Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  April 30, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT

7:00 am
. . host: we only want to hear from illegal immigrants, were undocumented workers. you can call the numbers you see on the screen.
7:01 am
again, we want to hear from illegal immigrants only. everyone to hear your story. we want to hear what you think about u.s. immigration policy. we are not a government agency. we will not be keeping track of your phone number. this is simply an informational segment to you're about your experience as an illegal immigrant. this is inside the "washington times" this morning. joining us on the phone is chris strohm of congress daley who covers national security issues. what did the democrats proposed yesterday? guest: thanks for having me this morning. essentially, democrats are putting out a 26 page proposal that lays out immigration reform. these are the tenants that have been around for years. this would -- the tenants that
7:02 am
have been around for years -- the tenets that have been around for years. it creates a framework for illegal immigrants to have a path to legalization and ultimately citizenship if they desire it. it creates a framework within which business can get access to foreign workers. it is a visa program under which low-skilled, nonagricultural workers can come into the approach -- into the country. all of these things have been in play for a number of years. this is the reform that has not been able to be achieved in congress for various reasons. host: john boehner said on the hill yesterday, not a chance it will pass this year. guest: are is absolutely a
7:03 am
chance. even people who have been wanting to do an immigration reform bill in the past are now saying that this year it is not possible in their view, and that includes senator lyndsey gramm from south carolina, senator john mccain from arizona, and senator john cobb from arizona. these are three key republicans who have supported during immigration reform in the past. -- during immigration reform in the past. but this year they are saying that government should just focus on border security. the democrats do not agree. they put forward a proposal hadera usain is -- but they are saying is out there for the republicans to come to the table and negotiate. they are trying to invite republicans back to the table. of course, you cannot escape the
7:04 am
politics of this. it is an election year. majority leader read is facing a and collection battle back in nevada. senator john mccain is facing reelection battle in arizona and he is being attacked on the right for not being strong enough on border security. his position is to go forward with borr security bill even though he supported comprehensive reform in the past. host: to this story from yahoo!, obama takes immigration reform of the agenda. this is something he said last night on air force one. guest: yes, he said he does not see an avenue for doing health care reform. that sent a shock on capitol hill, especially for lobbyist groups who are for immigration
7:05 am
reform. the view that as being counterproductive. however, yesterday the white house kind of walked back those comments. the white house put out a statement where by president obama said the outline looks good and he looks forward to working with members of congress in order to advance the bill. i think president obama's initial comments were viewed(9s not being very productive, but since then the white house has kind of walked back and they are referring -- reaffirming that he does supported, but not giving a time line. -- does support it, but not giving a time line. host: what is the extent that we will see in congress on this issue? -- what is the next step that we
7:06 am
will see in congress on this issue? guest: that is a good question. the next logical step would be for an actual legislative bill to be put together. the framework that was introduced is only 26 pages and there were a lot of general provisions put in there. the question becomes, what are the details of the legislative proposal that the democrats want to advance? harry reid was asked yesterday if he would commit to a timeline on va bill to the senate floor. he was asked if he would commit -- on bringing a bill to the senate floor. he was asked if he would commit to a time line on bringing republicans on board and he would not commit to a time line on that either. house lawmakers have said they are waiting for the senate to act. everybody is looking at the
7:07 am
senate for the next step. senator harry reid has also said he will go forward with climate and energy change legislation first. it is still a couple of months before any kind of comprehensive reform legislation can be brought to the floor. but it remains to be seen if anything can be passed this year. host: thank you for the emigration of day. for the first 45 minutes of the show we want to hear from illegal immigrants only. talked was about your experience living in the u.s. we are not going to keep your number. we are not a government agency. we a and -- we simply want to hear your story. we will leave the numbers of so that you can see them, but we would like to hear from you during the first 45 minutes.
7:08 am
after 45 minutes, we will be talking to carlos gutierrez, the former secretary of commerce under george w. bush. he is opposed to the immigration law as passed by arizona. this map in the "washington post" shows where people live, where illegal immigrants live. the states in the black have the highest number of illegal immigrants. in fact, nevada has the highest percentage, 8.8% is estimated. 7.3% are illegal in california. 8% in arizona. 6% in taxes. 5.9% in florida a and 6% in new jersey. this is in the politico newspaper.
7:09 am
51% favor arizona law, just more than half the country is in favor of a tough new immigration law in arizona according to a new gallup poll out thursday. 51% of those polled nationwide was said they have heard about the new law favor the measure that grants the right to ask to see proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. 39% say they are opposed to it. this story also from the politico. major league baseball should yank the all-star game from arizona. rep serrano from the bronx will ask a baseball commissioner bud selig to move the all-star game from phoenix. our first phone call comes from miguel in washington d.c. tell us your story. caller: i am here from cuba. i have been here almost 10 years.
7:10 am
i feel that we've have been here first -- that we have been here first. caucasians were last on the planet. host: you have been here 10 years illegally? cubans have a special policy in this country. in my caller: case, i did not go through the challenge -- caller: in my case, i did not go through the channels. i just came and stayed. and as far as i'm concerned, we were here first. host: did you get here by boat? caller: yes. host: what did that cost you and who did you pay? caller: i tried to go as an illegal stowaway, but i paid an american in cuba to stowe me away. i paid $3,000. host: how long did it take you to pay -- to save the $3,000? caller: probably a year.
7:11 am
host: down in cuba. caller: right. host: and when you landed here, did you speak english? caller: yes, i learned and down in cuba. host: where did you go when you landed? caller: key west and then later on to d.c. host: when you see a lot like arizona passed, what do think? caller: i think is pressuring the minorities, the so-called minorities when the occasion is the minority in the world. and we were here first. i think that what should be repealed and we should stand up and revolt and fight against it because people of color are the majority on a planet. the caucasian is the minority. host: row hawn in pensacola florida, your on c-span.
7:12 am
caller: immigrants are the ones that are the major working americans. we're the ones that do work. [unintelligible] host: where are you from originally? caller: jamaica. host: how did you get to the u.s.? caller: i came here on navy said. -- on a visa. host: is your life scary to be here illegally? do you worry about it? caller: i am not worried
7:13 am
because i am trying to get myself legal. one, i'd be my taxes. -- i pay my taxes. i want to be legal. i love my kids and the like to go back home and see my kids and come back and work. host: next call is from atlantic city. where are you from originally? caller: i am from ghana. host: how long did q -- how long
7:14 am
have you been in the u.s. and how did you get in? caller: i got here in 2003. i came for visiting. host: and you just stayed. caller: yeah. do you work -- host: do you work? caller: yes, but the little money i get by send for righteous to go to school. -- i send for my kids to go to school. i cannot continue to do this. it is very bad. host: what do you think about u.s. immigration policy in general. -- in general?
7:15 am
caller: [unintelligible] host: we appreciate you calling in. we appreciate you watching c- span. the couple of other headlines in the news this morning -- this is in the hill newspaper. host: and this is also in the hill. reed is still trailing in nevada, majority harry -- majority leader harry reid continues to trail his opponents in a matchup with gop sen -- gop chairwoman sue loudoun. he trails with a 51% to 41%
7:16 am
deficit. next call is from bill who tells us his wife is illegal. host: i am a u.s. citizen. my wife is from mexico and has been here since 1994. we have been married for seven years and there is nothing we can do to get her legal. -- caller: my wife is from mexico and has been here since 1994. we have been married for seven years and there's nothing we can do to get her legal. host: i thought marriage was automatic. caller: there are over 100,000 people in my position right now. there is a web of the as-a web site called in a greatfuss -- called contrary to the myths out there,
7:17 am
i take care of her. i make close to six figures. i am a professional. this is my wife. she is not a burden to society. there needs to reassure something that can be done -- needs to be something that can be done to keep from tearing families apart. host: when you see a lot like what passed in arizona, your thoughts? caller: it scares us to death. we drove through there just a couple of months ago, but i will not drive back to their again. it would make me a criminal to transport her through this day. host: david in new york city, where you from originally? caller: thank you for c-span. i come here from ecuador. çi came to study in the
7:18 am
university. but my visa -- host: expired? caller: yeah, expired. at this time, ecuador had problems. this was 10 years ago. now it is very difficult for me to come back because my life no is what i do here. -- my life now is what i do here. a lot of people depend on me. my kids, my wife, my father, my mother, my father-in-law. host: david, you do work in new york city? you do have a job? caller: yes i do.
7:19 am
host: you are paying taxes? caller: yes, i have a number. but weekly pay taxes when we buy a soda, we pay taxes. host: david, if you could make one change to u.s. immigration law, what would it be? caller: a change of what? [unintelligible] host: we appreciate you calling in. another call from manhattan. go ahead, manhattan. where are you from? caller: i am from guinea. i came by the mexico border, so
7:20 am
i came directly through immigration. they asked me why i came into this country and i said i want to work. they kept me for five months and now i'm here and immigration, when they ask me for documents for working, they refused to give me the actual money like $340. so now, i'm not working. host: you were held in immigration for five months? caller: 5 months, yes. host: and when they released to you, did they release you back to mexico or to guinea or into the u.s.? caller: they released me in the
7:21 am
u.s. host: so, they said you were approved to come into the country? caller: no, they released me under supervision. host: are you working today? caller: i am not working because now to get a job is not easy. host: lancaster, calif., you are on the air. caller: it is lancaster, south carolina. host: sorry about that, please tell us your story. caller: i am married to a man from mexico. we have been together 15 years and married for our -- married for nine. he recently got deported and i had to scrape together $2,500 to bring him back into the country.
7:22 am
he finally found a new job and he is only making $7.50 an hour and he was making $17 an hour before. host: you are married? caller: yes, but because he is not legal i cannot get his papers right now. he got deported because he was speeding. he did not have a driver's license and they checked his senses and he was deported. host: you paid $2,500 to u.s. immigration? caller: i paid $2,500 to get him back into the country illegally. host: really? who did you pay the money to? caller: a coyote. host: end -- and he is back in the country? caller: yes. host: when you see the arizona
7:23 am
law, what do you think about that? caller: i think it is ridiculous because they do now realize how many children they leave with our parents when they do this. -- they do not realize how many children they leave with our parents when they do this. the children are not illegal. they do not understand. who is going to explain it to them? host: he crossed on a train link on to the underneath part of it? caller: correct. host: how long did take him to get back to your home? hree the bush in mexico trying to cross over. they have very little water. they went for five days with no food, just trying to get back to us. host: do you understand the concerns of people in arizona have expressed regarding immigration policy and people
7:24 am
sneaking across the border? caller: yes, but i also understand they do a job that a lot of white people refuse to do, a lot of americans refuse to do. they think they're too good to get out there and pick watermelons and lettuce and work in a blueberry field and play and pine trees. my husband has done all of that. i have worked with him in a tobacco field from some of to sun down for $5 an hour. i do not see anyone else out there doing that. host: have you tried to get him legally get him since he is your husband and been married for nine years? caller: we have been trying to work on it, but it is hard since 9/11. a lot of the laws changed and now it is not as easy as it was. but we are working on its end the lawyers are out -- on its and the lawyers are outrageously
7:25 am
expensive. host: willie in york, pa., tell us your story. caller: i am a united states -- it is a war to speak. i have a brain injury and this is confusing to me. i was born as a united states citizen had john hopkins hospital in baltimore -- at johns hopkins hospital in baltimore. i moved to pennsylvania, tried to comply with pennsylvania law that says if you are a resident of the state of pennsylvania for 15 days, get a photo id if you do not drive. host: hey, you were born in the u.s.? caller: yes, i am a citizen. even though i am a u.s. citizen, according to pennsylvania law,
7:26 am
it is -- host: tell you what, i'm going to leave it there. we appreciate you calling in, but we are talking about u.s. citizens in this case. jordan in buffalo, new york. where are you from originally? caller: i am from africa. host: ok, and how did you get to the u.s. and how long have you been here illegally? caller: i have been here for 10 years. pohick host: have you% -- host: have you pursued trying to get citizenship? caller: i have tried, but i do not think i want to be a service and no more. host: -- i do not want to be a citizen no more. host: why not? caller: when people come to
7:27 am
africa, they do not get citizenship. we have a lot of white people saying go back to your country, we do not need you. you cannot come to africa and just take over everything and think you are jesus christ. you are not. .net is my home. -- that is my home. i love it. you come to my home, you take our resources. guess what, we're coming back, simple as that. everybody has to read. -- got to eat.
7:28 am
host: ralph in portland, ore., what is your story? caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. by may mexican american born in fresno, california. and i married to an illegal alien. i have for 30 years been in the restaurant hotel business. i have had the great opportunity to work with so many people from different countries. this arizona lot is just ludicrous. our country was the established by immigration -- was an established by immigration. to now be able to say jo white is here and now and going to pull up the ladder because i do not like you, you know, i have friends out of a job and they
7:29 am
need your job. in the hotel industry as a director and in certain departments made it point to legally hire hispanics, anglo's. it is amazing who will do what and who will not there are entire sections of this country that will fail if we do not have a particular kind of worker. is it a bias? yeah, it is, but it is a necessary bias because just as delores from lancaster said earlier, there are just people that will not do specific jobs. host: if your wife is illegal, how did she get into the country? caller: she got in crossing the border illegally. host: walking across? caller: no, she was transported in a van across the border.
7:30 am
it was carrying a couple of people that were illegal in compartments. this is something that has happened forever. back in the depression in the 1920's, this same kind of thing happened where the country was at a loss for jobs, economic stress, and mexicans were rounded up and sent down to south america. the u.s. government actually paid at that time to have people paid -- transported back to south america. host: how you adjust your lifestyle to your wife as an illegal? caller: the publication get worse because i have always been the one to provide -- the complication gets worse because i've always been the one to provide as the director of hotel chains and like us. now i am going through some health issues. i have lost my vision. i am dealing with some medical conditions like congestive heart
7:31 am
failure, kidney failure, things like that. i cannot work. host: how long have you been married? caller: about nine years. host: did the law changes after 9/11 affect you? caller: absolutely, and there was nothing you could do. it is not like we are here breaking any laws. this is one of the things that we talk about your -- here at my house and around the family. these people come in and they work, and it is not just the hispanics, but in the hotel industry we hire a lot of european, russian, ukrainian, romanian people to come over to work. they're blond, blue-eyed and they are here just as it illegally. and i doubt they will it stop on the streets of phoenix because of their appearance.
7:32 am
host: jose in reno, nev., good morning to you. tell us your story. caller: i am 24 years old and i have been in the u.s. my whole life. i was brought over when i was 2 years old by my parents and i have lived here my whole life. i have adapted to this. i am illegal, but because of this arizona law, i think it is racial. i think it to be removed. host: in so many ways you are an american since you were two years old. but at the same time, are there limitations because of your legal status? caller: yeah, like driving, jobs, things like that. you cannot fly in an airplane. you cannot go in and out of the u.s. whenever you want. you cannot miss your family back in mexico. stuff like that. host: you do not have a driver's
7:33 am
license? caller: no, i do not. host: and what kind of jobs do you work? caller: right now, i'm out of a job. host: do you worry about your status? caller: i think about it a lot. i would like to be legal, you know, make everything the right way, pay taxes. i would very much like to be legal. host: did you go through high school and everything? caller: yeah, i went to high school year in nevada and i graduated. i had great grades, four. know. i just did not have the -- i have great grades, 4.0. i just did not have the money to go to university. host: thanks for calling in. next call is drawn from alexandria, virginia. john, are you with us?
7:34 am
we will move on to tammy in georgia. caller: i'm actually not have gone, but i had to call in. i am a u.s. citizen and my husband came to this country illegally from nigeria on a foul -- false passports. he was originally deported but i paid thousands of dollars to try to bring him back. host: who have you paid the money to? caller: this is going through the legal process at this point where you have to file the waivers, the 212 and the 601. i have twins, a boy and girl that are only two months old. we have to go through the legal process and we 10 years after his deportation. the real problem with this is that many people are not going
7:35 am
to leave this country because they know once they leave america the hell they're going to go through like my family is going through trying to bring him back. that is issue number one. my grievance with the immigration law is, what is going to happen to people like me, people whose spouses have already been deported? are they going to give everybody here amnesty because they were lucky enough to make it here and leave people like my husband out of the country? that is my question to the senate. host: how did your husband get caught? caller: we tried to do things the right way. we went on to the federal building in the immigration office and they found out that the people work he had was false and he had overstayed in the country. he was deported back. i had my 2-year-old daughter in my arms. we stood down there for eight
7:36 am
hours and eventually they told me that he was being deported. my life has been devastated. i mean, totally devastated since then. host: how long has he been out of the country? caller: 60 years. host: tammy, thank you for shoring -- sharing your story. next call is john. where you from? caller: i am here from africa. from sierra leone. host: how did you get here? caller: i came here on a visit. host: a tourist visa? caller: yes. i was caught with one in the car and i cannot go out with
7:37 am
immigration anymore. but i understand the frustration with the american people, but the same time the law itself, there is a racial issue within the law. the amount of illegal aliens from canada, they are white and they will not be stopped. i think we have more threat from china that we have a threat from illegal aliens, economically speaking. i support the reform by the democrats. host: if you got stopped with pot in your car, how come you did not get deported at that point? caller: at that time it was 10
7:38 am
years ago. host: were you still under tourist visa at the time? caller: yes. host: do you work? we just talked to tammy and found art she tried to do the legal route and her husband got deported. have you ever tried to do the legal route? caller: yes, i see you talking on the screen but i cannot hear you. host: you listen through your phone. ignore the tv. caller: i did not hear you. host: well, we will leave it there. we will move on to lisa from arizona. caller: i am so angry about what is happening out here and i'm in the middle of it. i am married to a mexican illegal alien. we have a daughter who is 3
7:39 am
years old. i live every day not knowing why my husband is lake, did they get him? -- not knowing why if my husband is played, did they get him? -- if my husband is late, did they get him? they are stopping these hispanic laborers and taking them from family. we have been here for years and there was not a problem. and whether they have a family or not, they just take them and that is it. and you pay thousands of dollars if they are deported and while you're waiting, they have no chance of reentry.
7:40 am
they are barred from reentry for 10 years. host: how far do you live from phoenix? caller: it is about three hours. host: and how many years did your husband caller: come over he came over -- how many years did your husband come over? caller: he came over about 2001. everything depends on both of our incomes and his schedule and my schedule. he works in the morning and take my daughter to day care. if he were taken away tomorrow, god forbid, i would have nobody to watch my daughter. i would not be able to continue my job because i work overnight. he is my family.
7:41 am
host: is there a network of people who are illegal there and you know each other? and you work with each other? caller: oh, yeah. where i live, in the apartment complex where i live, everybody there is from mexico and they help each other around. -- help each other out. i do not even see my parents. i do not even really talk to them. i am doing things in my life that are good and positive. my husband and i are trying to come out ahead. it is amazing, all the protesters and things that are going on, they do not understand that they need to do something now, not tomorrow, not in november, but now. host: and this article in the usa today --
7:42 am
host: our next call comes from trenton, new jersey. you are on the air. caller: i came over here in 2003. host: from? caller: liberia. and liberian history, it was funded by three american slaves. -- founded by three american slaves. host: right. caller: my documents expired and i was told to go back to liberia and refiled. how many people will do that?
7:43 am
this process of reapplying in takes more time than the documents filing. it takes about six months to get a receipt. in that process, they do not look up the date that you filed. they look at the date that they read it. they do not tell you when it expires and that is why most immigrants get in the position that they are in. they cannot go back and they cannot do anything because of the weighting process. -- of the weighting proceswaiti. that is one of the main reasons why people turned out to be illegal. you file, you follow the rules
7:44 am
and have documents. you file and will get the year that they have read it and by then your documents have already expired. host: diana in miami, you are on the air. diana? caller: know. host: who is this? caller: jose. host: where are you from, jose? i do not think we have whoever was on the line. we will go to chuck in cleveland, texas. caller: i have been in this country since 1981. host: from where? caller: from nigeria. i am a student, finished my degree, got a master's degree.
7:45 am
i became a teacher. since 1996 i've been trying to get my status. i have spent over $100,000 in lawyers, with immigration filing dates. the law keeps changing. people that work in the immigration office in houston, if you're a nigerian, they will not give you any papers. you stand in line so much and you suffer and you spend too much money. i got married, have children, and i still do not have papers. i have been trying to do everything legally. i am a professional.
7:46 am
[unintelligible] host: chuck, we are going to leave it there. we appreciate everyone's calling in and sharing your story. again, we will not be saving your phone numbers. we are not a government agency. we simply want to hear your stories and experiences. coming up next is carlos gutierrez, who served as secretary of commerce for george w. bush for about four years. he is opposed to the immigration law as passed by arizona. yesterday, however, we had on john kavanaugh, a state legislator from arizona and one of the primary sponsors of the bill. he talked about the bill and what it does. here is a little bit from him. >> no city can tell its police officers that they cannot inquire into the immigration status of someone they lawfully
7:47 am
contact. if we make a few exceptions, but that was not the problem. we also require police officers now, when they reasonably suspect that someone they are lawfully in contacting is an illegal alien that the question that person. this is simply extending the police tool called a stop and question created by the u.s. supreme court in 1968 to the immigration law. the court basically said any time a police officer reasonably suspects that somebody may be committing or has just about committed or is going to commit a crime, they can reasonably question them about the activity. we are now doing this for immigration law. as this moved through the impact -- the committee process, we had a lot of input. civil rights advocates were concerned about racial clough -- profiling. they made their case and we thought it was reasonable.
7:48 am
so we changed the lot and broke into the law that a police officer may not use race or ethnicity as the sole purpose of their reasonable suspicion. and to the extent that a part -- that an officer uses suspicion, only as allowed by law. we do not want, of doing these checks when there are serious crimes occurring. -- we do not want our crops doing these checks when they are -- when there are serious crimes occurring. if a police officer is doing one of these immigration status stop and questions and over the radio a robbery in progress along comes up, the officer stopped the questioning, lets the person go, and response to the more urgent crime. it is a matter of practicality. detectives and investigators -- myself -- i myself am a retired detective. we are concerned that the
7:49 am
questions might scare away crime victims and witnesses. we wrote into the law that these questions do not have to be asked if it will hinder an investigation. host: on your screen now is carlos gutierrez, former commerce secretary. you were listening during the first segment we were taking from illegal immigrants. and what are your thoughts? guest: it is all anecdotal, but if you have all of the anecdotes of, what you get is a very complex situation and there is always a tendency to believe it is actually very simple. it is not. it is very complex. it gets down to individual families, children who were born here, children who are on the high school little league team or high school football team and do not even know that they are here without papers, that their -- that they are here
7:50 am
illegally. it sort of demand a solution that recognizes the human dynamic, in addition to the fact that it should recognize our economic necessities. we need immigrants. what we do not have is an immigration system and policy and law. we are forcing employers to either close their businesses, move their family farms to mexico, or hire illegal workers. it is kind of a lose/lose situation. host: let's go ahead and put the numbers up and we will divide this by political affiliation. and if you happen to be watching this from outside the country, if you are outside the u.s. today and you want to call into
7:51 am
you can call in and 202-628- 0184. again, that is for people outside the country. mr. secretary, you served in the commerce department. was immigration something you had to deal with? guest: absolutely, this probably was my biggest issue i dealt with in 2006, 2007. host: why? guest: president bush wanted immigration reform passed. he asked the senate to come up with a bipartisan bill and i was in those meetings, literally every single day. with a group of senators, bipartisan, who were interested in getting this through. i can tell you, it was jon kyl on one hand and ted kennedy on the other. it was a bipartisan group and we have a 700-page bill, as comprehensive as you can imagine. any question you want known about immigration was in that
7:52 am
bill, but it was dismissed by opponents by one word, amnesty. it was not amnesty because you needed, i believe it was 12 years, 12 to 18 years to get in line and eventually get a green card. there was nothing automatic about it, or nothing that smacked of amnesty, but again, in a world of sound bites, people dismiss it in a word and is gone. but we still have this problem. host: arizona's new law, what are your thoughts? guest: as a managerial analysis, i think it is a poor use of resources. i think is bad law. but to put the police department' of arizona looking for people who are doing nothing
7:53 am
more than working 12 to 16 hours a day and taking your eye off the ball from people who really do want to do us harm, i think it is very inefficient. i do not think it is representative of the kind of nation we are. host: do you think that eric holder should pursue a lawsuit against arizona? guest: it is a legal question. i do not know. i do not know if that is the way it works. i do not know if that is the way it can work. i can imagine that there will be lawsuits coming from everywhere. and perhaps the only thing that this will change is that arizona will become a haven for lawyers. because lawsuits will be coming from everywhere. but eric holder, that is much -- is as much as a legal question as a policy question. host: you served as commerce
7:54 am
secretary, ceo for a long time of kelloggs, and you are currently chairman of global strategies, which is what? guest: we have a group of 22 former officials from around the world. we're a part of a pr firm called apco, very much affiliated with apco. we provide consulting services to companies going overseas, in some instances companies coming to the u.s. and the whole idea is that they have access to this group of people who work all over the world and have great experience and insight and judgment. and we also have the best of both worlds in the sense that we have the resources of a pr firm, in public affairs firm, to be able to use with customers. host: let's take some calls. the first call comes from tom in
7:55 am
michigan. caller: everybody is up in arms about immigrants coming over to the u.s. and you really cannot blame them. basically, they're coming from a purple country and they want to better themselves, which is anybody's idea of -- coming from a third world country and they want to better themselves, which is anybody's idea. instead of making their lives harder, has anyone thought about a kind of buyout to get into the united states? the united states is in trouble at times, but they want to get into it. have them by into getting here, or pay extra taxes. guest: that is a great point. in the bill that we had in 2007, the whole idea was that people would go forward and register and undergo a background check and it would have to pay a fine. and we talked about what the
7:56 am
fine should be, but eventthat fe will eventually be agreed to and there will be a fine. and as you said, they will have to pay for the fact that they breached law. it should be a fine commensurate with the crime. and that is the kind of thing that i hope we can get into a bill and it should be able to agree with. but i think you're absolutely right, these folks came here for very good and noble reason. they came here for the same reason that so many millions of people came here over the last to under 30 or 300 years. host: next call from newcastle, pa., lorraine, republican. caller: hello, my name is lorraine. i thank you for permitting me to be on c-span this morning.
7:57 am
my grandparents did it come from italy and i understand the upheaval. but my question -- host: turned on the volume on your television. just listen to your telephone. go ahead with your question. caller: my name is lorraine. thank you for having me on. host: we got all of that. and what is your question? caller: you were saying that these children are on baseball teams and what not, but don't you think that as a bold we -- as adults we should be responsible for the burdens we put on our children and the things they have to deal with by pulling them off their teams and having to be deported? this is more wrenching for me to hear what we are doing to these young children. guest: i agree with what you're saying. mass deportation is not an option. we have said that all along.
7:58 am
in fact, the way we had approached the 2007 bill under president bush was to say, look, mass deportation, to round up 12 million people who have worked hard, contributed, the great majority have stayed out of trouble, simply wanted to provide for their family, we are not going to round up and put them on buses and kick them out of the country. but we are also not going to hand them a passport. there is a compromise in between and that is exactly what we are looking for. i am so pleased that your report -- you are a republican. i am a republican, too, he proud republican, but very pro- immigration reform. host: and jeb bush has also come out against this bill. but it was an arizona legislature and republican governor who signed it.
7:59 am
guest: that is right, and they have the right, constitutionally, to do that. i think it comes down to a very poor resources from a management standpoint. turning their police department toward people who come to be gardners and working hospitality instead of going after people who are here to do as harm. host: california, jerome, independent. and we are talking u.s. immigration policy. caller: mr. gutierrez, i have a question for you. during your stay with the government working for the bush administration, did you ever consider placing immigration point across the border? in other words, where people leaving this country would possibly be searched and the things they are taking into mexico would be questioned? this is particularly relative to the arms being moved into mexico supplying the gains.
8:00 am
these arms are not available in mexico. i have travelled extensively into mexico over the past 10 years and when i do travel i always keep in my possession a photocopy of my passport and my driver's license and i've been stopped numerous times by mexican police both state and federal and never had any trouble. obviously, knock on wood. most of my mexican friends in southern mexican -- southern mexico are wonderful people and very hard working in family oriented. host: what is your question? caller: during your stay with president bush, have you ever considered whether people moving out of this country should be possibly searched or question? guest: i'm not sure if, and security would have done that. i can tell you in the concept of sharing responsibility for the mexican drug cartels and the drugs that are flowing into our country from mexico, and the
8:01 am
violence, that we do see it as a shared responsibility. what they have asked us to do is to help with the inflow of weaponry that is going into forming this illegal army at our own borders. for our own national security. i think you make a good point. but i do not know if that is being done. as people go into mexico, it becomes the accountability, the responsibility of the mexican customs officials to search who is coming in and make sure they are not bring in weapons. . .
8:02 am
caller: he would give the guy some grief or answer back in spanish and my mother would say jesse, stop it. host: what is your question? caller: my point is there is a big effect on all kinds of people who have never been into mexico who are of hispanic background and suddenly will have to carry i.d.'s and suddenly will be kind of subject -- host: we appreciate the story. i don't know if you want to respond to anything he said but
8:03 am
what is the cooperation level when it comes to immigration between the u.s. and mexico? guest: i think it is quite good. i think it is probably the best it has been. on one hand, that is due to a very strong, determined president in president calderon in mexico. then i would say the continuity of having worked with president bush and now president obama there is continuity of policy on our end. we want to fix this problem. i think if we have the best shot today that we have ever had to work together and tackle and confront this problem. host: virginia beach. dan, republican. caller: hi, sir. i'm not certain that we really know the number of people that we are calling illegal. did they start out that way? did they come here with work
8:04 am
permits and overstay a visa. so i would ask your guest to provide us with some clarity on that. guest: the best estimate -- and these are all estimate -- we typically use the number 12 million. now, i have to tell you 12 million was a number that we used three years ago. but this moves every year because of the work situation, the availability of jobs. it probably has stayed about 12 million. of those 12 million, three million are children who were born here. so they will never understand that somehow their parents have to be deported or they are not u.s. citizens or they are any less americans than any others. they probably don't speak spanish. so, it is tremendously complex.
8:05 am
once you get into family by family you find that the disruption is quite remarkable. some people use 20 million. i don't think it is that high so i would stick with 12. host: we had several callers talk about their spouse being illegal. what changed after 9/11? i thaought getting married was n automatic to citizenship. no? guest: i don't believe that that has changed. i don't know what their specific circumstances are. it could be different if he is a naturalized citizen as opposed to born in the u.s. there are different laws and regulations. i couldn't containing -- i couldn't tell if you that changed. host: are children born of illegals automatic citizens? guest: yes. host: pittsburgh, democrat,
8:06 am
mark. you are on. mark is gone so we will move on to jan in mesa, arizona. republican. caller: yes. mr. guttierrez, i live here in arizona and it is so funny to hear these people tell us what to do because we are in a war zone here. everybody can just make light of it, but it is horrible. when reagan promised us in 1986 or whatever that this would never happen again and that was three million, not 20 million. and nobody else covers our borders. we don't know what to do. and what nobody is telling everybody that wants to do all of this, you know, pathway to citizenship, these illegals will automatically get the same healthcare we get so we will put another 20 million on our healthcare. they will get all of our social services that we can't keep up with now. and you are talking about jobs
8:07 am
people don't want. you know, it used to be that carpenters and roofers and pa t painters, we did do tease jobs but we can't do them any more. they are given to the low-ball workers. so, please -- but i don't think they should talk about anything until they have prove our borders can be closed because not even my politicians have been able to close our borders. host: so, jan, you are supportive of the arizona law? caller: you bet. host: called it a war zone. what do you mean? caller: you don't know what our neighborhoods are like. like 20 years ago our mayor at the time tried to get where you couldn't have -- willis our law -- all these families in a room apartment. 20 people in a wuone-bedroom apartment. it is destroying neighborhoods and it is something we can't fight because the aclu, you say
8:08 am
one thing and the aclu is there and the government, we are paying, our federal dollars are going for it and all the prot t protesters that they are showing in the capital in phoenix, they have pussed them in from texas and california. those aren't our citizens. it is getting -- you don't know what it is like. we don't know who is in our state. some of the stories are touching but isn't it scary when who is in our country? how do we know? guest: it is a great point. and, listen, i don't live in arizo arizona, but i will say that from the sound of it here in d.c., it feels like we are putting a lot of resources, as you say, behind the problem that wae are not really sure if everyone we are after are the
8:09 am
people who come to this country to hurt us. it is interesting, but as you say, we don't know who is living in the country, we don't know who is here. one of the benefits of comprehensive immigration reform is that we will know who is in the country and we will know of those people who shouldn't be here. because they have to come forward and register and come forward and admit i am here illegally. that is when they go through a background check and go tkpwget fine and eventually get a legalization card, not a passport, a legalization card. and if they want to one day have a green card and passport they have to get in line. that will take them a long time to do. but with that legalization card that has biometrics on it and we can get to a stage where if someone doesn't have that card
8:10 am
they should not even show up for a job because they are not going to get it. but in that whole process we will find out who is in our country. so, from a national security standpoint, immigration reform can help us understand how big a problem we have and who is here who shouldn't be here, which is another frustration that national security is often used as an argument against imtkpwreugs reform whereas actually having a good workable immigration system would do wonders for our national security. host: she also talked about the drain which she called the drain on social services. guest: it is interesting that as a country, as we all know we are getting older and there are fewer people paying for more people to get their social security, to get their medicare. so we need to grow ourselves out
8:11 am
of it. but one solution as we grow ourselves out and as we grow ourselves into an economy that can pay for these unbelievable liabilities or debts that we have for future generations, immigrants can do that. they can help us because typically they are young, they work very hard. and as soon as they arrive, some of them are already contributing to medicare, social security and that stays here and is part of the price they pay. but that is one very viable strategy to help us deal with this tremendous tsunami we have coming at us, which is our entitlement programs and who will pay and how are we going to pay for that. host: john kavanaugh on yesterday the arizona legislator who helped craft the arizona bill, said that mexican towns
8:12 am
are suffering greatly because young men and middle aged men are coming here so they are bereft of that labor force. guest: that is true. there was an article recently about how mexico's population growth has declined over the hrlast 20 or 30 years. what is true is that what we get here is what we've always gotten, the most adventurous, the most ambitious, the most industrious, the people who are willing to risk it all for a better life. those are a country's finest in many ways. they may not have schooling but they have all the determination in the world to get a job, to work hard and make sure that their children go to school. so, yes, these are very
8:13 am
industrious, adventurous, ambitious people. now the reality is we need them important mexico does because the jobs are here. again, family farms are going to move to mexico and r&d centers will open in india because we can't find the people here. i wish people would understand that immigration is first and foremost pretty much an economic issue. if we want to grow and if we want to prosper we need immigrants. and we have never prospered without immigrants. and i just want to remind everyone that the last time we put a ban on immigration and declared war on immigration was in the 1920's, right before the great depression. i'm not linking one to the other, but it had -- it was one of those variables that led to
8:14 am
this economic downturn. host: prior to becoming c.e.o. of kellogg how long did you live in mexico and when did you come to the u.s. from cuba? guest: we came out of cuba in 1960 and went to miami for a little while, two years, where we stayed in a hotel. my father thought it was going to be a vacation because this man cannot stay. then we moved to new york and became u.s. citizens. then he got a job in mexico with heinz company, food company. that is how we ended up in mexico. i went to junior high school and high school in mexico. but the interesting thing is, because i was naturalized, when my son was born -- it just highlights the plight of an immigrant and refugee. when my son was born i needed to be in in the u.s. 10 years after the date of my 16th birthday. so i took his application to the
8:15 am
desk at the embassy and said i want my son to be a u.s. citizen. i only had eight years. so i walked out without a pass support. it took me 14 years to eventually make my son a u.s. citizen. because of the little quirk in the law. my other daughter was born in the u.s., then my other daughter, we went back to mexico, she was born in mexico but by that time i had the 10 years because i spent some time in the u.s. so it is very complicated and everybody has their story. but the great thing is that this country attracts the best people in the world, not including myself but people come here to do things. host: just on a practical level, do you think as, if you had been c.e.o. of kellogg's at the time and you went through it it would have been easier for you when your son was born?
8:16 am
guest: well, no, i don't think so. what i noticed is when my son became a u.s. citizen, i was i guess by that time must have been in the u.s. company, i was a corporate vice president, the c.e.o. had an interest in me. no, i had to stand in line with the rest of them and wait my turn and we had to do the exams and when i walked out of that courthouse in grand rafpdz, michigan, with my son -- my son and my wife -- i can't tell you how relieved i was that after 14 years they became u.s. citizens. so i understand this idea of free citizenship. citizenship cost and takes time and something you really want to have. the other myth here is that every person who is here who is not appropriately documented and
8:17 am
is working wants to be a citizen. and in many cases they just want to be legal so they can work and one day go back to their hometown, be a hero, take back some dollars, and build a nice house and retire. that is their vision of the future. it is not to become a u.s. citizen. some do want to be u.s. citizens but it is a multidimensional problem. host: next call for carlos guttierrez is from rochester, new york, shonda, independent line. caller: hi. i called independently but i'm a democrat and i'm an african-american and live in upstate new york. host: what is your question? caller: i was listening to your guest and he saeid men came illegally. that is all we want. i agree with the arizonans.
8:18 am
i attend new york state and if i get stopped by the police i have to have i.d. that is the law. everyone in this country should have i.d. they should not have a problem showing the i.d. whether they are illegal or legally here. i don't understand what the problem is. you keep saying these people ar coming over here because they are such hard workers. it is kind of senseless to me as a citizen because we have citizens that can do the same thing they are doing. they are prisoners. we can make our prisoners do the same thing if they are going to say they are hard workers. they can wait in line the same way you and your son waited. my problem is the word "illegal." we need to enforce our laws. guest: and we need to have a penalty or punishment that is consistent with the crime, with
8:19 am
the action. i get the impression that no one will be satisfied until there is massive deportation. and i don't think that is the kind of stain that we want on our history. the interesting thing is that the jobs that are supposed to be available for americans to do are not being filled by america americans. the only reason these folks can stay here is because they are making money. it is because they are doing work. and they are doing any type of wo work. i -- look, i look around places and i see a lot of people working very, very hard. i don't know what their status is. but there are jobs that will not
8:20 am
go filled. someone mentioned to me the other day jobs, construction jobs are very manual jobs. we need to recognize 50 years ago about only 10% of our population had a high school degree. now we are talking about 30%, close to 40%. host: you mean college. guest: no, high school. but think about that. 40 or 50 years ago it was 10%. so, a lot of people were looking -- would get into manual work saying this is not what i want to do but this is good for my family. we have a new generation of people who don't necessarily want to do that, who don't necessarily want to pick lettuce even though it is a job. so, i think that we can make a big mistake by assuming that
8:21 am
this tag line that americans will do the job is real and if it turns out not to be real we are in deep trouble. two numbers for you. the number of h-2-a visas, for farm workers, the quota is 10,000. i have seen estimates, depending on how fast the economy will grow and how fast the exports will grow, that we need hundreds of thousands of workers every year to be coming in to work. we can talk about whether they come in and leave and are temporary, but we need an influx to keep our farms alive. so, since there are only 10,000 allowed legally, we are forcing farmers to either hire illegals or go out of business. and i think that we should give our businesses a pwbetter
8:22 am
alternative than that. and that is the federal government's role. on the high school side, this is not just about low skilled. on the high school guide our quota of 75,000 h-1-b visas which is for students to work here, graduates to work here, are not -- they are filled by the month of january. so, every high tech company and every company is in need of foreign scientists, kids who come here to get a p.h.d. in the best university in the world and then have to go home with the . p.l.d. and join a company that can compete with a u.s. company. we have this wrong. and every country in europe has this problem. russia has this problem, china, japan, all getting older, don't have enough people. their workforce isn't growing fast enough to grow their economy at 3% or 4% or 5%.
8:23 am
and they are having a real tough time with immigration. we have all heard the european stories. it is not working, they don't understand it, they don't have a history with it. russia, china, we understand it. we know000 deal with -- we know how to deal with it. if we get a good comprehensive immigration reform system right that gives us all of the maybe we need, we could have a competitive advantage for the next centuriment host: on our republican line estelle from memphis, tennessee. you are on the air. caller: good morning. with all due respect, mr. guttierrez, i must disagree with you. i think it is people like you that don't understand the system. i work directly with the illegal problem.
8:24 am
[inaudible] i'm a banker and i have people to come in. what they were doing is getting social security numbers from people who were deceased. [inaudible] they sat in there, couldn't speak english. they always had somebody to bring them in. i also -- -- [inaudible]. now [inaudible] works for the social security office. she is upset and other people. this is the system. you give illegals a social security number. they apply for a green card. when the green card gets approved, do you know that these people, who are illegal, breaking the law, go into the social security administration, then they tell them i was working under this number, now i have my green card. i want all of my credits
8:25 am
transferred over to my legal number. believe it or not, they change it. and they are doing it today. they have been doing it for years. host: so, when it comes to u.s. immigration policy, what changes would you like to see? caller: i would like to see them deport deported. i would like to see the system we have in place be respected and followed. host: secretary guttierrez? guest: well, if we deport all of the people who are here, without appropriate documents, who are here illegally, we will suffer for it. we will suffer economically and we will pay a heavy price. now, the point you are making is good. social security numbers and being falsified. that will have to come out and
8:26 am
we are going to have to figure out a way of dealing with that and dealing with that in a legal fashion. but until we address it, until we confront it, we still don't know who is in the country. we still don't have a way of keeping track. and we still don't know who we should be looking into in terminals of their background -- in terms of their background. but for me as a republican, i think our party has always been about growth, prosperity, entrepreneurship, small business, free enterprise. and without immigration we will have none of that. we need immigration to grow, we need immigration to prosper, we need immigration to continue our free enterprise system. we should do it in a legal way. we should set up a system that
8:27 am
allows us to do it legally. host: time for two more calls with our guest former commerce secretary carlos guttierrez. manhattan, new york, craig, democrat. caller: good morning, c-span, good morning mr. guttierrez. any time you pass a law you might get 70 people to agree with it, you might get 30 people who don't agree with it. since some of these people have some problems following the law, what do do you remember with the people who decide i have been doing ok, why should i turn myself in? i will stay under the wire like i have been doing and things are going all right for me now. guest: that is a good question. we can get to the point where, if you don't have one of those biometric cards with a thumb print or something like that, that belongs to each person,
8:28 am
that essentially is this legalization card, we can get to the point where, if you don't have one of those you shouldn't even try to get a job because those are the people who we should be looking for, the people who didn't come forward, the people who didn't register, who did say fine, i came in here legally but i want to work, i haven't committed crimes, i just need to do it legally. the people who don't come forward, that is who we should be trying to stop and not the people who are here to work, which is essentially why i call the arizona law a very inefficient law. host: our last call for our guest is from linda in lorena, texas. caller: i am glad to talk to you
8:29 am
with your background and view of the subject. i have a practical solution that could be employed with a system as you are speaking that would be fair and take the police out of the idea of illegals in this country to american citizens. and that is addressing the drain on our social services system, our hospital systems, school syste systems, and driving without licenses and insurance. my mother was hit by somebody with an unlicensed person and no insurance and he was deported. she had a broken back as a result. no insurance to cover that. they can't afford to pay into the insurance pool even if they could get insurance. guest: that is a great point because once these workers who are here who have a job, who we
8:30 am
ne need, have a form of legal station -- legalization, a card that allows them to work in the u.s., then they have to be part of the system. that system means taxes, it means medicare, social security. it means being part of our system and being part of the legal system. so, instead of being deported before the trial they would stay here for the trial because they would be subject to u.s. laws. so, it is a way of integrating these folks. a and, look, i'm convinced this discrimination a lot of people criticize that they haven't integrated into society. very hard to integrate into society when you are paranoid. but i can tell you this, they don't speak english but their children will speak english and their children will go on to school and will become scientists and engineers and lawyers and business people and
8:31 am
they will help our society grow the way immigrants have always done. so, for me this is a matter of economic prosperity and viability of our country. if we stop immigration, we are going to stop growing. and that should be a concern for every american because i don't think anyone wants to give up our standards of living. host: politically both president obama and the republicans on capitol hill seem to have taken immigration off the table. guest: the president said last night he feels that congress doesn't have an appetite for this. and i have heard other members say that. what people are worried about, republicans an democrats in -- and democrats in the congress, is that some members of congress want to use this to pick a political fight. not to get reform but to pick a political fight in an election
8:32 am
year. so, for example, we all heard and it was all over the papers that senator reid went to nevada for a campaign, he got an earful from business people, from groups about the need for immigration reform. he game back saying we are going to have immigration reform this year. so a lot of people see that as tactical. and i believe we have one shot at this, one more shot. we didn't get it in 2007, we failed. if we don't get it the next time we could be waiting another five years. so, we have to do it right. and if anyone is talking about immigration and just, you know, throwing out the rhetoric on immigration but isn't really serious about passing a bill, then they are doing a tremendous disservice to the country and to the people who are hoping that they will help them eventually
8:33 am
gain some form of legalization. when we all do this, let's sit down and be serious about it and not play tactical political games before an election that is coming up. host: carlos guttierrez former secretary of commerce, thank you for being on the "washington journal" this morning. it is about 8:30 in the east. an hour and a half to go in the program. we will now turn our attention to economic matters. up next is john challenger, he will be in chicago and he runs an employment services firm and will be talking about the national economic outlook. >> today we will bring you a discussion about what u.s. policy should be in dealing with iran and its nuclear program. this is part of a conference of the american jewish committee.
8:34 am
that is live starting at 10:30 eastern on c-span. tonight a remembrance of dorothy hight who died last week. friends, family and colleagues gathered thursday night to talk about her life. that is 8:30 eastern. tomorrow night journalists, politicians and actors will be in washington for the white house correspondents different. it includes remarks by president obama and nbc tonight show host jay leno. live coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> what i think that the americans agreed it talk to the taliban leadership. ahmed rashid wrote about the taliban and rise of osama bin laden. with the 10th anniversary edition of his book he looks at what is next sunday night on c-span.
8:35 am
sunday on book tv's "in depth" pat buchanan on conservative ideology in today's political climate. he will take your calls, e-mails and tweets. three hours with pat buchanan sunday live at noon eastern on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we tonight introduce to you john challenger. the chief executive officer of challenger gray and christmas inc. explain what that firm is first off. guest: we are an outplacement company so what we do is help palmeiro when companies have let them go, to conduct more effective job searches. we work to shorten their time out of work and improve the quality of the job they find. host: what kind of workers do u you assist? are you a head hunter? guest: no, different than head
8:36 am
hunting. head hunting is the opposite side. we a company says -- when a company says we are looking for a chief information officer or a particular set of people they will go to a recruiting firm or search firm, headhunters and they will look for them. when companies are going through changes and they are letting people go, one benefit they offer people are services like ours to try to help them negotiate the job search and get through unemployment more quickly. host: does it give you, being in that position, give you a window on how the economic, the national economic picture is looking? guest: well, certainly it gives us one window because we see people who are out of workday in and day out and what they face and we talk with employers constantly and human resources people constantly about the issues that they aring and the environment as it changes. host: what have you seen?
8:37 am
what is your view on the national economic outlook? guest: well, we certainly are seeing a real change in terms of how it feels out there from where we were a year ago, when companies were just hemorrhaging jobs and laying off people in large numbers. in fact, by labor department numbers upwards of 500,000 to 700,000 jobs were lost the early part of 2009 each month. what happened then is a lot of those people that were pushed out the first half of 2009 began to pile up and run into each other because there were not a the lot of jobs being created as the kpeu came out of recession, say last summer, then the unemployment continued to stay high.
8:38 am
the long-term jobless numbers, people out of work more than six months, is still at historic highs over 6.5 million out of work that long. what we are seeing now as we have moved into the spring of 2010 is that logjam is beginning to break. so, whereas last summer and fall a lot of people were saying i can't get interviews much less job offers, now people are going through our programs and are getting more interest from employers, many are finding jocjobs and you can feel that many of thin thinly staffed companies are getting more demand for their goods and services, maybe not heavy demand, but are beginning to hire. host: the labor department reported 162,000 jobs were added in march, the largest in three years. but approximately 15 million
8:39 am
workers are still unemployed. where are the jobs, mr. challenger? are they regional, or certain sectors? where? guest: the jobs have been strongest in the turnaround, in fact some cases through the recession, in areas like healthcare, energy. we have seen growth with the stimulus plan and more growth in jobs in the public sector. we are seeing real growth right now in census workers that creating some of the growth in the job creation you just mentioned. also, i think companies that are focused on global operations, have global business, are creating jobs as they try to tap into different markets around the world. host: what about tech jobs?
8:40 am
by the way, let's let our audience know the numbers are on the screen. we are talking about the national economic outlook. if you have a question or concern about that and you want to talk to john challenger, who is in chicago, 202 is the area code and the numbers are on the screen at the bottom. allow 30 days between your calls. what about the tech sector, mr. challenger? guest: so far we have not seen much growth there. information jobs have stayed pretty flat. yet i do think that this is an area we are going to see growth as we move into the second half of 2010 and on into the future. because companies have really held off in their investment in technology the last couple of years of the recession. they have just been using the technology that they already had. but as we go forward we know every two or three years the technology can begin to wear
8:41 am
out, some of the gains that have been made begin to have -- can have significant impact on how that company operates, the competitive advantage it can give companies. so i think we will see more investment in technology going forward and that should translate into more jobs. host: what about manufacturing? you live in illinois. guest: we have seen some gains in manufacturing the last three months, about 45,000 net new jo jobs. the dollar helps. the international situation helps. global improvement in the economy. but it is not going to be a heavy growth sector in our econo economy. manufacturing jobs are now less than -- i think it is about 10% to 13% of our economy. the growth today is more service jobs and information age types of jobs, jobs that require skills and education. host: at the same time, there's an article on the front page of
8:42 am
the "wall street journal" this morning that talks about auto towns reviving and how they are coming back and some of the american auto companies are rehiring workers. guest: well, i certainly think that that is a positive story that we are going to see play out in 2010. one estimate said up to a million more cars will be bought by american consumers this year. the bailouts seem to have stabilized the companies. ford is doing very well. so, i do think we will see job creation in the auto sector which should ripple out as well into smaller manufacturing companies and suppliers and dealers as well. general motors has announced they are going to open back up some of the dealerships they had shut. host: first call is for john challenger from tampa on the republican line, charles. caller: good morning.
8:43 am
i just have a problem with the numbers always. the government keeps putting out wrong numbers. there is example after example where they are way off on the numbers and i am not an expert on any particular field, but i don't want to pick on the one subject we were just mentioning before. they were saying something about 11 million illegal ailians. there are at least 11 million in southern california. host: mr. challenger, when it documents economic numbers put out by the government such as the unemployment rate at 9.7% which has been pretty constant so far this year, what do you glean from the government numbers? guest: well, the government numbers certainly are based on surveys of a small number when it comes down to it of either businesses, employers, or of households. two big surveys where they
8:44 am
extrapolate out. what number that really struck a lot of emotional concern over the last couple of years has been the unemployment rate. now we see from them, the labor department, a number called the underemployment number, the u-6 number, which not only tracks the people who are unemployed, and that is just people looking for a job the last month, but it also tracks people who are working part time in jobs but would prefer a full-time job, it tracks people who have been looking tpfor work in the last year but not in the last month so they are not counted as unemployed. and that number is much higher, above 17%. in fact, it has gone up a little recently. so the undermoment number some feel is a more -- the underemployment number is the number some feel is more
8:45 am
accurate with the severe difficulties american workers have been through in this recession. host: david in hazelton, pennsylvania, you are on with john challenger, national economic outlook is the topic. caller: good morning. here is my question. i'm professional making, was making over $100,000 a year. recently i went for a job down in washington, d.c. where i used to work and the job was $120,000 a year and i was denied the job because of poor credit. now, i think you know where i'm going. i used to have god credit. -- good credit. i have bad credit because i lost my job and it is like an endless cycle with respect to having to get a job with poor credit. guest: well, that is a difficult issue, especially for government agencies which may do much more comprehensive
8:46 am
background checks. a lot of companies are not looking at someone's credit record in making hiring decisio decisions. so, this is an issue the country has to face. a lot of people who had very good credit before the recession started faced the housing crisis and economic crisis and unemployment numbers we saw, you know, now have this issue on their records. background checks are so much more easily done today by hiring organizations with the advent of the internet. cheap background checks are a bigger factor in how companies make decisions. but again so many companies don't look at this issue in their hiring policies. host: in your view is a credit rating a fair assessment when it comes to a hiring process? guest: no, i don't think so. companies ought to be looking at what it is that person can do,
8:47 am
how they fit with the demands of what the job is looking for. companies today have five or six candidates for every job that is open right now. so what happens is because they are in that driver's seat they are picking and choosing among people people. so, even small factors come into play. host: memphis, tennessee, vivian, democrat. caller: good morning. i live in memphis. when i was growing up we had national harvester, armor all those companies and later on they went overseas. that left behind a lot of buildings here with a lot of people with good manufacturing skills in memphis. they would hope they would bring toes manufacturing jobs back.
8:48 am
the furniture, cars. we didn't have that problem. the industry needs to bring toes jobs back. everybody is not equipped to work in high tech places. host: mr. challenger. guest: we've moved from a manufacturing base to a service and information based economy and the jobs of the future may not be these factory jobs that existed in the last era. so, many of the next generation children are going into service jobs. that may mean, say, in healthcare, which i think offers one of the biggest potential areas for job creation and growth the next decade in this country as the baby boomer population ages and more demand for home healthcare nurses and physical therapists and the like are created. host: phoenix, tim on the line.
8:49 am
go ahead. caller: thank you. i was wondering if you saw the guest right prior to you this morning and they were talking about the immigration laws. i'm from arizona. according to him, there is all kinds of jobs available here that americans don't want. we need illegal aliens to do the jobs here. so, were those going to be the jobs you are talking about? is that why we need them? guest: well, those are -- no, i was talking about health care jobs which i think is different. but it is a real issue for this country that we have created a standard of living that means a lot of the jobs that are created at the very low level in agriculture and construction and other areas -- hotels and hospitality -- are being filled by immigrants who come in illegally and take those jobs.
8:50 am
certainly the country might have a choice to make is does it want to create a situation where people do take those jobs and push the rates for those minimum wage jobs up. it would mean many of those businesses will have to go, given the current environment, out of business and we will have fewer businesses in the wake of that decision. host: mr. challenger, do you think that immigration is important to our national economic picture? guest: i do think it is certainly important. it is the way it is. so i feel like we have a system here in place. nobody really talks about it as it is. so, we have let it go on to the point over many decades where it is solid and in place, yet below
8:51 am
the radar. to change it is so complicated and leads to the situation that your last guest was talking about where it is very hard to get it on the table because of the political situation and the redifficult decisions that would have to be made if you really wanted to bring it up to light and make hard choices. host: next call is from annapolis, maryland. jeff, republican. caller: mr. challenger, i have been hearing this a lot but i really question the notion that this is the worst economy since the great depression. from 1978 to 1982 we had similar job loss numbers or job issues and we also -- it was also compounded with higher inflation, double digit, and higher interest rates that were also double digit.
8:52 am
they were approaching 20%. i think from a systematic perspective it was a hell of a lot worse than it is today. guest: well, i think many agree with you. unemployment reached a higher number in that recession in the early 1980's. so, these were two bad recessions. certainly the two worst since the great depression. and which one was worst depends on what particular area of the economy you focus on. one that causes me great concern today is the number of long-term jobless people out of work more than 27 weeks. those numbers are an historic high right now. the over 40% of people who are urn employed have been -- unemployed have been out of work more than 27 weeks. and a concern for our society is we have a whole segment of people who feel like they have done everything right, they have
8:53 am
worked hard at their jobs, but in this recession after they lost their job they were unable to find and have been unable to find their way back in and that creates longer-term risks in terms of their expectations and optimism about what the economy can produce for them. host: kevin lives in mount claire, new jersey. on for john challenger. caller: good morning. i can see what is going on in this world and especially in america and mexico on the borders. any person, i believe, that would try to provide for their family any jobs here in america, 1981 was when i believe we first started falling, knowledge in this case they called it, job rates were cut after the air traffic controllers were laid off and it is a domino. the guys who had money moved
8:54 am
their jobs to thailand and other places. host: turn down the volume and you can hear everything through the telephone or we get feedback. mr. challenger, kevin was looking at a longer economic picture. what are your thoughts on that and how our economy has changed? guest: well, we certainly have created a culture that -- an economy -- that is much more entrepreneurial than it used to be. mall business -- small business is what drives job creation and growth in this country. we saw a huge wave in the late 1990's and dot com boom of younger people coming out of school saying my ideal career path, some of the very best graduates coming out of schools saying rather than go to work for a big corporation and work
8:55 am
there much of my life, my long-term goals are to create a busine business, to start something up. so entrepreneurship has made its way into the school systems. they now teach it for students. we see people move jobs more often than they used to. the idea of lifetime employment has really disappeared. and that long term means we have a much more flexible economy, much more open to innovation an growth and, i think, much more long term much stronger than we had before. host: louis in austin, texas. you are on the air. tpwhrao thank you -- caller: thank you. a lot of people talk about bringing manufacturing back to the united states. i would like to ask you a hypothetical. say that you were c.e.o. of a manufacturing company that traditionally manufactured goods in the united states and you spent the last 10 years,
8:56 am
expense, effort and time to relocate either to mexico or china and you are now able to manufacture your product for 20% of what you can do in the united states. why would you decide to move back? guest: well, i think companies will move back when they have markets here and products they can create at a kind of -- with the kind of costs that allow them to be successful. we are in a global economy right now. many of these -- many of our u.s. corporations sha, the key long-term success is to tie in to those new markets around the world. i do think they have to create operations, that means plants as well and factories in those countries to get at those markets. i think that will bring long-term wealth back to this country and jobs as we go out
8:57 am
and sell road building equipment and toothbrushes and technology in countries that are developing middle classes around the world. so, i think it offers great hope for this economy. but bringing back of manufacturing jobs when those global companies that are much more open compete here is going to be be very difficult unless we can get the cost structures in lien. if those companies can create products, given the cost of employing the people and opening those plants up here and price them in a way that allows them to compete, they will do that. host: new report out that just came out the u.s. economy grows 3.2% in the first quarter. the u.s. economy grew at a slightly slower than expecteded pace in the first quarter held back by inventories and exports by resurgent consumer spending
8:58 am
offered evidence of a sustainable recovery a government report showed friday. what are your thoughts? guest: well, it is a big number. it shows now we have had three consecutive quarters of growth in the economy, g.n.p. growth. it is a little less than expected and we have been also looking tpfor the skwrpd pinnin of -- the underpin of this growth to be consumer spending. we have seen a return of that. many question whether it can be for real because the job situation has not improved that mu much. until people are really back working we have lost over eight million jobs in this recession and it will be hard to see, i think, a sustained consumer recove recovery. consumer spending drives about two-thirds of the economy. these are good numbers. the question is can we continue this same kind of path going
8:59 am
forward into the second half of the year and on into 2011. host: woody, tampa, florida, on with john challenger, national economic outlook is our topic. caller: yes, mr. challenger. very interesting discussion. your previous callers brought up the thought of bringing manufacturing back to america. i would like to say that i'm kind of glad to see the economy is growing 3.2%. that means i'm going to sell more guitars this year. i decided when i started the company that -- this was back in 2006 -- we were not going to have any problems in in the supply chain, wouldn't have problem with quality control. every piece of wood is crafted by hand by fine american craftsmen. we don't play around with any of the stuff from across the ocean. my question to you is like this. as we start running out of oil
9:00 am
on this planet and it starts becoming much, much support expensive for companies in china and taiwan to send big giant container vehicles over here full of plastic crap that we buy here for a really cheap price, isn't that going to add a whole bunch of costs to them sending it offense here and -- host: mr. challenger? .
9:01 am
guest: if they find they are dealing with the statistics of the supply chain is too expensive, they will bring the jobs back here. host: we have more from a government report tree business inventories increased $31.1 billion in the first quarter as businesses restock to me firming domestic demand. what does that mean? why is that an important figure? guest: it is very important. we saw the economy grow in the
9:02 am
fourth quarter 5.5% approximately. most felt it was based on companies rebuilding their inventory. they have been drawn down so low through the recession they had to rebuild them. we saw the economy groper it was not sustainable. if there is not demand for your product, they slowly get drawn back down. continues and the suggested there is firming demand is what the doctor ordered occurred if we see that and that the economy is able to break through this time of recession to a place where it is not the government's stimulating demand but the engine is sparked and businesses are injecting more in technology and business
9:03 am
investment is growing as well, we will see that sustained recovery. we will see the sustained expansion as we move out of the cycle of recession. host: rickey in tennessee, a democrat. caller: yes. i am a factory worker per i'll have worked for a company for 32 years. they. nafta and -- they passed nafta and i lost my job. what am i going to do? host: thank you for your information. let's have mr. challenger respond to your first point. guest: well, i think the question is how did you find a
9:04 am
new job in this economy as it starts to grow? it may mean having to go to war for a smaller employer. people are having to work for smaller companies and adapting their skills to a new company. it may mean going into some of the construction and road- building projects with stimulus dollars that -- in terms of new projects being developed. looking for ways to adapt your skills to the new environment. host: if you were in his position, is there a region of the country you would tell him to move to? if he had the freedom. is there somewhere that is really growing more than another area of the country? guest: the lowest unemployment
9:05 am
in the country is right in the middle, nebraska and south dakota, the mid-planes. of the country. in terms of going straight to were the unemployment is, the biggest demand exists compared to the size of the workforce is an area to look at. host: bradford, pennsylvania. frank. caller: good morning. the burden on american industry is health care. they cannot compete and they will not compete until health care is taken off the back of the industry. g.e. employs 70,000 people in this people. 30,000 people overseas. if they want 20,000 jobs back,
9:06 am
they would go broke. health care, we have international companies which have work forces here. they probably send -- they're probably spend trillions on jobs. we get about 10% of that. host: health care and employers. guest: health care has been tied to employers in this country for a long time. the new health care reform is addressing this issue of how we will go forward with paying for health care. to provide certain level of health care to our citizens and give other choices as a society we are making. perhaps if our society deteriorates significantly over the next 20 or 30 years, we will
9:07 am
see some of the safety net we think is most essential to our lives, we may see some of that deteriorate as well. but we are making that choice as a country that this is what we think our citizens should have. host: about six more minutes with our guest this morning. madison, wisconsin. caller: good morning. i have lived through the 80's recession. we have retooled in the 1980's. we have a college-educated daughter. she is a professional. on a conference call with 10 other professionals, the recruiter made the comment that eight of the sand had been unemployed over two years and he is very concerned about the
9:08 am
brain drain. host: mr. challenger. guest: i think so, as well. this is one of the effects of this recession. we have seen large numbers of people go unemployed or underemployed for a significant amount of time. we are not utilizing those skills in an optimum way strongest economy we can. we have people working in this economy, it will be stronger. as we go forward, can we see enough job creation and growth? it will come from small businesses that are growing am looking for new niches from large businesses that are looking overseas to try and tap
9:09 am
into the global economy and keep this economy the strongest in the world. if we do that, we will create jobs for skilled workers like this college daughter. host: michigan. caller: i keep hearing small businesses will provide jobs. i do not think there is enough small businesses to provide jobs. we need the industrial base that was given away. we need that back. it was orchestrated along with letting the immigrants in. it is "the grapes of wrath" revisited. it is a fallacy. it will not create enough jobs. we need to come back. ever since reaganomics, would
9:10 am
hurt small businesses are going to provide jobs to it that is a lie. guest: i do not believe small businesses are responsible. large businesses have not created net new jobs in large numbers for a long time. we need a large businesses to continue to prosper in this country and we're just not any longer in a closed system where we can create products within our own system. we can create big businesses and we will only sell products and employed people in this industry. the system has now turned into a global economy. it just makes it impossible for big businesses not to then compete for those markets and
9:11 am
the business and the potential that is out there but also compete with workers from around the world. host: new jersey, independent line. please go ahead. caller: ablone april tfirst thet rate is over 10%. you cannot find a job today. when you look for one, companies did not go to their own office. they go to a consulting company. there is no way anyone can find a job in the middle class. host: mr. challenger. guest: it is a difficult situation. it is the same issue we're talking about. we are competing in a global economy. it means that our education
9:12 am
system has to be strong. we have to create workers who effectively cannot out compete workers from the wrest of the world spirit we want to be the country that has the most educated people in the world and people want to come to and to see -- and to seek the safest havens. the immigration population comes in and brings their skills with them. it is one of the things that has made this nation great from the beginning. i think it is one of our surest ways to make sure that we stay great in the next century. host: thomas from texas on out republican line. caller: good morning, c-span.
9:13 am
the morning -- good morning. if you do not have large-scale business manufacturers, you cannot support small business. in order to support large manufacturers to support small business and allow money to be exchanged from those businesses to buy things, you are going to have to get rid of the wgo. this health-care thing will be road into small business and will kill that along with existing large manufacturers in the united states. the people in washington d.c. who just passed this legislation for health care, they are not going to turn around and renegotiate the entire thing you have insurance before somebody who did not have
9:14 am
insurance. but to turn around and for people who have insurance and tell the manufacturer that they will have to pay a fine, i agree with the colt who was saying about the one company 70,000 workers. if they call them all back, they would go broke. host: any response, mr. challenger? guest: we have to face difficult problems in this country. we feel things are essential and in many ways every person has a ride -- can we afford them? how are we going to pay for them? the country is struggling with that issue right now. do we want to raise taxes to pay for them? do we want to cut those
9:15 am
services? we know that the federal government isn't the deb in dee. we do not have an alignment as to what we expect from government and the goods we expect from government. host: next call for john challenger comes from si essex, maryland. caller: you have not answered enany of the questions. everyone is putting it together for you produce said you have faith that the small businesses can create the kinds of jobs we need. they cannot afford the health care. they cannot afford the salaries some of these people -- they cannot afford to pay them the money.
9:16 am
-- i work for a large communications company that employs over 130,000. if our company wanted just to pay the fine, they would sit a boat load of money. -- they would save a boat load of money. guest: we are going to have to lower the wages in this country to compete around the world. we may decide we want fewer businesses and last economic growth as a country and more services to pay for them. smaller businesses and businesses that cannot compete will go up because their cost will be too high. we have choices to make about how much economic growth and job
9:17 am
growth and creation want versus the underlying basic services we want from government and that includes health care and schools and public transportation and the like. host: john challenger, thank you for being on the "washington journal" for the first time. coming up next, edward luce, the washington bureau chief for the "financial times." we will consider our conversation on politics. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> today we will bring it a discussion on what u.s. policy
9:18 am
should be in dealing with iran. it will be live here on c-span starting and 10:30 eastern. tonight, a remembrance of dorothy height who died last week. friends, family, and colleagues gathered to remember her life. you can see it on c-span2. a number of hollywood actors will be in washington for the white house correspondents' dinner. there will be a remarks from jay leno. it will be on c-span beginning at 8:00 p.m. on saturday. on sunday, author and columnist pat buchanan on conservative ideology. he will take your calls, e-
9:19 am
mails, and tweets. sunday, live, on c-span2. >> there are nearly 6000 references to abraham lincoln in our video library. you will find lots of interesting programs online. for a contemporary perspective, there is the c-span book, "abraham lincoln." >> "washington journal" continues. host: now on your screen is ed luce. the senate begins formal debate on formal reform. where do we stand as far as this bill goes? guest: in a rather confusing place. they have agreed to allow it to go forward to debate on the
9:20 am
floor of the senate. there will be hundreds of amendments. it will go on for two or three weeks. there is no consensus. they differ widely from each other. it is a fluid situation given the strong climate, the strong political climate in washington. it is one of the most difficult pieces of legislation. whether it is passed with a strong financial regulatory agency or passed with tough derivatives reform, whether it is passed by increasing the regulatory powers of the fed or reducing them, it is hard to predict that right now. host: a tough populist culture in washington right now. what does that mean? guest: the case against goldman
9:21 am
sachs and the senate testimony of lloyd blankfein and others has raised the profile of the wall street committee in the buildup to september, 2008, and refocus public anger on that issue. until the case was filed, this was a relatively low-key operation considering how big of a reform it is. it has electrified the political atmosphere. host: there is a picture in "the new york post" this morning of people who are protesting sachs. has this heard them? >> hugely hurt goldman sachs and lloyd blankfein has been going
9:22 am
around the country doing god's work, a notorious comment. he is now going around and eating humble pie and apologizing and every opportunity and apologizing because he and his banks, until recently the most often criticized blue-chip is now the poster child of what went wrong in the buildup to the financial meltdown. host: in your observation, how did the confrontation between the senate and goldman sachs bo? who won? guest: i really enjoyed some of the language. carl levin used a certain word you probably do not permit on this show. it was a measure of how frustrated senators were with the legalized passing that lloyd
9:23 am
blankfein and others were given in attempting to deny the the responsibility. overall, i would say goldman came off pretty badly but there were no home runs. there were no sort of gotcha moments that will be played again and again on the channels. they avoided that disaster. but they came off badly nevertheless. host: let's take some calls. we can talk about financial regulatory or other matters that are facing congress. also politics, if you want to talk politics and get his thoughts on that. i did want to ask you one more question. this is the lead story in your "financial times" this morning. greece agrees to 24,000 euros of
9:24 am
cutbacks. greece has agreed the outline of a 24 billion euro austerity package including raising the retirement age from an average of 53 to 67 in return for a euro plan. you could retire in greece at age 53? guest: you can, and you can retire in other places. the next club med countries are in the firing line. they have powerful public sectors in those countries. they symbolize some of the fiscal recklessness that has led up to this crisis. the problem with the politics of this bailout package is that it's going to spark big public sector protests, big union
9:25 am
protests on the streets. no one likes to see their salaries cut. it is what they are used to. the bailout is the beginning, not the end. host: if greased tumbles or fall, why does portugal and the u.s. stock market go? where is the interconnection? guest: in terms of risk appetite. if people see a previously considered to be stable sovereign debt like greece within the euro zone, by all accounts, if they see it being treated like one of the emerging markets in the late 1990's, it is not such a leap to go from greece to portugal.
9:26 am
this is essentially what is happening. host: ed luce is our guest. caller: good morning. i am a former republican who has always kept a keen eye on the economies and politics. one of the reasons why i am not an independent is because i have seen sound economic principles are being subverted by ideology in the republican party, particularly beginning with deregulation with ronald reagan and the s&l bailout. they downplayed the figures of that fiasco, but the amounts were somewhere around $one trillio1 trillion.
9:27 am
a host of other countries were going along with the policies. things that got me and my friends flabbergasted about this unprecedented use of taxpayer funds to finance these rounds of executive bonuses in these private companies is the fact that the bailout has propped up their stock values and that in addition to these bonuses, these executives have been allowed to sell off their stock options which are tantamount to another wave of taxpayer-financed bonuses. host: any response? guest: i did not hear the question. host: there wasn't really a question. he was talking about his personal view and why he is no longer republican. guest: i am not sure why that
9:28 am
would lead you to being independent necessarily because from the right to the left on capitol hill, they supported the controversial otherwise but highly necessarily troubled assets relief program, the $700 billion bailout that was so unpopular. the fact that we are subsidizing, the rapid return to bonus culture on wall street. it makes us very an easy. it is hard -- it makes us very an eas uneasy. as the comet would have gone into a depression, which would have led to more public spending and far more job
9:29 am
losses and probably a greater exodus of people from the two parties or simple no vote and we have otherwise seem. there is no simple narrative here that the good guys could have followed. it is a compromising situation for everybody. host: the u.s. car companies seem to be moving along and making profit and rehiring workers. guest: it shows the necessity will calibrated and with strict conditions of government assistance in instances like this or the alternative is hundreds of thousands of unemployed, possibly more. government intervention can be very effective and completely useless. it depends how it is structured. i think the gm bailout was
9:30 am
pretty well managed. toyota ran into all of these problems over the last few months and has seen a reduction in car sales was a windfall for the charge. the cash for clunkers program, that part of the stimulus last summer, but was so successful and led to such a surge in demand for detroit's cars. it was also very beneficial. there is no doubt about. regardless of having treating some creditors better than others in the restructuring of gm, it was a fairly well managed intervention by the federal government. host: devi from connecticut on our republican line. -- debbie from connecticut. caller: the global economy is
9:31 am
interdependent on everyone. the bubble has burst. economics in that country are no longer working. there are the european nations and they will be disrupted and upset about the different styles of life. in the united states, these large companies are getting bailed out with federal tax dollars. there is a similar game going on with passing money from hand to hand before it gets lost. everyone is trying to figure out what is going on. the average worker taking less money home and being taxed more. education standards are less than and these programs and the government is growing faster and larger corporations seem to be benefiting along with those in
9:32 am
government positions. guest: i agree with that currie the sense of frustration should be universal. i would return to my previous answer. in the case of an emergency as with the collapse of lehman brothers and the one that europe is facing right now with greece, you have to ask what the alternative is. you have to be pragmatic. a large cash infusion tends to be the typical answer because the alternative is collapse. the real choice comes when the emergency is over and when you look at building a new regulatory system to prevent a recurrence of this kind of crisis. that is where practical grievances can be directed at the policy makers. i have no doubt that when people look back at this moment in washington with the financial
9:33 am
regulatory reform bill, but there will be questions asked about whether an opportunity was missed to completely overhaul the relationship between wall street and the american economy. the financial sector has dominated for the last 30 years. over the same time, there has been a big hollowing out of jobs and these tend to be the middle class jobs with pensions and benefits and they involve rising living standards. they have been replaced with jobs that are less secure and that do not replicate the growth and the. repoi think questions will be asked. 10 years from now, questions will be asked about whether an opportunity was missed to
9:34 am
recalibrate the american economy radicalism is saw back in the 1930's. whether it should have happened is a subject for debate. >> edwarhost: edward luce has served for a time for it speech writer for larry summers. he also was a bureau chief for the "financial times" and also was capital markets editor for london. when you look back at all your postings, where is the least regulated economy? is it in southeast asia that is it the u.s.? i hate to use a generic term as least regulated. guest: it would have to probably be the united states appeared in the it is probably the most regulated. it has become less regulated.
9:35 am
growth has taken off in india. to much regulation. in some instances, with some sectors, there is too little. or a least until we sit financial reporregulation bill passed. having said that, there is a law of hidden subsidies in their for big corporations. i think the biggest of all is the subsidy easy to the big banks through various regulatory biases in favor of financial capital over investments, productive investment capital. host: d.c. a wave right now? the british elections are -- do
9:36 am
you see a wave right now? the british collections are about to happen. guest: next thursday when britain goes to the polls, it could be the second-largest party for the first time since 1910. it was a fairly left-wing party. there are parallels with ross perot in 1992. there is a great deal of frustration in britain with politics as usual. there is a great deal of cynicism about the establishment classes. that is manifesting itself into all kinds of shifts of policies and cries of frustration. i think the liberal democrats are very different to the tea party movement. a progressive party, if you like.
9:37 am
it is the same impulse. your kansas with washington. -- your case with washington. it's hard to forecast ago. host: next call comes from jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning. i am nervous. bear with me. we are so polarized with the haves and have-nots. my salary has gone up maybe two 2%. i do believe in a single payer plan. we're not a market. if you working for a day, what three things which you do to get us out of the mess we're in? guest: this is not a question i
9:38 am
have received before. i think i would -- and these are my controversial opinions, not the opinions of the "financial times." if we can transcend the political realities for a moment an appointment monarch for the day, forget the moral argument and social justice case for universal access to public health care. in terms of putting a lid on the costs in the american economy, the disincentive to create manufacturing jobs here as opposed to in china or canada. i would have a single payer system. it would negotiate to reduce drug prices, one of the biggest contributors to health care inflation in america. it would be able to do all sorts
9:39 am
of things to keep costs down. it would help begin to solve america's fiscal problem. i would take very drastic measures to get america's revenues and spending back into alignment hurt if you look ahead at america's ability to sustain its pre-eminence in the world, the canary in the coal mine, the first line of defense is the dollars reserve currency status. as america loses that, other things could go quickly, as well. the third thing i would do, politically impossible at this time, to deal with carbon. i would simply have a carbon tax. i would subsidize those on low
9:40 am
income by cutting their social security payments. the tax would be revenue neutral. it would skew behavior towards very different kinds of behavior and drastically incentivize companies to invest in new horizon energies, which i think will be the source of a lot of secure manufacturing jobs in the future. at the end of the day, i would be-executes -- i would be test exede-execute it. caller: so many questions i would love to ask you. i have one about commercial real estate. is there a bubble that has it burst yet -- -- has been burst yet? we see have devastating the housing market was.
9:41 am
if there was a bubble, will it do to the american economy if it bursts? i've seen tall-year-old who can talk better than that gentleman. -- i have seen 12-year-olds who can talk better than that gentleman. guest: i am not qualified to answer your question. i cover the politics side of things in washington "financial times for the-- for the "financl times." the consequences of the bursting or breaking would be very bad for the u.s. economy. i can answer your questions about the shenanigans going on in terms of shorting and other exotic things.
9:42 am
given past performance, you can assume there isn't. host: what about the congress and what it has passed to assist people with mortgage problems? has that been an effective tool? guest: a tiny proportion of those have received assistance. the rate of foreclosures remain high. we're expecting a couple of million more foreclosures in 2010. we are talking about fewer than 10% of those who might have qualified for assistance received assistance. i think it is quite difficult structurally, logistically without the changes in the law to force banks and homeowners to get together and restructure the mortgage. there was an opportunity last year to allow a magistrate to
9:43 am
give them the power to restructure mortgages, and that was gutted from the bill predicted would have led to a rash of restructuring that we might have seen all people under water assisted. the other constraint is public spending. it does cost money. you are subsidizing the banks even though the bank should have written off loan long ago. it requires taxpayer money. the political mood on spending is very tough to get spending whether it is necessary or not. you could make it pretty compelling argument. it's pretty tough in the wake of the rise of the tea party movement and in the wake of some of the numbers we see, the red
9:44 am
ink spilling out over years and years and the rest of public debt to justify spending politically in the short term. host: next call comes from reston, virginia. vinnie. caller: i was reading a great book. everybody should read it. it mentioned that the 1920's had the depression. the government did not intervene and the country bounced back rather quickly and was doing all right. the next depression in the 1930's, the government intervened and we had a lot of problems. whenever the government got involved, because of problems. when you bailout, history contradicts that. it's nothing more than fear
9:45 am
mongering. we need to reject the economics and embrace other economics. guest: that is interesting point you make and one that is fairly contentious. my response will probably be contentious, too. most economists would see the low point f ofdr's press -- the low point of fdr's presidency and the emergence from depression as the project in which he cut spending. he reined back the government's role in the economy. because the private sector have not recovered by then, and plunged the coming back into recession. it wasn't until there was full
9:46 am
employment and public spending and steps taken in the buildup to the second world war that the american economy started operating at full capacity again. i think your point about that is interesting and it remains so now. the role of demand is something that even others and member of the austrian school nowadays to give a central place to in the way they did not 80 years ago. look at people like ben bernanke and see how people who are on the right economically except that the public sectors in times of private sector demand is indispensable to keeping the economy running. host: that telamon dispensing a
9:47 am
book that was covered by boat tv. if you would like to see mr. woods talk about it, you can go to and you can watch it online. what are you currently reading? guest: i am reading the book by david remnick and i am 2/3 of the way through. it is a brilliant book. we're so early in to prop'obamas presidency. -- we're sorely into barack obama's presidency. there is a richness and it makes you more interested in its subject matter. often biographies leave you
9:48 am
robert bork of the subjects. this -- often by r refreeze believe you board-- often biographies leave you bored. so many of them look like you cannot read them and how few of them you get around to reading. i have a lot of books like that. take one or the other. host: "the bridge" will also be on book to be this weekend, right before pat buchanan comes on live from noon to 3:00 p.m. this weekend. new york. caller: i think it's a crime i have to pay for the bailout of the water industry when i drive a 22-year-old corporate the
9:49 am
banks are being held to the antitrust laws. the pinnacle of all of this is the atlantic york case where investors can force people out of their homes to put in their toys. an investor from russia believes you should be able to force workers to work more than 120 hours a week. he is being invested for his ties to war crimes in africa and working with the country for war crimes. i think it is the pinnacle of what is wrong with our financial situation. guest: i am not familiar with the final case you mentioned. it sounds like a crime to me. the first are not technically crimes. host: tampa, jeff, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call.
9:50 am
how you think the imf can pack in southern european countries like greece and portugal, italy, spain? how can it back in a way to help those economies recover? guest: by having a very rapid -- by doing something they have not been able to do. the first organizing committee from the greek bailout has been the european union and they have proven itself even more inapt, even more slower-moving and even morthan their critics would have alleged. i think there would be some very weird-looking camel and is still not ready. it has exposed huge pensions in
9:51 am
the european union between germany and others. the imf was the last thing that the managers of the european union and others wanted to do. the stigma of having the imf, but recall that was up but nobody wanted to do. it is a measure and said this was some sadness. is a measure of the long wait europe has to go to achieve a minimum level of coordination and competence because you see the true colors during a crisis. it is a measure of the crisis of the euro institution.
9:52 am
it's a single body and they can act quickly and is the before. it provides political cover to impose the kind of austerity they are required to propose to put the books back in order the fact that the imf past to do this bailout is -- in tandem with the european yew yen will make it an unusual kind of bailout. a lot of people are skeptical as to whether it will be the last word on the subject. host: there is a report that nouriel roubini who forecast the recession said seven dead will lead to higher inflation corporate default. guest: far be for me to
9:53 am
contradict him. it is the contagion affect. i refer back to the previous question. i very much doubt it will be. it will be terrible for sovereign debt even here, which is much less in the crisis. it is still a bubble. a bubble we saw in terms of the housing market that led to the crash. it has been transferred into massive over investment in american public debt, particularly t-bills. american treasury bills. high prices on those instruments have the hallmark of a bubble. even here, you have to be extremely worried about the seven dead apart -- a word about
9:54 am
the sovereign debt. host: who owns the "washington journal"? guest: is owned by a company called pearson. it is british. the have stockholders from all over the world. our chief executive is american. we're very international. host: is a profitable? -- is it profitable? guest: we have returned a profit. we have seen the efforts we have made. it was in profit in 2009, which is a year not a lot of newspapers made a profit because we continue to invest online, which started to charge
9:55 am
online ahead of others, and the fact that we produced a very high quality journalism. we're not as great but it panicked as we work two years ago. it's a less negative outlook then we might have expected. host: do you foresee all newspapers charging for online access back is that the wave of the future? guest: they used to say information wants to be free. i think it wants to be expensive. i am being slightly facetious. people understand to gather information requires teams of people. we are a global paper. we have correspondence in athens, lisbon, portugal.
9:56 am
not many other papers project no other papers barring "the wall street journal" consider that. that costs money. you need people on the ground and you need a system of editing and of quality-control. it does cost money. information wanting to be for a is not helpful to that. host: john in san diego. caller: i had an observation and two quick questions. isn't most of public skepticism on this financial reform based on big business, big banking, to closely joined at the hip with
9:57 am
government? that is my observation. as far as new regulations, part the wall street bankers and their staffs intelligent enough to outmaneuver any new regulations? would it worked to divide these firms and make them not too big to fail by dividing them by product division and then assigning regulators to those particular risky divisions? guest: there are a lot of questions in there. there are amendments on the floor of the senate to limit the size of banks. the senator from delaware is chairing one of them. they're trying to limit the size of banks to 10% of total
9:58 am
deposits. that is not considered highly likely to succeed. not everyone agrees it is the size of banks that is the problem. it is the collective this of banks and the risky activities. look at the 1930 cost p's, it ws small community banks that were collapsing. history does not support that case either. the point about cynicism of the nexus between the government and wall street is a well-founded and well established point, and i tried to address that earlier in terms of intellectual hegemony the financial markets have had. if you look of the revolving door between goldman sachs and
9:59 am
government and the phrase government sachs, it is no accident that people are cynical. i do not blame them. this is a large conflict of interest. politics is only now getting around to addressing and only reluctantly. look how much both parties get in donations from wall street's. skepticism is well-founded. host: dennis from maryland. caller: a couple of things. there was a large industrial manufacturing base. it is gone. they will not be able to accommodate this recession. since the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on