tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 5, 2012 7:00am-10:00am EDT
"washington journal" mark azande will discuss the jobs report. we will then talk with the judy lichtman. we will also get a preview of today's recall election in wisconsin plus your e-mails, calls mails tweets. >> good morning and welcome to washington journal. the senate votes on the paycheck 5, 2012. voters will go to the polls in six states including california, new jersey, and mexico, where
primary candidates are competing for jeff bingaman and wisconsin voters will decide whether to replace scott walker with tom barrett president obama was joined by former president bill clinton for a fundraiser last night, endorsing him, saying that he should stay in office and not be replaced in the fall here's your chance to say what you think about his endorsement how you feel about campaign 2012 here are the numbers to call. you can also find us online on
whether or not it brings some strength to the obama campaign. it says -- .hat's the washington post how much does that influence you? , former president bill clinton campaigning for president obama. david mark is joining us from "politico" on the phone. how are the polls reading and what is at stake?
guest: it has been over a year since scott walker took on collective bargaining rights in wisconsin, which made a lot of unions, stall where democrats, became angry. his opponents were able to get enough signatures to force a recall election. at is what we are seeing. host: there's a question about how much effort has been poured into this race, how much nationally democrats, republicans, and special- interest groups are contributing. guest: donations are coming largely from groups that one might expect to give in this kind of election. for governor walker on the republican side it is the coen brothers, largely republican groups. -- koch brothers. on the democratic side is mostly union groups. that is who really drove this
election in the first place. it was not the mainstream democratic establishment or the obama white house for the state democratic party. it was unions upset by these policies. that is what led to mayor tom barrett, the democratic candidate, being behind in the polls. host: we are looking at the front page of the green bay press, courtesy of the newseum. we have heard that there will be witnesses on the scene to make sure everything is above board. guest: both sides have an army of lawyers out there ready to go after anything they see that's inconsistent with fair voting. both sides are expecting a very tight out,. outcome.--
either side has said this could lead to a recount. both sides are bracing for a lot of folks to come out to the polls who might not normally be involved in politics. whether on the democratic is firefighters or police. theyou in munion members on republican side perhaps. howl be fascinating to see w it turns out. host: so few sitting governors have faced a recall. how does this work if scott walker is recalled and tom barrett wins, how quickly it would walker have to vacate office? weeks.uest: a matter of is, both would have to be certified officially. if california governor gray davis was recalled nine years ago if. it took four weeks or five
weeks for his replacement, arnold schwarzenegger, a republican, to take office. in wisconsin it's a little different. if governor walker is defeated, mayor tom barrett gets into office. but in california it was a slightly different procedure. you would see a relatively quick turnaround. it is interesting that governor walker was able to be on the ballot for recall relatively quickly into his term. he is been in office less than two years and is already facing a recall. that is much sooner than many other states. host: the governor is not the only one facing a recall vote in wisconsin. other names up for grabs. lieutenant governor's slot and three gop state senators. what could happen even if governor walker retains his seat? are we looking at potentially a shift in power in the wisconsin legislature? guest: that is an interesting question. many scenarios could play out there. the lieutenant governor's race has not gotten nearly enough
attention. that is a race where the activists on either side really have a big say, probably larger the governor. it has not got as much notice. if you target the right way, you probably affect the outcome. it is plausible governor walker could stay in office as governor, but the democratic challenger could defeat his own lieutenant governor carol so you could never republican governor and a democratic lieutenant governor or vice versa if. you could have mayor tom barrett to win the recall and the republican lieutenant governor stay in office. then there's the state senate races, democrats are already tried a bunch of state senate's and other recalls to mixed success. they have been able to defeat some sitting republican state senators but they have lost other races including the state supreme court is just as races. democrats have a mixed bag. it is going to be a tough night for them to sweep all the greater -- all the way through.
host: in new jersey there's a sitting congressman facing a challenge. guest: this is the type of scenario that we see once a decade after the redistricting battle. in this case, the map was redrawn and we see two longtime democratic incumbent congressman. facing off against steve r othman. they were close political allies for many years. that friendship only goes so far, as often happens in politics. they chose to run against each other. they could have run in an adjoining districts. but they both thought they had the best chance here. we are seeing personal attacks. some of it is on middle east policy, on age differences between the two. it has gotten quite dirty and
nasty. host: california democratic primary, two representatives facing off as well. guest: we have a member versus member contest. representative brad sherman is facing off against howard berman. it is in suburban los angeles in the sacramento valley. it is a primary system in which the two top finishers will face each other again in november. it is quite possible these two candidates are not finished with each other. five months from now they will be running against each other again. neither will really claim victory tonight unless one of them gets an out and out majority, 50% + one, in which they would become the nominee, but that seems unlikely. host: david mark, thanks for talking with us. we are talking with you this morning about presidential endorsements. former president's stepping up and supporting campaigns, even
going on the road with them. how significant is that you? when you're about an endorsement of george h. walker bush or george w. bush endorsing romney or when you see bill clinton supporting president obama, does it affect you? let's hear from a caller in las vegas. caller: good morning. i don't like the idea because it can cloud a current president's record. at the same time, it can help his record. coming from previous president bill clinton, before george w. bush had a very good record and backing obama, so it could be in 50-50. he on romney's side, if tours the country with george w. bush, he might as well and i've been run for president, because george w. bush still has a very negative rating around not just
our country but around the world. . that's a host: let's hear from a republican. john is in new york city. caller: first, i want to say that i registered as a republican only so that i could vote in the primary for ron paul. presidential endorsements are great. they provide [unintelligible] i was a little confused about what i thought about romney, thinking that he would be a better candidate than he is. the endorsement of george bush sr. or george bush jr. is helpful information -- is not helpful information to me. i don't think either of them were great presidents, so that helps me make a decision on. on my vote.
host: our next call is from tennessee. i think people have made up their minds already. if president bush were sitting with his father giving the endorsement, that would make a bigger impact. i think people have already pretty much made up their minds. the economy, immigration, and some situations as far as trying to get america back employed again, that is what a candidate needs to do to prove himself better. wites on twitter, mike ri -- -- writes -- george's on our independent line in florida.
caller: the endorsement of naked self-interest, the ability to have a propaganda campaign cheapens politics in general. the endorsements of past presidents are containable. they don't try to infect the whole body politick with a separate philosophy and all this stuff. clinton's endorsement of obama was important in that it kept the chattering classes from doing their little backbiting and vicious rumors. but independent voters also have independent mines and no endorsement by a single past political figure overrules and thinking independent's ability to analyze the issues. have a great day. host: here's a story from npr.
bill clinton campaigns as obama's number one surrogate. so let's hear from another democrat. jonathan is in arkansas. does it matter to you what president clinton says about current president obama? caller: yes, it does, because a lot of people forget that clinton was a great president. during his time there was a little war, but there was more
peace and prosperity and people working together to get the economy and the american people back. back. with him standing beside barack obama, it's a great thing. it is something to open people's eyes and to realize that we need to accomplish something. that's my final thought. thank you. host: wisconsin, eric is an independent college. i think we lost him. let's go to south carolina, peggy is a democrat. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about presidential endorsements? caller: it is an excellent idea that president obama and former president clinton are running together, because we need some shrewdness and some understanding and a better explanation on how the country will be run. i think that's a very, very good
combination. i wish the two could run together as. president and as. as president and vice president. host: a stweet. don is on the line. caller: the biggest concern i have is the electorate. us citizens will have to learn that there is a man behind the curtain in either sparty supporting them with money. when you are electing the republicans, you are electing the koch brothers and these are the ones who will want special
favors. host: this is a new york city fund-raiser for president obama. [video clip] >> his opponent, said that he has a better idea, was the governor of a state that was 47 in the country in job growth, he promised that if he was elected, he would grow the economy and reduce the debt. but when he left office, the debt had gone up. and his plan is to go back to the bush program, except on steroids. [laughter] cut out everything that helps middle class people and helps poor people work their way to the middle class, and all the nonpartisan analyses say the every republican plan, including the nominee for the president's plan, would add $1 trillion to $2 trillion to what the debt will be if we don't do anything.
all the objective plans say that if the president's plan were implemented, it would reduce the debt by several dollars trillion over what it would be if we don't anything. but he has the order right, president obama does. growth now and restraint later. the romney republican plan is austerity and more unemployment now and blow the lid off later just at a time when we worry about high interest rates. what's the difference? shared prosperity vs continued austerity and high unemployment. a politics of cooperation versus constant conflict and divide and conquer. host: that was former president clinton last night at a fund- raiser for president obama. we are talking about how much you weigh the endorsement of former presidents in campaign 2012. here are some comments on facebook --
linda says -- edwin says -- let's hear what you have to say. louisiana, gilda joins us on the democratic line. caller: hi, how are you? i am just hoping that we can get some understanding and know that we'd better try and do the right thing, because the republicans, if mitt romney is using bush as an endorser, i don't want to be anywhere around, because i wonder what war will break
out next. host: let's look at a story in the washington post talking about his endorsement of romney as a candidate. this is from mid may. john is in independent caller from indianapolis, indiana. caller: first of all, you look fantastic today. and it does make a difference. romney is smart. he does not have bush with him. he knows that he would not get
reelected then. times were not good during george w. bush. l he created were mcdonald's jobs, except for his friends. host: george bush was at the white house last week for the unveiling of his and his wife's portraits. the article says -- north carolina, ricky, a republican. i think we lost him. let's move on to st. louis,
missouri, dane on the democratic line good morni. caller: good morning. i don't think it matters. republican blowback of republicans and democrats will back a democratic. host: what about when they -- a republican will support a republican. the democrats will think their way and the republicans will think their way. that is just partisan politics. that's just the way it is. host: let's go to harvest, alabama. william is a republican. caller: hi. tooon't think it matters much what clinton says, his
endorsements. if i want to know what clinton thinks, i will go ask the neighborhood pervert. host: i don't know what that has to do with what we are talking about the. we're talking about former presidents, their influence in campaign 2012, much to listen to what they say and how much it matters to you to hear what they say or see them on the campaign trail. national, tennessee, on the line. caller: clinton needs to follow the example of george washington, who consciously followed the example set by the generals. he needs to realize it's over. he needs to get off the stage and go home. host: are you a democrat, linda? caller: you bet. host: why do you feel that way?
caller: the problem with clinton is that it's not over. the second act is hillary. is the reason i did not vote for hillary clinton. i don't think these family dynasties, including specifically the bush dynasty, are healthy for this country. it's very wise when a previous ruler does not try to keep himself in the game and fool around with current politics. host: do you admire what george w. bush is doing right now? caller: i do. he told charming jokes. he did not try to be a player. he just told charming jokes. johnson stayed off the stage. you can play in the background, but don't try to play in the foreground. i saw the news conference from
2010 where obama introduces clinton and clinton gets up there and economic and offstage. he kept talking and talking and it started to look like daddy had arrived. i'm sorry, it's over, bill clinton. i am sorry that you had your republican congress and screwed things up with monica lewinsky and that you did not know as much and then as you know now, but it's over. go home. host: let's look at a story about hillary for president. this is in the washington post --
harry is a republican in springfield, illinois. caller: good morning. i don't think it will make a lot of difference. but will look at what president obama wh has done president obamao is campaigning for him. he is quite different from clinton. clinton moved to the middle. he was willing to work with the other side. he got a lot of things done. president obama wants things his way. . that's my host: how much does it matter to you as a republican to see former president george w. bush and george h. w. bush endorsing mitt romney but not on the campaign trail? caller: you know they are going to do that. this protocol. host: let's look at what bill has to say on twitter --
when we crunched the numbers to see how influential it was to have bill clinton on the campaign trail endorsing president obama, it says there's quite a bit of money at stake. this story in the washington post looks at how much money is at stake. among wilson, north carolina, james on the democratic line. caller: good morning. former presidents do matter.
you've got people sitting in congress right now doing all they can mess up the economy. when things could get better n, better no -- when things could get better, they vote no on everything. host: a comment on twitter -- you can tweet in your comments and we will share that on the air. on our independent line in florida - caller: i don't agree with the callers who say it does not matter if previous presidents are working for you -- or
standing up for you. i think president clinton did a good job in talking about the situation in the congress and also with president obama, who has tried from the beginning to do a job and is met with constant blockage from the congress. i think this is typical. the republicans are not going to give up until they get what they want. unfortunately, this country cannot afford a republican majority in the congress, because we are already on the brink of disaster. and there's nothing else to get from this country. so i feel that obama has to work very hard. anyone who wants to work with him like clinton is a blessing. i will definitely vote for obama. thank you. host: north carolina, jerry is a
republican caller. good morning. caller: hello. going back to the other caller, if she had learned any facts, she would seem all the democrats want to do is spend more money and that's why the republicans are voting no, so we don't go into more of a national disaster. host: what do you think about former president's stepping up? caller: i do feel they should endorse each other. if past presidents would not endorse, people would not see their opinions. host: what does it mean for your vote? caller: it does not affect me, because i get informed. i see all the facts from both sides. host: are you watching which
republicans are endorsing romney? caller: i do, but it has no effect on me. i did not like george bush. i learned after the fact, some of the facts on some of the bills he did pass. kind of like obama. passing bills just to spend money. host: on twitter -- in tennessee, linda is on the democratic line. welcome. caller: good morning. i don't think it makes a bit of difference. i just don't. [unintelligible] host: do you think it matters in terms of raising money and getting more attention for a campaign?
caller: not really. from here's what dw writes seattle over e-mail -- blake, california, market joins us on the republican line. good morning -- mark. caller: i think it makes a tremendous difference because, i think, with vice-president gore, when he was running for president, if he would have not distance himself from president clinton so much, he would have won the presidency. i think that president clinton makes a big difference and will make a big difference for the
obama campaign with his endorsement. some former presidents carry more weight and more credibility. president clinton cares a lot of credibility as a democratic former president. i don't know how much former president bush will help with candidate mitt romney. that's my opinion. host: how does that translate for mitt romney? where do you go in looking for endorsements and support from the republican side? caller: i think it is the level of endorsement and how much he would actually interact with his campaign and speak. you have a higher level of endorsement from president clinton than president bush has towards mitt romney. host: let's hear from manchester, new hampshire.
john is on the democratic line. caller: how are you? i just wanted to say it, with all the adversity is president obama has faced and what he's been able to accomplish is amazing. i would have to say that he is putting the money in education. a lot of people are lazy and don't want to work. that's the sad part. people are getting handed everything. [inaudible] host: we have a little trouble with the connection, but we got the gist of what you were saying. let's move on to fred in bedford, pennsylvania, on our independent line. we're talking about the role of
former presidents in campaign 2012, how much their support matters. caller: i think it is just the status quo, maintaining the two- party system. each former candidate uses his drawing power, especially when it comes to presidents, to try theeep people whwithin democratic and republican lines. we the people do not elect a president. the president is elected. by elected. the races that we should be involved in are the congressional races. we need to get a whole bunch of new people in. -- the president is elected by the electorate. the wisconsin recall vote is evidence that the status quo system is not working any more. it is getting pretty desperate as far as the two-party system.
15 need something, there's $15 trillion reasons not to keep this going on. host: let's look at a story that came over the wires a little while ago, looking at the role of george w. bush in the romney campaign. the bush fatigue that was a drag on john mccain four years ago and on the country still lingers, including among republicans. while bush's standing has improved since he left office in january 2009, he remains a polarizing political figure. ronnie's aides fear bush's status could hurt the new republican standard bearer in battleground states like ohio, michigan, and wisconsin, even though bush could enterprienerge
party faithful and raise money in some parts of the country. now to a republican in washington, cameron. caller: i have a comment about former presidents speaking, but i want to comment on the concept of independence. you have an independent line, which is great. all the years i have been paying attention to politics, it's a binary system. if ross perot would have run as a republican, he would've been elected a. because he ran as an independent, bill clinton was elected. clinton never would've been elected under other circumstances. there's an article two years ago that congressman tom pence wrote. it was an article that described what the original goal of the presidency was and what it is today. the presidency really is not supposed to be someone that
stands at a podium and speaks about what the american people should be doing. he or she should be a guard for what legislation is passed that is unconstitutional and simply veto it. if it were a conservative president that had a democratic house and senate, would ever the past should be passed unless it is unconstitutional. ost: how does that relate -to modern-day in the bowl former presidents should play in the campaign trail? caller: the role of the president today being a mouthpiece is out of context. the article explains it. the president should be in the background as the commander-in- chief of the troops and a political figurehead, but when it comes to domestic issues, the president should not speak about it. i don't think the president should be looked upon as a ceo. he is just there to veto
legislation that is unconstitutional. host: george h. w. bush endorsed governor romney for president months ago. we have been watching footage of that. from that here's a story from abc -- he said it's time for the parties to get behind governor romney. this is looking at how george herbert walker bush weighed in on this and by his side is the former first lady barbara bush. romney was in texas to raise money and accepted the endorsement. the piece says during the meeting, romney was asked whether he met with former president george w., w. who had not yet endorsed governor romney, and he said i have not
a story from the romney camp -- in los angeles, mark is on the democratic line. caller: hi, libby. bill clinton is a great campaigner and a great speaker, but that will not change what obama's record is. the facts are there. look at obama's record. out of control spending, wasteful spending, terrible credit ratings, and employment above 8%, $5 trillion added to our debt.
the facts are there. this has been a failed presidency. on november 6, i will vote for mitt romney. i am a democrat, but i will vote for mitt romney, because i feel that his business experience will definitely get this economy going and get it back. on back host: how much do the endorsements matter to you? caller: i don't think it matters at all. the facts are there. voters will be looking at this president's record. i think endorsements. are endorsements. host: lawrence writes -- in california, josie is a republican caller. caller: good morning. i was thinking about it. think of the time when president
clinton looked straight at the camera to us citizens and duringent bush's look the 9/11 attacks, the love of president bush at that time you could feel for our country and the lie we had just gone through with president clinton, it is such a big thing in my mind. i was a former democrat. i am now voting republican and so are 27 of my relatives. so i am for governor romney for the election. host: since you have such strong feelings about president george dubbed the bush, you feel like he showed a lot of compassion after 9/11, if you want to see him on the campaign trail? caller: my goodness, yes.
the look on his face in that classroom never gets out of my mind. i think he loves the united states so much. i do feel very confident with him. host: now to a democratic caller in detroit. good morning. caller: how are you? my comment is about the two- party system. we have not had a decent president in office since president kennedy. i am neither for obama or romney. the only hope we have for this country is congressman ron paul. host: is congressman ron paul -- if he endorsed someone and he is still in the campaign in the sense the plans to go all the way to tampa even though he's not doing active campaigning, but if he endorses or throws his
weight behind someone, does that matter to you? caller: yes, it does. host: more so than other members of congress? caller: i would still not vote for obama or romney. money cannot be trusted. he spends more time lying to people than anything else. every time he opens his mouth, he puts his foot in it. host: even though you would respect what congressman ron paul says, it would not change your vote? caller: it would not. the same thing with obama. i believe his bailouts to the rich has jeopardized the american people. host: monty writes -- thanks for all of your calls. coming up, mark zandi will talk about the federal reserve and whether or not it should act in light of last week's jobs report and worries over a slowing
economy. later on, roundtable discussion on the paycheck fairness act that the senate is voting on today. what it means. we will hear from a supporter and someone who opposes it. we will be right back. >> over the past four year's pulitzer prize-winning author has been researching and writing his 10th book on barack obama. the research include traveling the globe and speaking with the president goes to relatives in kenya and is serving his active -- african ancestry. he also toured the family homes and sites in kansas to find the origins of his mother's family. barack obama the story comes out in bookstores on june 19, but we will give you an early look with exclusive pictures and video, including our trip to kenya as we traveled with the author in
january of 2010. so join us on sunday, june 17 at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. and later at 7:30 that same night, your phone calls, e- mails, and tweets on c-span 2. >> finally on a personal note, michelle and i are grateful to the entire bush family for their guidance and their example during our own transition. george, i will always remember the gathering that he hosted for all the living former presidents before i took office, your kind words of encouragement, plus, you also left me a really good tv sports package, which i use. [laughter] >> last week, portraits of former president george dubbed the bush and first lady laura bush unveiled a white house. it was their first visit since leaving office. >> in 1914, dolly madison
famously saved this portrait of the first george w. [laughter] now, michelle, if anything man.ns, there's your [laughter] >> once the entire event online at the c-span video library. -- watch the entire event. >> "washington journal" continues. host: mark zandi is joining us from west chester, pennsylvania. guest: thanks for having me. host: there have been calls for federal action after the weak jobs report last week. the fed's main purpose is monetary policy. how does that relate to job growth? guest: the fed plays a key role in terms of the broader economy and job creation. it lowers interest rates in
times of difficulty, like the current time, to make it easier for people to borrow money, for businesses to borrow money to go out and invest and hire. takes pressure off people who borrowed money already and brings down their debts and makes it easier for them to spend. so it is key to businesses hiring people. there's lots of different ways the fed influences the economy broadly and job creation. so they're very important to the job market. host: what did you read from the jobs report last week and the economic mood in general right now domestically? guest: well, the job market has gotten considerably weaker since the beginning of the year. that was the message in the jobs report last friday. if you go back to december or january or february, the economy was creating roughly 250,000 jobs per month. in the last three months, march
through may, we have created close to 100,000 jobs. still there's job growth moving forward, but at a much slower rate. some of the slowdown is technical issues related to the weather. the winter was very warm. that increased job growth. and there is some payback. it's clear the job market has slowed. the broader economy has slowed down. lots of reasons for that, but the most significant reason at this time is what is going on in your and the problems over there having an impact on businesses hiring decisions. -- what is going on in europe and the problems over there. we have an unemployment rate of 8.2%. that is too high. the federal reserve is the one actor that could potentially make a difference soon. that is why we are talking about additional fed action, monetary
easing to get the economy moving at a faster rate. host: unemployment rate of 8.2% in may. the jobs created in april, 77,000. then we look at the unemployment insurance, initial claims, over 380,000. mark zandi, what is the biggest factor when we look at the economy? is it possible to say is it what coming from outside in europe? is it the job numbers? what is the fed was looking at when it looks at the bellwethers? guest: at the top line level, the things they care about the most is inflation, what is the rate of inflation? that is the thing they have the most control over. and the unemployment rate. if that is a good benchmark for what is happening in the job market. they are focused on those two things. they want to make sure that inflation is about 2%.
they want that to be rock-solid 2%. not higher or lower. in regard to unemployment, they're not as explicit, but they're probably not want the unemployment rate) 5.5%. -- close to 5.5%. we are a long way from that. what they're looking at and trying to determine what will affect inflation or unemployment, there's lots of things going on. as i mentioned, the thing that is planning the biggest role at the moment, i think, that is doing the most damage is what is happening in europe. that is reverberating across the globe and affecting emerging economies like china. all that impacts us. that is the thing government officials most worry about, and rightly so. host: a recent story from the hill --
if you would like to talk with mark zandi about this, here are the numbers to call -- we've got gino on the democratic line in newport, rhode island. good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. during or after the carter administration, there were 22 million manufacturing jobs in the country. it's been reduced to half that number. 12-month in manufacturing jobs that disappeared. manufacturingllion
jobs. i have a suggestion that runs contrary to everybody's thinking. social security has a $2.50 trillion trust fund. why not reduce the retirement age to 60, paying people full benefits? i'm sure there would be a couple million people retiring. there's millions of young people out there ready to take those jobs. what do you think of that suggestion? guest: that is unorthodox. most people are thinking along the exact opposite line in terms of raising the retirement age. the social security trust fund is running into increasing difficulty as the population ages. here's an important statistic for new. the largest single age group is 53 years old. that is the teeth of the baby
boom generation. the baby boomers are starting to retire already. it is a really large group of people. they're starting to take down social security. it's putting a lot of pressure on that. and so, i'm not sure that's the direction i would go. i understand your perspective and i think you are focused on the right thing, but i don't think lowering the retirement age would help social security or the broader economy. there's other things to consider. people are in general living longer and healthier. that does not apply to every demographic group, but for many it does. so i think we need to consider that when making policy. host: in illinois, michael is on our independent line, talking with mark zandi. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment and then i would like his response. i started out in banking in the mid-1980s.
i think the marginal tax rate at that time for upper income people was either 50% or 70%. i don't know when it was reduced by reagan. i was in the top 2% of wage earners at that time. i was making over $50,000 per year at that time. the bank managers were so frightened and the owners of paying taxes that they gave the money out in bonuses and pay increases. that's why we had a vibrant economy. you've got all the money concentrated in the hands of a few and they don't borrow except maybe on a revolving line of credit for their businesses. other than that, they don't need any money. so you can lower the interest rates down to zero, if you can have them suck up all but worthless bonds in the country and i don't think it will go anywhere. what we need to do is raise the taxes and tell the business
community and the wealthy that if you put your money in jobs, then we will cut your rate. if you don't, then you can pay 70% and we will use the money on jobs programs. that's what i think. guest: very good comments. i appreciate them. there are some -- there is some research that is coming out that suggests a higher tax rates on very high-income households will not do a lot of economic damage it. i think it's fair to say that we would like to see lower tax rates for everybody, all else being equal. in fact, i think we could do that if we focus on tax expenditures in the tax code. those are the tax credits and deductions and other loopholes that reduce revenue and make the tax code a lot more complex and a lot less fair. higher benefits would ggo to
income households. so if we would reduce that, we could reduce tax rates for everybody and that would be in the best interest of the broader economy. i hear what you are saying. there is some evidence to suggest that what you are saying is true, that higher tax rates on very high-income households may not do a lot of economic damage. it would generate a lot of tax revenue. a better way would be to scale down the deductions and credits in the tax code. this would mostly hurt higher income households. from an economic perspective, that would probably be a better way to go. host: mark zandi is co-founder of moody's.com. . he's joining us to talk about fed action and what it could do in light of a weak jobs report
on friday. here's a story from bloomberg business week -- host: our guest mark zandi talked about the influence of europe on the u.s. economy. when you hear stories like this, it interprets this as to what the fed can do about that. guest: businesses need to borrow money to finance their operation, to invest and to hire people and to grow and expand.
large companies issue bonds to investors and take the money at the interest rate. in times of turmoil, there will require from the corporations a higher interest rate so the costs for borrowing rises. this is happening at the same time that interest rates for safe bonds are falling. people do not want to own a corporate bond that is risky. with the fed action, it doesn't necessarily mean that borrowing costs are going to come down. that is one reason why the federal reserve may go down this path again in the next few weeks or couple of months, to buy
treasury bonds and to buy mortgage securities. that would go to bring down mortgage rates. businesses will not -- the fed will not go out and buy corporate bonds. the hope is it will take some of the pressure off of corporate rates. that is a complex answer. what options does the fed have? do you have an expectation of what might come out of the meeting? u.s. a sense of the tone of the discussions -- give us a sense of the tone of the discussions. guest: unemployment is still very high.
the rate of inflation is now below their target of 2%. they are focused on the turmoil in financial markets and what is going on in europe. they are probably thinking of easing monetary policy some more. the interest rate they directly control is at zero. they cannot lower that any further. they have to think about doing other things. they can buy mortgage securities. they will probably be engaged in some more bond purchases. there will try to get mortgage rates down. this is a committee. you have lots of powerful, smart people with different perspectives.
you have a group on this committee who is not interested in these alternative approaches of buying treasury bonds and mortgage securities. i am sure there will be a fair amount of contention at the meeting. i think chairman bernanke will win the day in buying mortgage securities. mortgage rates are at record lows. that is as low rate that there has ever been and it is likely to go lower. host: mark is a republican in albany. caller: good morning. with regard to the fed policy and keeping interest rates low, there's been criticism of that.
i think it is advisable because you want to keep the patient alive at any cost. i do think the congress could avoid the mistake that was made in 1937. congress seems headed towards slashing spending. the stimulus was a little bad too timid. we need more in line of what paul krugman has suggested. with regard to europe, there's a possibility that there will be runs on the banks in europe and contagion could occur. i wonder if you could get your perspective to that. unlike some per special -- i would like some professional
perspective on that. guest: in regard to greece and the deposit runs, there is a lot of nervousness among the greek population. if greece leaves, their banks would collapse. that becomes self-fulfilling if they continue to pull money out. banks will fail. this is happening in other parts of europe, most notably in spain. there are deposit runs in spain. a key response is some kind of european-wide solution to the banking problem. they need to be able to have a
deposit insurance fund like we have with the fdic. they need a european-wide deposit insurance fund to give people confidence that their money is safe and they do not need to pull that money out. the europeans need an approach to the banks in europe that are troubled, having trouble with troubled loans. they need more capital. the government took equity in the banks and provide it big banks with capital to the tarp funds, which at the end of the day was highly successful in stabilizing our banks and think they need to do that. they do have bailout funds. they have to figure out a way to use it.
if they do those things, then i think the bank runs will anend and they will keep it together. host: mark zandi, a question -- guest: go ahead. a question about fiscal stimulus. we can talk about anything you want. the phillies lost to the dodgers. host: we will not talk about that. guest: all right. that is a good question. the debate is about more stimulus. it is about really -- reducing the fiscal drag that will hit
in full force early next year. government spending is declining quite sharply. this is a heavy weight on the economy. that weight will grow every year. under sequestration, that will be agree to to raise the treasury debt. a large number of spending cuts, about $100 billion in additional cuts in 2013. that will be difficult for the economy to digest. the bush-era tax cuts are going to expire. there is a fiscal cliff. it will be impossible to get to the other side of that gracefully. congress, the administration,
they're going to have to reduce the cliff. that is not more stimulus. that is reducing the drag so that it makes a more easier to navigate. i think that is necessary to do. otherwise, we will be in a world of hurt. host: we are talking about the fed and the fiscal cliff that congress is facing. mark zandi wrote a book. latestake a look at the mortgage and interest rates. the prime rate, up 3.25%. this is so low. how do you see this coming into play?
how much lower can interest rates go? guest: the impact of loan mortgage rates is important and significant. one is refinancing. people can lower the current rate on their mortgage rate. refinancing is up sharply. people should be asking themselves if they should refinance. host: how does that stimulate the economy? guest: it does help the economy because it lowers their monthly payments. if you have the rate of 5.5% annual and lower it to 4%, you can save a up to $200 a month
and that money goes to paying bills and college tuition and to savings. that is a big boost to the economy. host: we are looking at the average of 30 year fixed rate. guest: it also helps in terms of helping the housing market. things are starting to turn around. the key to a better economy is getting the housing market moving north. lower mortgage rates will be a big part of that. the e-mailed did ask if rates will go lower. very likely yes in the near term. we will not stay here for very long. we may be here for the next six or 12 months. these are incredibly attractive
rates and we probably will not see these rates in our lifetime. host: a call from new orleans. caller: i have a few questions. what caused our economy to be in a decline? who creates jobs? what infrastructure spending help? is is part of a ploy to derail president obama's presidency? guest: one could write a book to answer those questions. those are a good set of questions. i have another book coming out in september called "paying the price."
trying to hit your questions. we got into this mess because we made millions of bad loans. our financial system failed us. we messed up. we made a lot of bad loans. they did not get repaid. it took the financial system to its knees. tepped in -- i saved i mentioned tarp earlier. in a lot of banks were not lending. -- a lot of banks were not lending. we are still struggling. we have made progress. it was a deep hole.
it was a near-death experience for lots of business people. businesses were on the edge of ice.present thcip that affects people's behavior. if anything goes wrong in the world -- europe is a good case in point. if anything goes off script, it causes business people to hold back and stop hiring. what is happened is business is a freeze. they say there will not hire somebody this month they will hire an next month. to get out of that? it requires a reasonably good
policymaking in the emerging world, particularly china, and here in the united states. for fiscal policy makers, given the politics that there will not do anything before the election -- they can signal to us that they will be able to work together in a reasonably graceful way and solve this problem, that there will not use the treasury debt ceiling as a source of brinksmanship. we need a signal that they can get it together, a modicum level of mutual respect and i think we'll be fine. caller: i am a little nervous. it seems like there is too much entertainment and people are not understanding and not being
taught history. the federal reserve are the same international bankers that funded hitler. they find both sides of the problem. prescott bush and the bush family were immigrants that came to this country that basically funded hitler back then. we have this problem with george w. bush giving the power to the international corporations and the cfr, which is the council on foreign relations. bacon power up the world bank and create world order. -- so they can power up the world bank. host: let's get a response from mark zandi. guest: i think the people who
work in the reserve pending government in general are honorable people. i think they worked incredibly hard. they are very well intentioned. they listen very carefully to what their constituents are saying and asking. they tried to respond to that. i think very highly of our public servants and i think they are very well intentioned. i did not describe anything than their desire to see a strong u.s. economy to their motivations and to their actions. host: hunter is a republican caller. caller: good morning, mr. zandi. why don't more economists advocate for more non-debt- producing stimulus sources such
as the territorial treatment of the profits of international corporations and the keystone pipeline? i do not see why that would stop economists from advocating that path. it seems like the path that we get are the debt-producing path where the non-debt-producing paths are just in the claus oset. guest: you make a good point. i think there is support for some of the things that you propose. you brought territorial taxation. that is part of a broader debate. there is a great deal of bipartisan support for the need for corporate tax reform.
that goes back to reducing some of the loopholes in the tax code and using what revenue you generate to bring down tax rates for all businesses of all kinds. the territorial debate is part of that. i'm optimistic we'll get corporate tax reform. the xl pipeline is another good case in point. there is general agreement that will need to develop all of our energy sources. with that specific case, you need to consider the environmental costs. when you say debt-free, it is a matter of free iraq what all the costs and benefits are -- it is a matter of figuring out what
all the costs and the benefits are. i would mention that we could focus on is infrastructure spending but finance it now with government debt but have the government team up with private capital. if the government can provide subsidies to write catastrophic backstop to some of these projects, we could probably get a lot of infrastructure done. infrastructure makes all businesses more competitive and employs lots of people. everyone agrees that our infrastructure could use the help. there are lots of ideas like that that we need to work on.
all these things we're talking about, they do not reap benefits quickly. it is something two or three years down the road. host: we have a tweet from cspanjnky. guest: well, one thing i've learned about chairman bernanke is that he is never in a box. he is incredibly creative and busts through all the barriers that are there. he figures out a way to respond creatively, aggressively, and reasonably effectively.
it would be nice if interest rates were higher because of a better economy and he could lure them. that promotes most juice to the economy. i do not think he is in a box. there are other things he could do that could be quite effective. host: ben bernanke goes before congress on thursday. what do you expect him to say? guest: that the economy is tough. it is difficulty. the unemployment rate is 8.2%. there is turmoil in europe. he is willing to use more monetary easings if conditions
warrant. the other thing he will probably reiterate is that fiscal policy makers really do need to start thinking about the fiscal cliff and what to do about it. if we go over the cliff, the economy will be in big trouble. he will make a strong point that the folks in congress need to act. they need to be thinking about this so after the election they can act aggressively and quickly. host: ted from oregon. caller: good morning. i have been watching the movers and shakers since the recession
started. my first question would be the glass-steagall rule versus the dodd-frank and the old rule. -- and the volcker rule. which would bring us back to the fiscal responsibility of the money changers. i find it shocking that the glass-steagall that works so well for so many years was byealed in the late 1990's phil gramm. i want to know when you think is trigger or why he would want that taken off the books. i will take your answer offline. guest: thank you for the good question. my sense is there is no going back to the era of glass-
steagall. glass-steagall was passed in the great depression in the 1930's that broke apart commercial banks, the plain vanilla lending from investment banks are folks on wall street that issue stocks and bonds and trade and do a lot of proprietary trading. i don't think there's any going back. we're now in a global financial system. our financial institutions are competing with large institutions all over the planet. canadian banks, for example. they are very large and are entering into our market place. the chinese banks are large lenders here. i do not think if they were
downsize would be able to compete. there would probably be acquired by the large institutions and we will lose control. and in at the end of the day if we cut our banks down to bite size, it doesn't mean that the risk is going away. it is still there. it will be shoved out to other parts of the system where it is last transparent. in my view, we're not going back. we have this system. i think dodd-frank makes it work better. it is not perfect. in its totality is a pretty good piece of legislation. bottom line -- it doesn't mean we will not have financial
crises in the future. we always will. i think it will make future financial crises less severe and less likely that we'll go through -- host: we lost mark zandi. we lost our satellite feed. thank you to mark zandi for joining us this morning. he has a new book coming out in september. he's the chief economist for moody's analytics. you can find more research there. for this segment. next up, we'll of a round table on the paycheck fairness act. then we'll take your calls and
look at a new poll if the supreme court overturns the health care law. >> syria says damascus is expelling western diplomats including ambassadors from the united states, britain, and france. there was an expulsion of syrian diplomats last week after more than 100 civilians were killed. u.s. drone attacks continued near pakistan's border. u.s. officials say they're optimistic that the attack was successful. residents say a key al qaeda figure was hit in a house.
eight general has been replace -- a general has been replaced. a general metacomet and a conference in florida -- a general made a comment at a conference in florida. [video clip] >> finally on a personal note, michelle and i are grateful to the entire bush family for their guidance and their example during our own transition. george, i will always remember the gathering you hosted for all the living former presidents before i took office, your kind words of encouragement, plus, you also left me a really good tv sports package. [laughter] i use it. [laughter] >> last week, portraits of former president george w. bush and first lady laura bush
unveiled at the white house. it was their first visit since leaving office. >> as fred mentioned, in 1914, dolly madison famously saved this portrait of the first george w. [laughter] now, michelle -- [laughter] if anything happens -- [laughter] there's your man. [laughter] >> watch the entire event online at the c-span video library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are looking at the paycheck fairness act. aet's go to pete kasperowicz, staff writer for "the hill." guest: what you'll see is a procedural vote which democrats have raised.
the bill would make a few changes to some laws. if you're a woman and think you're underpaid and ask around about what other people leaearn you might get in trouble. this bill would change that. it would set up a process of requiring companies to share information about what they pay people for the government. democrats wanted to push a new law to protect women in the workforce. host: we heard majority leader floor yesterday. the white house even placed a call and president obama got new line himself. they are out front and center on this. we have not heard much from
republicans. this is playing out politically. when things are important and they need to get them, there is a little more cooperation. this bill seems to be coming up in a different way. democrats seem to know that it will fail because republicans will vote against it. with more important bills, you see more cooperation. the democrats will say, republicans do not care about women. republicans will probably say that democrats do not care about what they do to companies. generally republicans have a tougher time talking about it. it is one of those titles which is a hard thing to argue against.
host: take us through the laws that are already on the books. where does that law leave off? guest: that is one thing that republicans are saying that makes this political. it made easier to raise complaints about pay. they said you could do that by the end of every paycheck. as opposed to when you first get a job offer with a salary. democrats were saying that, "we solved that problem." they are saying, "we did this, we did this." the democrat bill would make some changes. it would strengthen the law for
women. i think it is playing out mostly political. host: there were a couple of key members like susan collins of maine, ... no of maine. -- olympia snowe of maine. guest: i have not heard that there are a few crossovers. there cannot be that many. there are 43 republicans. more than that. there may be one or two. host: pete kasperowicz is tracking the vote. we will see the senate way ieign
on the paycheck fairness act. thank you for joining us. we have judith lichtman and sabrina schaeffer. thank you for coming in. judy you support the law. women earn 70 cents for every dollar that a man earns. guest: if we hold constant all kinds of choices like education and occupation, it still remains a very significant wage gap. that wage gap sadly in this day and age in the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century is a direct result of sex discrimination and there is
no getting around it. you cannot wish it away. the wage gap is a present-day manifestation of sex discrimination. it is sad that we're arguing about whether it is a political fight. it should be a bipartisan leadership effort by everybody to address the vestiges of a very significant wage discrimination against women. host: these are the numbers according to the white house. sabrina schaeffer, why do you think there is a difference? guest: i think those numbers are highly exaggerated. many women -- there was a great study out of harvard.
women are looking more at job satisfaction after school. those things do have impact on your salary and earnings potential. the wage gap shrinks to almost nothing. we need to be careful not to assume that the workplace is so hostile towards women. women have a lot of control of the choices they are making in their lives. host: if you would like to join the conversation, here are the phone calls to call. if you're a woman in the workplace, 202-628-0184. republican, 202-737-0001. democrat, 202-737-0002. independent, 202-628-0205. the line for working women, 202-
628-0184. what is the most important part of the paycheck fairness act? guest: unlike today, it will allow women who fear that they are being discriminated against to reveal their own pay by to ask questions of their employers free of retaliation. host: what is the climate in the workplace now? guest: we know from the example of ledbetter that she had no idea that she was being discriminated against in wages. she was being paid then her peers and being paid less than the man that she trained. asking questions about pay was
forbidden. she found out about it after being discriminated for decades after somebody put a note informer her. locker and the economic consequences to her and her family and to millions of women just like her are not inconsequential and are not about choices. we have a strong disagreement about what the facts are. if you look at totally neutral u.s. census reports, controlling for education, occupational choices, family choices, you still get less than eight significant wage gap and not talk it away by any other measure than sex discrimination. guest: it makes it easier for
people to file class-action lawsuits. that will be a tremendous cost on businesses. it will make it much more expensive to hire women and have a dramatic effect on men's salaries to get bonuses. that shouldn't be that we're pitting one sacks against the other -- that should be that sex againsttting one the other. guest: it says that you cannot equalize women's wages by hurting man's wages. you have to top up. in no way would man's wages be heurt. in no way is saying the sky is
falling is useful. i hope employers do the right thing by their women employee s. work, everybodythe wor had a button that said 59 cents with the international no sign. almost 40 years later, and 18- cent closure of that gap. senators will decide whether to support the women in their states should not be wearing buttons that say 77 cents. that's what this bill does. there is a wage gap dude to sex discrimination.
host: do you think there is enough conversation about what you earn and what your male colleagues earn? guest: every business is going to be different. things are going to be much more standardized. it will be more difficult to tie compensation to work product. people may be willing to take a lower salary if it means they get to leave early or work from home. these are things that will be harder to have with a law like this. host: let's look at the details of the paycheck fairness act.
host: let's get to the phones and hear from claudia, a worker herself in falls church, virginia. caller: i did not think the government has any business in getting into what companies are going to pay people. i think it is a decision that companies need to make for themselves. discrimination is illegal. some women may be underpaid. there may be some conscious by ed that happen sometimes in the workplace there may be some conscience by it. host: do you know how your
salary compares to that of your male colleagues? caller: at my level i think it is commensurate. i work in a company where it is kind of set depending on your local. i don't think it is a problem. host: would you be willing to discuss your wages with your colleagues? caller: yes. in my company they are public. guest: the whole premise of it is based on the idea that women are continually victimized and need a special protection from government rather than recognizing all the way in which women are so important for the workforce. women earn more master's degree and ph.d.'s than men.
if women are so cheap to employ, you would think we would not have men in the workforce. women are extremely valuable to businesses. we need to be careful to not talk about women as victims. host: judith lichtman. guest: i'm fascinated that sabrina speaking on behalf of independent women's forum is advocating flexibility. forum neverwomen's supported the healthy families act. none of the public policies we need in place that will allow women to be the caregivers they need to be within families and the responsible workers that they are to be put in place are
never public policies that either you or the independent women's forum have supported. i welcome your support. i urge you to come and support some of the policies we support today. i don't think this is about victimization. that is silly. we're talking about the economic consequences to families. if you're having trouble making rent payments are putting food on the table, you're not worried about being a victim. you're worried about the real world economic consequences to you and this nation. for every dollar that women are paid less than men, our economy suffers.
that is what this bill is intended to address. guest: we have 8.2% unemployment right now. we need more economic growth and more job growth. this would be a boon for trial lawyers. it will be much costlier for women. it adds layers of regulations on to businesses. it makes it much more expensive to hire women. i think this backfires and will hurt the women that it is intended to protect. host: let's get to the calls. joyce is a republican from missouri.
good morning. caller: good morning. sabrina, you made some excellent points. judith, you're painting with a broad brush. my daughter just turned down a job. with children, she did not have flexibility. also, i heard nancy pelosi on television decrying the fact that women make so much less than men when apparently most of the staffers who work for the senate and the republicans and democrats in congress make an average of 35% to 46% less compared to their male
counterparts. nancy pelosi pays her female staffers almost 46% less than male staffers. yet they get on television and spout all of this stuff. when they are not following its themselves. there are many situations with women who need flexibility and understand that their paycheck is important but their families also are a top ppriority. guest: where to begin? i have not seen all the surveys from members of congress, all 435 of them. are anlaries they poay
important element of the paycheck fairness act. i would invite sabrina and independent women's forum, let's do a study of everybody in the senate and house, and the supporters. let's see where the wage gaps resolve. i would be interested in seeing the results. this modest bill is the next step after the lilly ledbetter bill which nearly restored the law to the way it was before and allow women access to the court should they be able to prove that they are discriminated against. what this bill does is take it
modestly a step further to enable women to take a real look at the wage discrimination that they are experiencing and the economic consequences to them and their family. from foxe's a story news reported yesterday. she may have ducked the question. she pays woman on a staff $26,000 less per year on average. go look aty let's everybody. host: do you think they have a problem? guest: of course the law should apply to them. caller: good morning. i had a comment about women and
choices. there are a lot of women who work at low-wage jobs that have no bargaining power at all. this bill offers critical protection. if businesses are not discriminating, there be no extra cost to them. this is a way to offer the same protection for the low-wage women. i would love to hear the response from sabrina schaeffer. guest: woman at the lower end of the pay scale are most affected in a negative way. a workplace that is open and allows employees to enter contracts freely with one another so they can best serve each other's needs. this makes it much more
restrictive. that young woman is working really hard. we would like to give her a boost in salary. but everything will have to be public. it makes it much harder to justify things. that is one of our major concerns. for women at the top of the economic ladder, they have more experience and more education. the same is not true for the lower levels. host: could workplaces get hamstrung by some money legislation? guest: my reaction is that from president reagan -- "here you go again."
rd.t is plain upsurg we have not stifled of entrepreneurship in this country by requiring equal pay. the bill is outdated. this modest piece of legislation updates the 1963 act. we have not stifled small businesses. we're not put some money regulations in place that people are not willing to start and run profitable large and small businesses. to keep saying the sky is falling is scaring people is not helpful and it is not in the interest of those low-wage workers who you say you care about and i believe you do. they need to worry about putting
food on the table and taking care of the rent. the terrible statistics of what is happening to efforts with american workers who earn 62 cents on every dollar that a man makes. or hispanic women that make 56 cents. i thought it was 52 cents for every dollar you man makes. those people did not have a choice. we have the hardest of economic decisions, caring about their kids come up for their rent and for their mortgage payment. that is the heart and the soul of this bill. guest: we found that there are bad employers that are out there.
74% of all respondents believe there is some discrimination in the workplace. everybody would have some kind of personal story. one week expose the response to what the effects of the legislation would be, support for the bill dropped dramatically. people recognize we need to open up opportunity right now, to make it easier for job creation. there is a role for government in certain things and a recent we do not want government intervention. one area where often overlooking are just those things. what can women do to help advance themselves? you have to take a seat at the table. you have to learn how to
negotiate. that doesn't mean we cannot overcome those changes and advocate better on our own without washington's help. host: john from new york o. caller: there used to be a saying called the good ole boys. they use the tools available to them to stay in power. i believe that that extends to women getting a protected status as a minority, which they are not, andusi using that too. women tennis players play two out of three sets and the men play three out of five.
they threaten to get equal pay. what happened to equal pay for equal way? they wanted it both ways. women get laws passed to choose to take time off or choose to have children. you could have 10 years with a company and the women may have been there eight years and taken two years off. guest: i am afraid the caller has his facts incorrect. the law signed provides -- of times that family and
medical leave have been used, 47% of those users are i think what i am fascinated by his bed sabrina supports a key element. she strongly supports an element of the paycheck effect betts says the government should put into place training programs to help people negotiate. there is an element of negotiation i agree with. host: chief thinks women should be more empowered to negotiate. should the government get involved with that? guest: i think women should advocate on are on behalf better but i don't think government should facilitate that.
the woman who did not have the opportunity to go to college or did not come from a family that had a role model, how does she game those skills? i would encourage cheryl sandberg's talks on this subject but i think she has some very good messages for young women working and don't realize they're not putting themselves out there. and i suspect a lot of man could learn from her lessons. we are talking about this legislation and we are thinking about that employers. we're not thinking about the need for good employers. there are many employers who want to recognize that women are such a valuable part of the work force in to make sure that we are not so focused on the l lyres that are discriminating that we don't think of the ramifications on good businesses. guest: there is nothing on this
bill that prevents good employers from continuing to be or become good employers. they can pay fair wages to men and women based on their efforts, skill, and responsibility just like the equal pay act said back in 1963. host: how'd you feel they would be penalized, good employers? guest: if you are a small hardware shop, you're in a position where you have to be able to prove why your wages are fair. you don't have the human resource capability that is the same as your box store competitor down the road. the kind of effect this could have on small business where maybe they want to give the man and the shot they raise but they are concerned that if they do that, they will be charged with discrimination, this is terrible for small business. guest: they can give that raised to a man or a woman based on
their business to necessity and productivity and merit. there is nothing in this law that prevents good business decisions from making distinctions. this bill says that you cannot discriminate based on gender. if employers want to do that, there are no longer the good employer that sabrina posits. host: let's hear from anna from alexandria, va., on our line for working women. caller: good morning. i don't know the names of the ladies because i am participating from radio. i stopped my car because i was driving. i got so worked up. by what she was saying that i just stopped my car. i have worked for 25 years in
human resources. i was consulting and doing payroll for different organizations. these organizations do discriminate. the worst offenders are women. there was a job that i had that the starting salary for women was $34,000 and the starting salary for men was $37,000. female hiring managers did it. why is it happening? they think men are head of household. that is crazy because there are lots of single parent women as heads of households.
in listening to you and you have a voice and you are talking about women, there is discrimination. is it intended? no. but it is part of society. host: how would you combat that given your experience? caller: i have never called into this kind of show. the program you are doing is fantastic. payroll people and human resource people should call and tell you and we will tell you it is true. it may be unintended but everybody discriminate whether you are a woman hiring manager or email hiring manager, we should get paid more.
host: thank you for sharing your story. sabrina schaeffer, she says this is a problem. what should be done? guest: i don't know what numbers she is looking at. i came to the defense of nancy pelosi the other day. i thought was funny this was happening. on the other hand, i know nothing about these employees. the same with the caller who i appreciate calling in but i don't know anything about who these people are and what they bring to the position and what kind of requests they have their employers. these numbers are just wrong numbers that don't tell us a whole lot. that is important when we talk about this. host: you mentioned that women make choices to take jobs and one caller talked about a woman taking a job for less pay because of better quality and
more family time. do you see a problem of employers, men and women, saying he is the head of household and he should get more money? guest: that may be a problem and i don't want to dismiss that idea that discrimination does occur. i think it will be increasingly become less of a problem as women make up more and more of the workplace and are becoming the number 1 consumers of everything from groceries to cars. businesses will realize that women are no longer residing simply in the home. host: duty lichtman? >> we know from the census status that nearly 15 million households in this country are headed by women. roughly 30% of those families are living in poverty. for those families, this is not
some little french problem for some economically privileged people. these are people who are struggling and the wage discrimination these women heads of household experience can be very real. it is not a problem that will go away and a little while because we know for four years, all we did was get 18 cents. why should we have to live 40 more years? my 8-year-old will have retired by them. before receive a wag gap clothing. e gap closing. 74% of the people you surveyed saw this problem and we differ about how to solve the problem. host: that was the independence of women survey? guest: right, if we went downstairs and asked people whether or not there was 10 man, 10 women, if we went anyplace in
this country and as people live there was wage discrimination, sabrina would agree that there is. i think we significantly differ about whether or not there is something we should do about it as a nation or whether the centaur's who will vote today should be standing with the women from the state they represent to address it to day. not to minimize it or say it is o k and it will get better. i happen to know it has been for years and 18 cents. i don't want to wait 40 more years. that is our difference. i think the pay checks standards act is a modest piece of legislation to texas to the next step after the equal pay act of 1963 to address the ongoing terrible economic insecurity that families face and that sabrina, you recognize is a
problem. guest: i am concerned there is so much emphasis on playing gender politics. the unemployment rate is 8.2%. these are numbers that we might throw around but when you are outside of the beltway and you look up at $4 per gallon gas, these are serious times. we have nancy pelosi and a president and a senate that is playing gender politics. aeronaut tackling our problems head on. americans think we are moving in the wrong problem. yet, this is what is on tap this week in the senate. i think the american people see through this. they realize that gender politics is not only bad policy but it is bad politics and bad for the future of host: the country the paycheck fairness act will come before the senate this afternoon. you can watch coverage on c-span 2. let's go to a question on twitter -
guest: certainly, it would, but it would allow -- it would prevent an employer from retaliating against that same employee if he so chose to give that. it does not require a co-worker to do so but it does allow the employee who thinks they are being discriminated against to go to their employer and ask for wage data. guest: can i answer the point about this is being just politics? i invite every single senator whatever their political party and certainly the president of the united states has spoken yesterday, as you indicated, in
support of pay checks status. we are not looking for a political fight. we are looking to pass a modest piece of legislation that addresses the real world economic problems that women experience every single day. are thethink we proponents of this legislation are creating political maelstrom. i think the opponents are and we should be clear about that. we invite their support host: we will get a set -- a response from sabrina schaeffer. guest: this is coming up in a political season in which the war on women narrative is tromping all. it is hard to say a papain is fairness act is the most important -- the paycheck fairness act is the most important piece of legislation anyone who questions government over which is in some way
attacking women? we need to be very clear this is not a modest bill and this is a very pointed political theater and we should be clear about what we're talking about. this is in no way quite as subtle as you think it is. host: from our working women line, madison, wisconsin. caller: i would like to have some background information as far as sqabrisabrina. it just floors me that someone who is a woman, who is evidently out in the work force, hills that it is ok to basically go and talk to your employer and tried to negotiate when that sometimes is not an option for some people. i would like to know a little background, if she is a single working woman, it is she
supported a households? that makes quite a bit of difference. i may single-parent. i have supported my family and have not relied on government funding in any way, shape, or form. i struggle for each paycheck to make it pay check by a paycheck. there are people that i work with, man who sit next to me doing the same job and they are getting more money per hour than i am. they are single dads, sure, they may be supporting their families as well but we are both in an equal situation. we are both trying to support our families. host: are you planning to vote today? caller: you bet i am. i would not miss it. if i could vote 10 times i would host: who will you be looking for? caller: take a guess.
i'll not be voting for scott walker. host: let's leave it there and get a response from sabrina schaeffer. you don't have to share your personal experience that i will share some of your background in the work field. you have been the director of media relations at the republican and joyce coalition and a director of the white house writers group. also a system to the former un ambassador at the american enterprise institute. guest: thank-you, i am sorry to hear that the caller is facing was she seems to think is perhaps discrimination in her work place. i don't know anything about her or her melt counterpart. it is hard for me to comment on specifics. i don't disagree that there are bad employers out there. i think we just have to be careful that when we pass legislation like this that we
don't ignore the good employers. for women like herself, you will benefit if you have the flexibility to go to your employer and ask if they realize you are a single mom and i need more money and flexibility. how can we worked things out of that would fit our needs? laws like this come between that and make it hard for women like herself to negotiate something that fit your lifestyle more appropriately. host:sabrina schaeeferr and we have also been hearing with judy lichtman. she is the first paid staff person that they women's legal defense fund. she was a legal adviser to the commonwealth of puerto rico. let's hear from becky on our
democrats line from louisville, ky. caller: bear with me, i have a couple of comments. i am not working right now. i retired but i've worked with one job for the government's and there were six employees in our section and two of them were guys and the rest of them were women. i had a college education and there was one guy that just had a high-school education. he was two grades above us and we did double the work. that he did. it was like he was never at his desk. when it came to bonuses or anything like that, it seemed like the women never received. we got a cert telling us how great we were, you know.
but when it came to a bonus or anything like that, we never received anything. if we did, it would be $25 or something like that where the other employees would receive $500-$1,000 in a bonus. another employer, it was the san widen same way. the man got paid more. host: did you feel you could change that by talking to your boss? caller: no, because working with the government -- it was the veterans administration. it was not here in louisville but it was in another state, cincinnati, ohio. that was one thing that you could not bring. host: thank you for sharing your story. guest:sabrina talked about this
being nothing more than political theater. i thought i would bring this back to a little bit of reality. it is the wage gap -- if the wage gap or eliminated and women were working full time year round, they would have enough money for 92 more weeks of food, 1.8 years worth. seven more months of mortgage and utility payments. 13 more months of rent. 35 more months of family health insurance premiums. 2007 after 51 additional gallons of gas. this is not political theater. the paycheck fairness is a really quite sensible piece of legislation which is the next step from the equal path back
in 1963 that already has government saying to employers that you cannot discriminate ined on a woman's gender setting of wages. that old lummis to be updated. that is what the paycheck fairness act does. guest: if women are really being discriminated against and as aggressively, why is it that women don't make up 100% of the work force? this is confusing to me. if they can pay women some much less than men, i don't understand why we have men in the work place anymore at all. host: with all due respect, that is very silly. --on't know a weather another way to respond. we're not probably headed anytime soon to an all-female work force and if we did, the
wages would go down i would suggest that in advocating on behalf of paycheck fairness, what this bill really does is it says it should allow women to ask questions about wages without being retaliated against, without getting fired. it makes remedies more equal to those who have suffered race and national origin and wage discrimination who have different remedies. the 1963 law was passed before more recent modern pieces of legislation that provide remedies. it provides some modest amount of money to encourage the kind of training for the negotiation skills that the sabrina is for and this is a law that will much more quickly bring women's wages in line with man and allow them to provide economic security for
their families they need. host: let's hear from john in new jersey, good morning. caller: bear with me -- the cynicism that is in our politics has become thick and the bottom line on this law that they are talking about -- you have senators like patty murray and dianne feinstein and sanders and schumer who are paying their folks anywhere from 36%-50% last. here we are with our country in the shape we are in and we've got a law that basically is only a boondoggle for lawyers. it plays into exactly what the senators -- we have women senators stand atop about fair play and they are paying their folks 30% -- 36% last. less.
our country is $15 trillion in debt that we are worried about this and these people are doing it for one reason -- so they have something to talk about to campaign for the next election. it is disgraceful and i have had enough. guest: i am happy to hear this. i think people are responding to this whiter narrative that they find repulsive that a time when we are facing such serious economic problems. there was some research that found that 34% of respondents don't believe there is an actual war on women. i think people recognize that all this legislation that is being put forward by the white house and the congress in the name of protecting women is part of advancing this war on women narrative. it is an effort to muscle anyone who questions the government's over -- from education to health care to retirement saving. i think people are saying enough is enough. we don't need cradle to grave handholding by the government.
more and more people realize we need to adjust these economic issues head-on and not make backroom deals. guest: i think you cannot have it both ways. you cannot say the government needs to address our economic ills and oppose the paycheck fairness act because you say government ought not to be addressing the economic ills of women that i have just put forward to you with statistics from the u.s. department of labour or the census bureau. i think you cannot argue it both ways. indeed, this bill is attempting to address the economic ills that women who work responsities are trying to address. i think it is an important piece of a much bigger picture. if you support other government
initiatives that would facilitate when they and the kind of economic providers they need to be for themselves and their families and communities in our nation, i welcome your support. host: this ist from twitter - guest: i oppose the law because i think this is a benefit for trial lawyers. this will expend the definition of ways discrimination and encourage greater class-action were -- lawsuits. it does not create even pay. this does not get at the heart of the problem which there is a small wage gap along the lines of 5%. laws like this will make that much more difficult for employers to hire women. it will make it more expensive to hire women because they will be at risk of discriminating against them.
those little details are overlooked in this conversation. the bigger thing is that this is part of a larger narrative. the idea that women need government support from the minute they enter this world, we see the life ofjulia and the government providing student loans, health insurance, equal pay, social security which does not do such a great job for women, this idea that government has to take care of women from the minutes into this world until they die is what this bill it -- encompasses so much more. it is not a modest bill that judy is painting it as. caller: good morning, cspan. two young lady, god bless you. don't back down from the liberal. if the independents cannot see how obama is dividing this
country, class warfare -- look what he did with the health care bill. , independence. can you see through it? they did that behind closed doors. all this is -- this is for the trial lawyers. people, wake up. we have learned one thing about obama, one thing -- you cannot hire a boy to do a man's job. host: we will leave it there parian what is your response, judy? let's take a part of the trial lawyers and way in and respond on whether this will create - not someone who thinks we should go around selling all our problems by litigating solutions. i firmly believe that there are
many good businesses in this country and many good business conner's that will do the right thing. when the law provides and requires them to do so. that is our experience that when bill lot prohibited race discrimination in employment, many employers stepped up. some did not then there was some litigation. the purpose of that litigation was to get at the wrongdoers. i believe that litigation is an important part of this law to the extent that employers don't do the right thing. for the wrongdoers, you need a real remedy that has te someeth. right now, i would venture to guess that it pays to discriminate because the remedies -- because the consequences are so little that
not much happens if you discriminate. the purpose of an answer remedies that provide t realeeth in this legislation and litigation remedies is to write a bad balance. host: how would it change class- action lawsuits guest:? it basically says if you don't want to join a lawsuit, you can opt out. that is below in many, many instances. from race discrimination to national origin discrimination, to religion discrimination, to fighting over our farm bill. if we don't want to be in a class-action, we opt out. this legislation puts sex discrimination, which discrimination cases, in the exact same footing of the other
examples. guest: i am concerned about opt out, the notion being that people would automatically be included in these class-action lawsuits. host: you would not give your written consent to guest:? it extends the amount of time under which you can file prepared if it is decades later that you think you were discriminated against, it gets harder and harder to have anything to prove. you are so remote from the situation at that point. i understand having some leeway but this is extending it in a way that will help trial lawyers rather than the people. host: i hope it extends the time. that's what happens to lilly ledbetter years and years after she should have known but could not possibly have known she was being discriminated against because her salary differential compared to the man was a secret, she discovered from my
note in her locker that indeed she was being discriminated against and the supreme court threw her out saying that it took too long for her to figure it out which is absolutely absurd. i think it gives you more time and the purpose of that is to provide a remedy for women who maintain their jobs in discriminatory work places, not in good work places. it does nothing for those places. host: this is a tweet - she was offended by the way that last caller call the president a boy. the democrats' line -- caller: good morning. how're you women today? >> fine, thank you. caller: this is probably one of the liveliest topics i have
heard on c-span in a while. i was sitting there and kind of watching the show. i am someone who has hired men and women over the past decade. i'm listening to you both. i had to really face up. without knowing, i have paid women last than men. i'm watching you guys and listening to you guys and i say, is it something sab fromrina's perspective, is this a partisan type of thing? is a democrat or republican? i put that back to myself. reason -- the reason from my perspective and my colleagues perspective is that we set
across the table from a woman, nine times out of 10, she is more interested in the power. people want three things -- power, tidal, and compensation. when you set across my woman, she is more interested, from my perspective, in the power or the title than the money. because we know that, we give her a job that is a senior what ever but pay her $30,000 last than a man that a sitting across from us who will be interested in the power and the title and before he leaves the office, he will mail them the money. -- he will nail down the money. it is not intentional and i will
apologize for me then. i don't think it is intentional. from a business perspective, i know that someone has good skills. i have a man and a woman and i know about the woman will be able to do the job just as good as the man can do. the next thing i will look at is the financial aspect. with this conversation and it is a lively conversation, it will allow me to rethink might h futureires because i don't want to be guilty of paying anyone less just because they may not have a good negotiating skills. host: let me ask you how you think this will affect things? if this is signed into law and there are laws on the books that called for you allowing your
employees to talk freely about how much money they make and you have to justify why you are paying one employ more than another. what do you think? caller: h where myr executive and -- that is wheremy hr executive an attorney comes in. i see two people on the show. i see someone who is smart which is sabrina but to take nothing away from your point, you are going gung-ho but i also a sea judith and judith has wisdom i am not say which side i am on. i want to listen to both. to enter your quest, libby, i don't do those types of things. i would contact mine hr staff and have them take a look at it and give it to my attorneys and they would give me the top line and what the ramifications would
be. host: thanks for sharing your story. both of our guests are wise and smart. final statements guest:? ? many people think there is a war on women because they are discriminated in the workplace. they think they should be making decisions themselves and they believe in economic security of themselves and they have families and communities. indeed, their nation depends on being paid fairly and that is what the paycheck fairness act does and i hope the senators today in a very bipartisan way approves this. i hope they allow this bill to proceed to a vote. guest: i have to disagree but i
hope that when we see this kind of law and not pass that sends a message to washington that women no longer want to be viewed as victims. they no longer want government to be holding their hands and taking care of them from cradle to grave. i think that is important that we try to change that narrative away from the idea of women in need of special protection from government. host: thanks so much to both of you for being here. withg up next, we'll talk matthew cooper about a new poll looking at what americans think congress should do if the supreme court overturns the health care law. we will also take your calls. first an update from cspan radio. >> an update on the situation on the economy in europe -- french foreign minister earlier today responded to comments by
president obama about the threat of the european debt crisis. he said the crisis did not start in europe, lehman brothers was not a european bank. he went on to say that we should not shift responsibility. we are all in the same both very present obama said saturday but the european economic woes were causing trouble for the united states economy after the u.s. unemployment rate rose for the first time in almost one year. the walt disney co. plans to announce today that all products advertised on its child focused television channels, radio stations, and websites must comply with a strict new set of nutritional standards. the restrictions on ads extends to saturday morning cartoons on abc stations owned by disney. the company plans to detail the initiative today at a news conference and first lady michelle obama will be there. the marshall fund turns 40 today after west german chancellor g announcedmf an initial funding
as a thank-you from the germans to the americans for the marshall plan. those are some of the latest headlines on cspan radio. >> over the past four years, ma davidraniss has been writing and researching his latest book. it included traveling the globe and speaking with the president will attest in kenya and discovering his african ancestry on the shores of lake victoria. he also went to kansas to find the origins of his mother's family. the book comes out and bookstores and in 19th but book- tv will give you an early look within exclusive pictures and video including our trip to kenya as we traveled with the author of january 2010. join us sunday, june 17, at 6:00 p.m. eastern time and later at 7:30 deaths a night of your phone calls, emailt andweets on
book-tv. "washington journal" continued -- host: matthew cooper is the editor of "national and." journ. journal" they look at a whole lot of things in their new poll. let's dive into the latest numbers on the health care law. thanks for being with us this morning. >guest: thank you. host: here is the poll conducted looking at the supreme court taking on this legal challenge of the affordable care act. what should congress do next? what did you discovered? guest: there were interesting results. we found that if the supreme court overturns the there a central part of the health care law, the individual mandate that
requires people to buy health insurance for the stategut the entire law, 46% of americans still want congress to go ahead and come up with a law that covers everyone for health insurance and provide universal health insurance. that is a pretty tall order for congress. it might have expected people to say congress should go slow and maybe do some piecemeal reforms that only 19% of americans want to do small steps to get more people covered under health insurance. there is pretty big demand on congress if this gets struck down for them to get back to work. host: 46% -- the congressional connection paul also looked at how americans think the supreme court should decide on the health care law and whether or not aspects of it should be upheld, struck down. the individual mandate, the requirement that individuals
must buy health insurance or pay a penalty, 23% said it should pass but 73% said it should be struck down. >> other polls have sound -- found similar results. people seem that not like the individual mandate. people are just bristling at that. but like other parts of the health care bill, the idea that we had strong support for the idea that children can stay on their parents' health care until age 26 and the idea of expanding the medicaid program for the pork to include more of the uninsured, the idea of making sure that an insurance company cannot turn you down for pre-existing conditions. people like the stuff but they don't like the individual mandate. the problem for policy makers is that the individual mandate is kind of key to the other things. it is considered the key to getting the insurance companies to do these other things.
they would not be able to do those things without it. it presents an interesting conundrum for members of congress. host: there is overwhelming support for the expansion of the medicare program. 70% said it should be upheld and receive a split number on the ban on insurance companies denying coverage because of pre- existing conditions. 44% said it should be legal. was that surprising? guest: that was a little bit surprising. it all comes back to the individual mandate. if that goes, it is hard to of all these other parts of law. host: tell us about the congressional connection paul. guest: at the national journal, we do it in partnership with united technologies and we run it most weeks while congress is in session. the idea is to show -- to look
at public opinion about the issues before congress, to give congress a sense of what the public is thinking and give the public a sense of what is before congress, and the name. we go very deep. it is not enough to say do you like or don't like to the bill. we get into the nitty gritty into things like the farm bill. we do it with the princeton research firm host: you ask the citizens whether or not it would make a difference in their opinion of congress, the supreme court, or the president if the log that struck down an 67% said it makes no difference in their opinion of president obama. 53% said it does not change certain of congress and 45% said it does not change their opinion of the supreme court.
those are interesting results. guest: yes, we thought that was interesting. there's a sense that president obama's centre law -- signature law, will that make them look weaker or stronger? we found that people will not see it that way. neither will they see congress to from the or the supreme court different light. they just kind of regard this decision as being a decision without real political consequences as to where they put their respect. host: before we let you go, you mentioned asking people about the farm bill. congress is considering a multi- billion dollar farm bill. should aspects of the the increase or decrease. what did you learn from it guest:? a big part of this is about food stamps. we asked people about the big increase in food stamps rolls.
they overwhelmingly said it was about the recession. there were not generally in favor of the big cuts that republicans in the house have proposed. neither are they for terribly big increases. this remains a dicey political issue for politicians on both sides. host: matthew cooper, thanks for talking with us this morning. we have been talking about the congressional connection paul. we have open phones and we would like to hear what is on your mind, issues of the day include the wisconsin recall election that happens today. john, from our independent line in florida. caller: for health care reform,
we primarily need two things -- allow consumers - hello? allow consumers to buy insurance across state lines and insurance companies have to compete against each other to provide the best value product u.s. citizens. also, allow medicare beneficiary to pull their numbers to negotiate lower prices for drugs. if i know this than obama and romeny and the senate and congress know this. the only reason they don't do this is because the big money in politics. they are being paid off to cheat the american public. host: we're just looking at a congressional poll asking americans what would happen if the supreme court overturns the health care law. what you think would happen? >> those are the reforms that needed. host: start over implement the reforms caller:?
exactly host:. our democrats line, good morning. last try. in durham, n.c., on the independent line, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: thanks for calling in. caller: about the health care bill, i am a 72-year-old retiree. the government cannot run the post of us and i don't want them running health care. as soon as the diagnostic related groups care about, i saw a real problem with taking care of patients. more time was spent writing on the charts so the hospital would be reimbursed than was spent at the patient's bedside.
we don't need administrators getting between the doctors and their patients. host: let's hear from louisiana, democrats line, good morning. caller: yes, i would like to talk about the fact that - women have always been discriminated against and they should be able to get equal pay. that is very important host: you sound young. are you students? caller: yes, i am a college student. host: and how involved in politics are you caller:? very, i started a newspaper in sixth grade on politics. host: here's a story might find interesting in "the washington post pierre
t." florida, richard is on our independent line. caller: good morning. a quick comment about mr. zani. it almost sounded like a political hack for the federal reserve. the federal reserve should be dissolved and we should go back to the gold standard. it would eliminate a lot of the problems. you had some good callers call in and talk about the vices of the federal reserve which is an
international bank now. a lot of taxpayers' money has gone into it, somewhere between 8%-18% of the american wealth goes into the international system. on the health care bill -- which it should have never passed, only five people read it, 2400 pages, no one knew what was in it and everything they said that was not in it was in it like money for abortions and what they called health care rationing was in the bill. that was from age 70 on. it would cost a lot more than projected. it would be way over $1 trillion. host: this is a comment from twitter - that is responding to the congressional connection paul looking at whether -- connection poll.
the supreme court will decide on the health care law and the next couple of weeks. angela, a republican in nashville, tennessee. caller: how're you? my comment is about the fairness act for women. if the government wants to impose laws on employers throughout the nation, they should start by looking at how they pay their employees. they should set an example and said opposing the law. host: are referring to pay and congressional staffers? caller: i'm talking about everybody including the va. there was a lady who called earlier who worked for the va. i have friends who work for them and is the same thing. change the way you operate and the system around the world will
change itself. especially here in america, you want to set an example. chain your rules that let us see it. host: from " the new york times" -- next up is lancaster, calif., glenn, independent caller, good morning. caller:hi, when they start down this health care bill which is an unconstitutional, they should go back and strike down that mass amnesty that was unconstitutional. it was not for american citizens, not for people with work of the says, it was an attack against the american people. another thing -- students go to school to get college degrees and things like that -- how can
the president sitting in the united states feel his record so you cannot see where he went to school and why he cannot practice law anymore? we need to bring that up in this political debate. host: to you think mitt romney and president obama should release their -? school records? caller: ask, i do, and their work records and even their financial records. host: ok. caller: thank you for your time. host: let's hear from michael from silver spring on our democrats line. caller: the thing that happened with this health care bill was that it broke the monopoly of health care. some states had just one health-
care company controlling all the health care in one particular state. now we will have to go and pick our health care from probably 99 different companies which will cause competition and when you have competition, health-care insurance companies will compete enstar dropping their prices. it broke the back of the monopoly and the government does not have anything to do with health care. this is a regulating bill. the health-care company's are private, individual companies. they are private. but then somebody had to rent to their arms because they were denying for pre-existing conditions.
you had 22 years old, you were thrown off your parents'' coverage. think about coming out of college and getting ready to get into the work force and you have to be home for a while, living in the basement or wherever, and you're hunting around for your job, and you are trying to find a job. you need health care. it moves into prevention and working on the preventive measures because some health- care companies just give us a whole bunch of drugs just to maintain what is already wrong with you. they want to work on getting things started before you get sick. they closed the doughnut hole and the pharmaceutical thing, part d, which was not being paid
salem, ore., independent line. caller: good morning, thank you so much. i want to compliment you on your moderation of the extremely lively topic of paycheck fairness. i wanted to call them about that as well as the health care law. 30 years, ph.d., environmental chemistry, i was hired by governments, universities, and private industry. i never got paid with a man- made. i was always $20,000 less. i always had more qualifications and more education than the man but they always made more. i have no idea why. anyway, i believe we should all have universal health care. i probably would have started my own business if i had had that option and unable to pull away
from my employer. thank you so much. host: thanks for your call. we will watch the senate as it takes up the gender pay discrimination bill at 2:15 this afternoon after the party lunch break. the senate will take a closer vote on the motion to proceed to the bill. here's another story in the news, on the international front, from bay ridge -- beirut. let's get one last call from modesto, california, republican. caller: i want to make a comment about the paycheck fairness act. about the paycheck fairness act.