupations, as i was saying earlier, with red state, blue state, black, white, male, female, north, south, east, west. whatever distinction we want to super impose object the other -- on the other. nothing so needs reforming, mark twain said, as other people's habits. it is the prohibition of anything that makes this precious. these are the growing pains and the necessary lessons of the democracy. we are at once greedy and generous. we are at once fear and hypocritical. we are puriant and puritan. we are saturday night at the sloan and sunday morning at the -- at the saloon and sunday morning at the church. are divisions within us.
look at the evangelist who hail against this and that and suddenly turns out to be doing this and that. this is a complex human thing. we've got the best set of rules, however imperfect they may be. they call it sausage making over at the capitol, you know, about legislation. want to see how it's made, but it sure tastes good. we end up with a democracy in which there's lots of sausage making going on. and prohibition is one of those great examples, trying to figure out how to do right. alcoholism is still a big problem in the united states what are we going to do? >> sarah, jacksonville, florida, democratic caller. the conversation. guest: good morning, sarah. caller: good morning. thank you so much. being an outdoors person, i loved your documentary on national parks. guest: i'm so glad. thank you. caller: here in florida we have governor scott who wants to privatize our state parks. but my question is, many years ago my husband and i were protesting against the invasion of iraq. and a couple approached us and said, we should be praying to
god instead of protesting. i believe many religious people take the easy way out and do nothing with the hope that god will take care of everything, including global warming. someone once said religion is the opium of the masses. do you believe it's possible that religion is a drug for many people? >> you know, i think your point is well taken that many of us are certain that the other, the person who feels different from us if they'd only do an act -- and act like us, we'd be all right. the great beauty of a democratic system is that we invite in all different points of view. i don't think religion or faith is an open yacht. i think sometimes it can be for some people just as an i'd log --ideologue might be equally as inflexible. what i think democracy requires us to do in order to succeed is to compromise.
one said americans like to think of themselves as uncompromising people. but are great geniuses for compromise. and when that breaks down, we went to war. and that's true. speaking recently on another film to george will, the columnist, he said that democracy is the politics of the half loaf. you never get everything. and what we see right now is we lament the breakdown in our civil discourse is the fact that everybody is so absolutely certain that it's my way or the highway. and the old dayness which they used to get together over whiskey, have a drink, and compromise is long gone. and everybody's into their own corner. they've got their talking points. they know exactly what it is. and we, the citizens of the democracy, watch our problems not being solved. and this is a problem of the and the right. it's not one group. it's the inflexibility. it's the problem that comes from not just moral but political certitude. and that our great obligation as
the people is to get involved, to vote, but to urge people whatever your political perspective, whatever your religious faith or lack there of is to just be engaged and to remember the genius -- you can't stay married for very long if you don't know how to compromise. bring your intelligence about your own marriage to your political discourse. and then the other isn't the demon that you think it is. to live that way in your personal life, you're going to be very lonely very quickly. host: we're running out of time with ken burns. one last phone call. paul, an independent in detroit, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning, paul. caller: thank you very much. you mentioned earlier as far as the kennedys not having any affiliation -- i looked at "national geographic" and they said the kennedys were affiliated with --
[indiscernible] would you elaborate on that for me, please? and thanks a lot for putting together what you put together. because what you're showing is a group together can do things. guest: that's exactly what is what it is. and that is always the great lesson of a democracy. i would refer you to the book "the last call: the rise and fall of prohibition." dan was a consultant to our film. we worked in parallel tracks. we benefited from his research. i hope he benefited to some extend from ours. he appears in our film as an on-camera commentator. i think he goes in, in that book, in great detail about the kennedys. and i think that whether someone has contact with people in the world, it's been one of the great -- part of the demonization of the kennedy family that happens periodically always to do with organized crime and bootlegging. but this scholar could not find
any connection. and i think that's some of the breaking news of his extraordinary book. host: before we let you go, what is your partnership with the national constitution center? guest: early on we realized -- i think we feel as so many americans do that we've lost that ability to talk with each other. that we talk over each other and at each other. that that sort of breakdown was partly going on in prohibition. and one of the reasons this mistake -- i think most everybody in retrospect believes -- in position in the federal amendment, that outlawed alcohol that a lot of it had to do with that loss of civil discourse. so we partnered trying to raise awareness of not only the great work of the amazing post in does, but in the way in which we are obligated as citizens to listen to one another to compromise, to figure out how to solve our problems that if we just retreat to our own corners, we're gone.
one of the most encouraging things is that we've had callers who are republicans and democrats and independents who have all enjoyed our work. what this is -- what they're ratifying is support for television. there's no other place on the dial with the possible exception of c-span where you could have the kind of productions made that we do. the deep dives into these subjects. the ability to celebrate all sides without a political agenda. the lack of sort of pandering to sponsors or to the lowest common denominator. one caller said, the viewers as intelligent. and i think that in some ways public television mirrors our larger society. i think we could do well to realize that this underfunded and much maligned network still manages to produce some of the best childrens, science, nature, art, performance, i'm told the best history on the dial. that's good i wouldn't be sitting here if it wasn't for
public broadcasting. and i like the fact that the support for this work as evidenced by the calls today represents a broader array of americans. host: ken burns, codirector of "prohibition," the last of the three-part series airing tonight on pbs. thanks for talking to our viewers. >> thank you so much. host: in our last hour, we'll turn our attention to u.s.-pakistan relations. first a news update. >> defense secretary leon panetta is leading with egyptian leaders today, urging them to relose a u.s. born man for allegedly being an israeli spy. they are accusing him of being an agent a claim israel denies. his detention has escalated criticism of egypt's military which took overrule of the country after the out offer of mubarak in february. europe's economic situation with the focus of remarks earlier
today by britain's treasury chief, george osborn, speaking before his conservative party's annual conference, the chancellor called on europe to urgently decide on the fate of greece's economy and expand the size of the bailout fund. he went on to criticize the other european nation overs their decision to create the euro, insisting it had been reckless not to foresee the likely future difficulties. george osborn then added, "for generations to come people will say thank god britain didn't join the euro." while europe deals with their economic crisis, questions will be posed to fed chairman ben bernanke at a hearing this morning on the possibility of another u.s. recession. and you can hear that on c-span radio. we'll bring you live coverage of the joint economic committee hearing at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. those are some of the latest he headlines on c-span radio. >> oral argument is actually the first time the justices talk about a case together.
and so when justice scalia or justice ginsburg asks a question, i can figure out what's bothering them about a case and where they are leaning. >> by law, since 1916, the new supreme court term begins the first monday in october. each year hearing almost 70 cases. this year cases already include g.p.s. tracking without a warrant, profanity on television, and copyright protection. watch the justices from recent appearances around country online at the c-span video library, all archived and searchable. it's washington your way. which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that's our question in this year's student cam competition open to middle and high school students. make a video documentary five to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the constitution that's important to you and why. be sure to include more than one point of view and video of c-span programming. entries are due by january 20, 2012.
there's $50,000 in total prize. the grand prize of $5,000. all the details, go to studentcam.org. the senate is proposing a bill dealing with china's currency. watch our live gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2 and use your comprehensive resource to get more information about your elected officials with c-span's congressional cren keel, including video of every house and session, voting records, the daily schedules, mini hearings and more. it's washington your way. the c-span networks created by cable, provided as a public service. because ofstion
recent statements made by admiral mike mullin before a senate committee testified. we'll show what was said and then talk about it. >> certain extremist groups are allowed to operate from pakistani soil. the network, for one, acts as a vertable arm of pakistan's internal service intelligence agency. with i.s.i. support, the operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack as well as the assaults. we also have credible intelligence that they were behind a june 28 attack on a hotel in kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations. choosing to use violence, extremism, as an scriewment of policy, the government -- an instrument of policy, the government of pakistan and most especially the pakistani army and i.s.i. jeopardizes not only
our strategic partnership but pakistan's opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate, regional influence. host: admiral mike mullin later wept on to say telling a newspaper "i phrased it the way i wanted to phrase it." what was he trying to do there? what was he saying? guest: it's also important to put into perspective, admiral mullin said why he said this, saying he felt his responsibility was to stand up for and protect to the degree that he could the troops in afghanistan. and there's certainly no doubt that the hakani network has been the most lethal insurgent group active in afghanistan or that they continue to enjoy safe haven in pakistan. the big question is the level of day-to-day control or influence that pakistan's i.s.i., intelligence agency, has over the network. and very clearly admiral mullins has been somebody who's tried to work with the pakistanis for
some time. you know, whether this was -- as he was leaving something that he felt compelled to do, as he complained, you know, or intended to be a shot across the bow is something that i think people are still trying to sort out. there was discussion afterwards by other members of the administration about the fact that, you know, the i.s.i. doesn't have a day-to-day control or at the very least awareness of what that control looks like, it's somewhat opaque. host: and you have today's newspaper, "the washington post," with its headline. "karzai says pakistan is supporting terrorists." afghan president escalates criticism of pakistan monday night charging in a speech that the country is not a sincere partner for peace and that it's essentially using the taliban to fight a proxy war in its country. such sentiments are common among afghans, but karzai and other senior members of his government have grown blunt in his accusation.
guest: there's really no question that the networks, the taliban, have been used and supported by the pakistanis to try to shape the outcome in afghanistan to their favor. that's something that is generally well accepted. and one of the big questions, as we move -- i'm not a big fan of the term afghan end game because it doesn't end for them. but as we move towards 2014 and the us you drawdown, one of the big questions is going to be the level of influence that the pakistanis have. you know, karzai has talked need to perhaps negotiate directly with pakistan rather than working through the insurgent movements. you know, in order to bring them to the table because they are working to shape that environment in way that are different, you know from what the u.s. or afghanistan might
necessarily want to see. host: well, what is pakistan's motivation here then? guest: so, pakistan has a longstanding concern, obviously about what it perceives to be its rival, india. and sees indian influence in afghanistan as a threat to its own security. and sees itself potentially having to fight a two-front war. at the same time, there is a history of, you know, previous afghan governments have supported pakistani ordentism. and, of course, the separation of the afghan and pakistan side of the border. so there's concerns about separatism there as well. so pakistan sees this as threats to its territorial integrity and is looking to shape an outcome in afghanistan where it has, you know, a friendly government, or at least one that it doesn't see as a threat to it. host: what is the hakani network? guest: an insurgent force. it is also -- it's somewhat like
a mafia. the patriarch of the family got his start fighting against the soviets during the 1970's, 1980's, 1979 invasion. and received u.s. support to do it. the network today is fighting today not entirely different than the way it fought the soviets. in addition to being an insurgent force it also operates a host of illegal, as well as legal businesses. you know so it is looking to bring in money as well as to eject what they view as occupiers. about futurealking u.s. pakistani relations. georgia, go ahead. caller: yes. [indiscernible] hitler was a
of a certain regime, right? host: it's very difficult understanding you. sorry about that. let's go on to william in evanston, illinois. caller: hi. is it possible that we are dealing with an old concept which says that war is deceit? this is something that's in the karan and is a very old concept. guest: yes. i think it's certainly the case. you know, this concept of war as deceit. it's not just a religious concept. various scholars have spoken about the fog of war, which is a term coined -- termed by a man the father of modern strategy. you know, this inability to see through the fog. it's a very important point. and certainly the different sides within that war are looking to deceive one another. if you are weak, act strong.
if you are strong, act weak. and it is very clearly the case as you rightly point out, that a host of different parties now have an interest in trying to portray themselves in a certain light. it makes it very difficult, quite frankly, for analysts to through that fog and to know exactly what different actors' are.ations at least on a day-to-day basis, though we do have a sense of the wider intentions in the region. host: brandon, independent in pittsburgh, you're up next. caller: yeah, a couple of points i'd like to point out. one is that whenever you spread your troops out like america is, you have less of a grip of what is going on in the home front.
in 2009 -- host: we will move on from there. "with the name of your town. caller: it is passaic county. people in america are accusing pakistan of supporting terrorists wherever that may not be the case. do you think pakistan is trying to strike a balance, trying to be neutral, giving a little bit of support for each side? guest: there is a concern in terms of shaping the environment of afghanistan. there is a geopolitical concern for pakistan in terms of what the future will look like and
afghanistan particularly after the u.s. drawdown. talking about striking a balance is an important point. pakistan is now arguably both a supporter and a victim of militancy. it has supported some of these curbs but it has suffered attacks from others. the approach they have tried to take is what could be termed a triage approach, going after those groups that are attacking it and don't serve a strategic purpose was not engaging militarily with those groups that are not attacking it and make a strategic purpose. the pakistan reluctance to move against the hakanis is not just that they serve a purpose in afghanistan for they serve an important purpose at home. some of the other militant outfits attacking pakistan today are based in the federal
administered tribal areas where the hakanis are. they have important intro -- interlocutors. they serve a diplomatic function as well as serving a strategic function regionally. host: does the hakani network along with a taliban? guest: the afghan taliban, yes. the hakanis are represented on the quadasherra. they have sworn allegiance to mollah omar. operate independently. there has been what is termed as the pakistani taliban who are based in the federally administered tribal areas that are primarily attacking the pakistani state can secondarily fighting against coalition forces in afghanistan. to say that the hakanis to get
along with the pakistani taliban is a stretch. there is diplomacy and work together and they cooperate but they also have different motivations and they differed in terms of their allegiance to the pakistani state report. host: our guest has written about the pakistani region. do you have a new book? what is it called? guest: called "storming the world stage." it is about the group that was responsible for the mumbai attack. they are another outfit that pakistan has a history of supporting and continues to provide safe haven and protection to. they are active in afghanistan also. to a lesser degree than the hakanis can that taliban reported option host: let's hear from a republican in brown rock
texas. good morning caller:. first question, this is on everybody's mind -- do you think that osama bin laden was there for five years and the pakistani government had no idea of his presence there or were unaware of his presence there? second question, why should we support pakistan and still some than billions of dollars when they are doing so many different things but are against our policies and they are aiding the taliban and helping to do strikes in india? why should we support them? host: to your point, foreign affairs committee chairwoman predicted the house would cut all aid to pakistan. guest: those are two excellent questions.
it has been said before that osama bin laden possibility to hide in abbottabad either speaks to pakistani in confidence or collusion. it is important when trying to determine who knew what when that we make distinctions between the civilian government and the military and within the military, between the leadership and those of the lower levels. we have seen new evidence come to light that the military leadership had no knowledge of osama bin laden's whereabouts. whether there was a policy in place to make a concerted effort to look for him or whether that was something they were willing to push to decide is certainly an open question. also, whether some people at the line level may have provided support to osama bin laden.
it is important to mention that his operational security in abbottabad was quite sound which suggests that he was not living openly and freely with pakistani protection groups as to the question of why we should be supporting the pakistani state and why we should be continued to give aid -- it is important to distinguish between civilian aid and military aid and what our objectives are for each. in terms of giving civilian aid, it is important over time to build civilian governments institutions by which i mean judicial capacity to prosecute criminals and terrorists and build law enforcement capacity so they can go after militants on their own soil and relates to strengthen the civilian government overall. historically, pakistan's military has been in charge of its foreign policy and that has not been a recipe for a pakistan free of militancy. building up a civilian government is very important.
in terms of why we should continue to give military aid is a good question if we are not getting what we are getting from the pakistani started to as important to take account of many of the different things we are asking for. is it the case that the pakistani government has not moved against the hakani network? does the military provide -- continue to provide safe haven? that is relatively well agreed upon. we also need to look at the other things that we are trying to get for our money. that is counter-terrorism cooperation in the forms of interdicting westerners trying to train with these groups, providing intelligence, helping to a rest or eliminate military commanders who are plotting attacks against the u.s. pakistan continues to furnish supply lines for us to move supplies into afghanistan for our troops. what is difficult about this is we are not getting a lot of the
things we want and in some eyes are in an adversarial relationship but in other areas, the support and assistance are still forthcoming. things are bad now but they could get worse. we are trying to forestall that from happening. host: year from an independent in arlington heights, illinois. caller: i am wondering what the risks are involved in this policy of confrontation with pakistan. what the chances of a devolving into even more conflict or possibly even some kind of social the evolution of the pakistani society. host: may add that the pakistani president wrote sunday -- talked to not at pakistan reported guest: russian question is very sound and it is something that is on many people's minds in terms of as we push pakistan
which is understandable that the u.s. is doing so, how far can we push and what is the potential cost? you ask what the risks are. i think we need to break us out into two bucket. the first is what are the risks to the u.s. and the second are what are the risks to pakistan? on the u.s. side, the administration has suggested that boots will not be on the ground. special forces operators will not be encroaching the pakistani territory. there are efforts being made to make clear that we are not seeking more than adversarial relationship in that regard. there are concerns about our supply lines into afghanistan. things could get worse -- pakistan could make it more difficult for our embassy to operate there. some groups are seen to be controlling, suggesting to the
hakani network that they should not be launching out of area attacks. they could seize to try to rein them in. there are concerns that would cease to provide intelligence and ceased to interdict westerners trying to trend. there are definite risks involved in pushing too hard. then there's the risk of destabilizing pakistan and we are talking about a nuclear arms nation in an important part of the world at a time when afghanistan is yet to be stabilized. we're talking about a country of 180 million and possibly more than that. we want to be very careful about pushing pakistan so hard that they find themselves in a position where they cannot recover. at the end of the day, this is one of the things that policymakers are still struggling with to find that balance. inducements and coercive measures to get leverage over pakistan's to the u.s. can accomplish its objectives
without incurring some of the risks you ask about. host: here is a tweed -- guest: there is concern among some that the u.s. has been applying pressure on pakistan as the results of indian encouragement. this is actually something -- i was in pakistan for a month over the summer doing research and the various militant groups attacking the state. one of the things i heard from a number of interlocutors is the u.s., but they don't want us to be carrying the india's water. it is clear that the u.s. is acting in its own interests here. there are areas in which those interests overlap with india's but at the same time, there are areas clear india would quite like the u.s. to push harder. one of the things that policy
makers are trying to strike the balance on is how to negotiate actions in a region where there are a lot of competing powers and the u.s. is allied with india and pakistan and afghanistan. these are three countries that don't always get along with each other. host: you were studying military groups. are there other militant groups other than the ones you mentioned? guest: there is a whole bunch of networks there. one of the things i was trying to do with only some success was to try to put names to all of these actors. part of the issue is that there were a number of militant groups based in pakistan in the 1990's. after 9/11 won the musharraf regime sided with the u.s., some of these groups stayed intact and some of them splintered. we have had the rise of new
groups and we have splinter factions and freelancers and small networks coming together. sometimes these groups have names. sometimes these groups are just named after the individual who got 15 or 20 people to gather but those people have been able to launch an attack within pakistan trying to unravel these networks and get a sense of the degree to which they are working with a one another and they're competing with one another is very important. it gives us a window into the challenges pakistanis to our facing and the actions that are taking as well as the barriers to action. and strategic interests that have in the region in india and afghanistan and their own concerns about not in fleming the insurgency that is taking place on their soil. host: republican caller, you are next.
caller: could you elaborate more on the pakistan-india relations considering their past and how they got where they are today and how we have played a part in that and how we may play a part on that in the future. guest: that pakistan does in the relationship is at the center of the a lot of these issues. the two countries were created to be a partition in 1947. it was a very difficult partition at the time. there was widespread slaughter on both sides as people migrated across what became the border. they immediately went to war over kashmir. they have fought several wars since then. india-ily over administered kashmir. pakistan was supported some of various actors that were active
there. there's a history of animosity between these two countries. selling the kashmir dispute is necessary but not sufficient to try to find a peace between them. it would be an enormous step forward. ultimately, they are concerned on the current pakistani side that india is a bigger and economically stronger and militarily conventional superior conventional force that wants to do it harm. they see this as an existential threat a. as long as the pakistani security sees this as a threat, it will be difficult to bring overall stability to the region. this is something that would need to continue to be cognizant of. at the end of the day, the u.s. can only do so much for it in the and pakistan have to want to find a piece. they have to want to agree to peace between themselves very we
cannot force that upon them. there are things the u.s. can do in terms of providing encouragement, acting as a safety net in case talks over kashmir devolve as they have in the past. there are areas where the u.s. has a role to play. ultimately, this is something those countries will have to sort out. furey host: is another to eat tweet --- guest: there are lots of tribes that are present in pakistan and are different provinces who definitely have different ethnic compositions. in southern peru in job, there is another ethnic city there. -- p in southern poxunjab, there
is another ethnic city there. they have a growing presence in karachi as well. you have different ethnicities and there has been a lot of competition between these ethnicities. that competition has been there since the time of partition. historically, pakistan has looked to unite the country through two means. one is by using the concept of islam that an overwhelming majority of muslims should the united in terms of that identity and the other is using a concept of entire desk in the opposition. -- anti-in the opposition. they try to find these different ethnicities together. that has had some detrimental results. host: topic this morning is the future of u.s.-india relations after admiral mike mullen leg to
the main spy agency of pakistan to the hakani network and an attack on a u.s. embassy in kabul. here is the "financial times" democratic caller in ashland, north carolina, go ahead. caller: what percentage of the u.s. supplies might be going through the cover pass -- khyber pass. what is the possibility that pakistan will cut that off than if they do can continue the war? guest: it used to be that
roughly 50% of our supplies were going through pakistan. that i believe has been decreased somewhat over time. the u.s. has been looking for other land routes. in addition to the ground, there is air quarters. flying through pakistani airspace. one concern is that pakistan would cut their supply line. at times, they have shut down the supply lines for a day or two but nothing that has created undue strain kanye west and coalition forces in afghanistan. the concern is that they could be laundered. that is unlikely to happen. on last = there is a water break in the relationship. the u.s. and pakistan continue to need one another. the danger of walking away from
it is so great that they continue to stick with it. it comes from that issue of the debate that is going on which is less about whether to engage in pakistan but how to engage. we know what the consequences of the rupture could be. host: dependent, in north carolina, go ahead. caller: good morning, our current president campaigned on change and literally promised troops out of afghanistan within one year. to what standard of truth should we be all and not only our president also our presidential candidates and to what standard of bias should we hold our immediate tax host: what are the answers for you? weler: i don't think that have done either. i don't think we have held all the things that our prison camp
led on. i don't -- he made some pretty bold statements about change and we have not seen a lot of that change. host: let's take the promise of drawing down troops in afghanistan. guest: there has been an effort to draw down and there was the surge based and the recommendation of the u.s. military that was necessary to surge troops into afghanistan to stabilize it. the troupe drawdown is slated to take place from 2014 on. that is one of the reasons why we are seeing some of the developments we are seeing now. this is a point where the u.s. still has probably maximum leverage and will have going forward. there is an attempt to use that leverage as much as possible because it may become more difficult after the drawdown in 2014. as the drug and begins in 2014,
that may cause a host of reactions on the pakistani side. that may enable us to move towards some sort of resolution. one of the concerns is that we may get instability in afghanistan which is why it is so important that as the u.s. exit the reason, it does so in a responsible manner rather than just pulling everybody out at once. democrat host: a caller in chicago caller: according to is a big new kozinski, we must maintain a presence in the -- on the asian continent. stopping a from pakistan help achieve its geopolitical goals for the region? guest: that is an excellent question. let me take about the question
on about stopping aid and what that would mean. pakistan is an incredibly important country in south asia. we're talking about 180 million people, a country that will be experiencing ways that is important in south asia because of its relationship with india, a country with nuclear weapons. continuing to engage in pakistan will be very important. the u.s. walked away from that region in the 1990's. it does not want to make that mistake again. that is one of the reasons why we continue to engage not just with the military but also in terms of bolstering civilian institutions in pakistan over the long term. that is why the debates we are having is over how to engage rather than whether we should. host: an independent in greenwood, arkansas.
caller: if we was to reduce our troops to 10,000 and supply air trips by air -- counter insurgency has proven not to work. main strategy of the terrorist is to wear down their opponents with asymmetric war which does not cost them anything but costs us everything. that is why our economy is their main defense. we need to use counter- terrorism to invade and do your business and try to kill the leaders of whoever attacked us and get the heck out of there. they bring us in and destroy as little by little by destroying our economy. that is how the defeated the russians and they just about destroyed our economy. guest: is important to be clear
that the u.s. is using a mix of counterinsurgency and counter- terrorism and those words get thrown around quite a better you are correct to point out that there are debates about where we should be concentrating most of our effort. the u.s. is going to be drawing down forces in afghanistan. direct special forces action, counter-terrorism will continue to be used. it is important that as the u.s. draws down, it does so in a responsible manner in order to avoid creating additional instability in the region. in addition to wanting to degrade al qaeda. the u.s. had -- has had success in using various options are the last 10 years for it is also important to avoid increasing instability in a region where
the u.s. will have equities for quite some time. host: republican caller in memphis, tennessee. welcome to the conversation. i will put you on hold. we will go to new boston, mich., independent college. caller: i am a grandmother of a wounded warrior. we have known for over a year that the taliban has been coming from pakistan. go there to train. they go there to regroup, to re-he quit. why has not general petraeus had anything to said about this? why are we not going after them over there? , particularly when they're over there training in the off- season? guest: thank you for your question and your grandchild's
service. general petraeus and numerous other officials have made the case publicly and privately that pakistan needs to do more to stop the taliban and hakanis from turning to launch attacks into afghanistan. the u.s. has struggled with how to deal with these insertion forces when they enjoy a safe haven without invading pakistan. that would widen the war considerably. it would also put us in a situation where would be difficult to pull out of that region. in addition to destabilizing in nuclear arms nation. it is a very difficult problem in that pakistan is an ally but
it acts in ways that don't seem very much like an ally. we continue to struggle, quite frankly, with how to get the right mix and inducements and had to get leverage on pakistan to change this behavior. the u.s. knows what needs to happen that making it happen is unfortunately quite difficult. the pakistanis their own strategic considerations which the two countries do not necessarily share. that is the unfortunate truth of the matter. host: is the u.s. talking to the hakani network are talking through the pakistani government to the hakani network? guest: the hakanis set last week that the u.s. has attempted to make contact articl. the question is whether the u.s. will talk to different insurgent forces or talk to the pakistanis. the