tv Washington Journal CSPAN July 26, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
provisions are set to expire. and senator tom harkin about the 20 anniversary of the signing of the americans with disabilities act. that even will be covered later this morning. later, a look at how recent bills in congress and facts community banks, with community bankers association executive vice president. "washington journal" is next. host: this evening the president will hold a white house event to celebrate the 20 an anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. among the items on congress's agenda this week, house leadership hopes to move forward on a fiscal 2010 war supplemental and start work on next year's fiscal bills. we will start by looking at "the new york times" lead story. the afghan struggle, a secret
archives. website wikileaks released secret classified military documents on the afghanistan war. three news organizations initially got the information from wikileaks, including "the new york times." we would like your reaction to this this morning. you can also find as online, email@example.com and r twitter handle this twitter.com/c-span- wj. we are also on facebook. let us look at the shtick -- piece.
jumping down in this story, "the new york times" talk about some of the details and what is information has yielded. they say the taliban used portable heat seeking missiles against out -- allied aircraft. we will move on into the story. we want to check in with journalist mike allen from politico. politico has been following this as most media organizations. good morning, mike. thanks so much for joining us. tell us about how you learned
about this information and what you initially make of it. guest: the administration's main message about this is that this is old news. they are worried about their reaction of afghanistan and pakistan. people knew that there was certainly no news bulletin that there were troubles and afghanistan. but in such a vivid, granular way that it is difficult to dismiss. "the guardian" of london reports the way this came about is that the wikileaks guy had this big trove, that he wanted to reduce the chance of government intervention. that is why he made the documents available to news organizations -- they gave them a secret web site that they can tap into where they could prepare these stories.
the two big story lines that emerged were allegations of collusion between pakistani the telp -- intelligent and the taliban, which long concerned of the u.s. government, and that the idea on the ground that the sergeant's writing these reports have a much bigger view of the war than we are getting from washington. host: the white house responded -- general james jones says the youth of this not only condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations that could put the lives of americans and -- at risk. he goes on to say that these irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnership with afghanistan and pakistan to defeat our common enemies and support aspirations of the afghan and pakistani people. what do you make of his reaction? guest: that is what the government is going to be saying, because they had wanted to improve relations with pakistan. they said it is improving.
a big point of the government is making is all of this is from 2004 until 2009, so most of this is bush administration and saying this was before president obama's new afghanistan- pakistan policy. in a way they're trying to argue, this makes my point. this is why the president said we need to remove the policy. that it does not reflect what has been happening in afghanistan since then. host: looking at the initial round of reporting by "the new york times" and the guardian," the you think new information is what from the surface or if you think this has already been the impression of journalists and those who are watching what is going on and afghanistan? guest: the impression may be similar but when you have this detail there is no way you can say it is not new because there is so much to dig into. when you have 91,000 pages of documents, there is a lot to dig
into. "the new york times" tried to be very responsible. the washington bureau chief, beat reporter on the pakistan story, visit it administration officials to talk to them about it. "the times" is not linking to the big wikileaks compendium. they are only linking to documents they have vested themselves to try to avoid something that could damage national security. and asked wikileaks not to post anything that could be secret. the documents are mainly marked secret, which is kind of a low level classified classification. but most or many of them are technically classified. interestingly, rain that way even after published on the web site. -- remain that way. host: to you think the revolving story will be what the documents
reveal or on wikileaks's role and how the information manage to get out and what the website purposes? guest: that is very astute. from the very beginning the government did it try to change the issue, the focus on wikileaks saying that they oppose u.s. policy in afghanistan. now, "the new yorker" did something interesting about wikileaks last month talk about how it is not really an organization. it does not have a copier. it is sort of an online conservancy and they are pushing on what they call total transparency. host: mike allen, thank you so much for joining us. let's take and look at the julien -- the founder of wikileaks. >> it is the role of journalism
to take on powerful abuses. there is always a reaction. we see that controversy and we believe it is a good thing to engage in the. in this case, it will show the true nature of this war and the public can see what is going on and take steps. host: again, we are talking about the news that on wikileaks, the website, we cannot bring you the website on our screen because it is not functioning -- whether to much traffic or what. but we just heard from julian assange, the founder, and they decided to give that information to three news out looked -- outlets including "the new york times" in the u.s. but is look at that "the new
york times" conversation on how they decided to publish. as a bourse are used by best officers in the pentagon and troops on the field when the make operational plans of repair briefings -- jumping down, talk about the source material, 92,000 documents -- let's start getting your reaction. the first caller is from new york, new york. good morning, jack. caller: thank you for c-span. president eisenhower had a century ago warned us about the
military industrial complex. i think we need to return to his wise words and learn from them continuously. 9/11 was the perfect excuse. president bush completely overreacted. to a ragtag group -- small group of bedouin to learn how to fly planes and brought us into the war in afghanistan and iraq which i believe it's good to turn out to be the greatest blunder in u.s. history. president obama needs to be a stand-up guy and stand up president and get us out of these wars. my grandmother had the best advice about the middle east, she said let them kill each other. i think we need to get out of afghanistan and iraq. host: louisville, ky. jan, independent line. caller: good morning. i just want to say as far as the duplicity of pakistan, americans remember india was the first country on 9/11 to offer us support.
they are looking for a way for us to is stop cozying up to india. neither democrat or republican officials will admit it. host: let us look at "the guardian" coverage of this. their lead story on this. one of the items is how a secret unit of special forces hunt down taliban leaders for kill or capture without trial. how the u.s. covered up evidence the taliban acquired deadly surface to air missiles. other information from "the guardian" -- deadly reaper droves to hunt and kill caliban targets from remote-control in a big base in nevada. hello taliban caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of the roadside bombing campaign, which is killed more than 2000 civilians
to date. but as go to our next caller from anchorage, alaska. andrew, democrats aligned. very early. caller: -- host: what do you think about this? caller: i think some of statistical analysis needs to be applied. nothing here is really that new. and i mean, if you start reading the reports, like when they start talking about people dying -- that is not really happening on the time. it is the insurgency killing these afghan people. i think it is just kind of blown out of proportion. host: let us take a look at one of the "the new york times" items. strategic plan -- bitter end for a lonely outpost.
if you go up to the top, you can see what one of the dispatch of look like. here they are in images. two days of intense attacks by insurgents caring r p g's and small fire arms. you can see the dispatches, the conversations going back and forth from the outpost. let us go to cleveland, ohio. richard joins us on the republican line. caller: my name is dave but richard is ok. am reading the documents and one to quote something, is that fine? the afghanistan war -- host: let us go to the next caller. caller: you know, i am reading
through these documents and i am retired from the government service, i will put it that way. there was a toxic chemical that was the least among the tea party rally -- rally's, a chemical designed to attack the brain with the rapid degeneration. this chemical was developed to be used in afghanistan but it was released among the tea party rallies and that is causing death within two years. it was supposed to be used with the drones operating operating out of nevada. this chemical -- it's the lettuce take a look at some of the headlines of how other news organ -- host: let us take a look at some
of the headlines about how other news organizations are covering it. they say the documents disclose for the first time taliban insurgents reporting to use the heat seeking surface-to-air missiles. "the philadelphia inquirer has a headline, the grim view of the afghan war. let us go to david, independent college in an illinois. caller: it is going to be a hassle. there are good and bad issues about the afghan war. i also a coordinator from illinois for the tea party, i wanted to be feud that something about gas or toxic.
i think we have all joined together and we are just trying to take that country for freedom for everyone and everybody. thank you for c-span. host: let us look at some of the other headlines. from "the financial times," looking at the situation for the company bp. bp poised to announce the departure of tony hayward, the chief executive, according to people close to the u.k. oil company. so, potentially going to an american leader of that company. we have a picture of robert dudley, bob utley, from "the new york times."
he may soon be leaving bp. other stories related to the oil's been. "the wall street journal" fell short -- said mr. hayward fell short of modern ceo demands. his various gas showed a degree of tone deafness. also looking at a news from the gulf, "the washington post" says two types of grasses, whether or not they can rebound or survive. it may determine the fate of the entire region of the coastal marshes.
let's go to connecticut. the bill, democrats line. caller: good morning. i was a little bit late to this, but this story just lays bare all of this information and all of the stuff. this is really the stuff that only goes to when bush was in office, correct? host: 2004 until 2009. caller: it just tells the story. this was pre -- the surgeon all of this stuff. so it is not telling us anything of what is happening today. it is history really, what it is telling us. it is kind of misleading in the papers when they say it lays this bear and all of this other stuff. it lays history there but it does not lay the current conditions there. host: do you think things have changed significantly in
afghanistan said the obama administration has come to power? caller: it is impossible for us to know. really, how would we know? you would assume it would be different. i don't agree with us even being there but you would hope that with all of the money and resources we put in there that it would be different. but it doesn't seem like a very winnable situation. host: new york, david, republican line. caller: hello, how are you doing? host: what did you make of the story? caller: it reminds me of something from a long time ago, vietnam war, i think it was daniel -- who wrote the pentagon papers. certainly after that -- the support for the war already was diminishing and it put an end to it. i just thought i would draw that historical fact, if i got the names right. i think i do. had to dig in my memory for that one. and nobody really knows the
truth. we are finding out with all of this national security how little cooperation is. it is the incompetence really. so somebody brought this forward and say, that does get it out there and look at it and let the american public make a decision and let them way in. host: a comment from twitter -- abouttalk a little bit this web site, wikileaks. we heard from its founder, julien assange, earlier in his own words. the report that since wikileaks was founded in december of 2006, it exposed internal memos about --
the next caller, ronnie, independent. from orlando, florida. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i am very glad that this material has been leaked. i have not had a chance to read it yet. but i think the founder of wikileaks is a real hero because we are becoming a where -- aware that there is a great wall that has been built between what is going on in the world, what is really going on, and what we are being informed about. and i am concerned about that. i am actually decided to call land because a few callers ago someone called in and was about to say something -- host: let us go to another caller in florida.
is this ronnie in florida? is this chris or ronnie? caller: why did you cut him off? host: actually did not. caller: yes, you did. i did not know what he said -- host: we had an offensive earlier caller. that is why we did not -- did cut some of for that reason. certainly we welcome calls that are productive to the discussion. what we are talking about is the website wikileaks produced documents on the afghanistan war and a handful of news organizations that access to the material a month ago and others looked at it last night and got reacting -- and are reacting to it today. let us look at some of the details that have come out in these reports. this is one from september 3, 2009. incident report of a mistake and air strike.
somerville, georgia. independent column. caller: i would like to thank c- span and wikileaks. we've got an actual source of data and an open forum to discuss it. going back to "the washington post" news stories, series of stories. i think one of the things that we can push the button on on the lack of journalism in america is the intelligence operations. i am pretty sure that there is a large portion of so-called journalists that are actually agents. host: brad is talking about "the washington post" series of
stories called top-secret america. robert, democrats line, michigan. good morning. caller: i am a little worried. i have been a journalist -- i have been a journalist for 35 years. the founder of wikileaks, i quoted him, sing journalism's job is to "take on the government. well, good journalism does not take on government. if it does, it is no longer journalism, it is just a political entity that has its own points of view. that is why people these days cannot trust what they read, what they see, what they hear, because the object of journalism is to report the truth to its audience and let the audience decide what political point of view they wish to take. host: i did not know if you had a chance to look at the "the new york times" story, but they did say they did do its own
reporting and verified stories, got confirmation, checking with journalists on the ground. does that sit well with you? caller: now, because i think almost all newspapers and television, especially cable networks, have their own political points of view, and i think that is why people are turning off, turning out, stopping their subscriptions to papers all over the united states. tv networks are falling, in all cases -- except maybe c-span. and the reason is -- and all the surveys show this -- people no longer a trust journalists. and to leak something that is classified information i think clearly endangers those who are working in the field. our own troops, our own undercover people, the cia, who have been made to be bad guys
these days, yet i am sure that every day they do things that saved people. host: bob on independent line from massachusetts. caller: thinking about how it would be in america if it was the chinese, if there were 92,000 chinese trying to impose everybody -- communism on everybody, they would have a little trouble themselves. but i call it the uncle sam syndrome. i feel like -- what sticks in my mind is there were 100 insurgents -- what i dekalb, al qaeda. 100 al qaeda and try to wrap your mind around 92,000 local sams running around trying to find 100 people. uncle sam has taken a total bert knapp -- their net since vietnam
and he cannot get it right and this guy you had on earlier is absolutely right. he does not want transparency. he spent $1 trillion of our money, my money, and the next caller's monday on 100 people. 92,000 uncle sams cannot find a hundred people. host: tallahassee, florida. michael, democratic column. caller: my name is michael and i wanted to talk about obama having the troops there. he needs to get all of the troops out of there before we get them all killed. they have been there for so long. he needs to get off his kentucky -- host: colors, please keep your comments productive and positive -- you did not need to be rude and disrespectful. we do appreciate all of your points of opinion but let's try to keep the conversation civil. let us get to calls and a moment but i wanted to take this moment and look at "usa today." mexico gears up for arizona law.
many migrants thinking twice. the other side of the border also preparing for the implementation of arizona's new immigration law, which could lead to a surge of deportees back to mexico. pennsylvania, madeleine. democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. you know, there's a lot of things that the people should know, and i put it that it is a secret, you should not know, it will hurt the government. i think that is why wikileaks is doing what they are doing and i think it is long overdue. that is my point of view. host: what has been revealed,
does it concern you, doesn't worry you about what is happening or you think this is just the reality of a war zone? caller: it is the reality and i think it is about time we really got the facts because this is going on, our boys are getting killed and the money we are putting into that is really weakening us. i don't think it is making us stronger. host: next up we have back in ruched, louisiana, diana, democrats line -- baton rouge. caller: honestly i said from the beginning that the only reason george bush and dick cheney went into war because they wanted a war, they wanted to be war presidents. what corporation making a billion dollars a year in contracts is going to say,
texas, john, independent line. caller: i just wanted to comment on the wikileaks. i think it is a good thing he is doing that because everybody should know what is going on in the war and what is going on with everybody around the world so everybody gets in tune and it's pretty much a feel of what is going on. ithaca, newgo to york, where you have jamie. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the bigger thing this shows with the classified documents is there too many things that are made classified. how does a report of an incident in 2004 honestly going to
endanger our soldiers in 2010? there are too many things that are being made classified, and then complaints by the administration when these things are released. they should have released them themselves, all of this information should of been made public to the american people it long ago. host: more examples from the war logs. one, a helicopter crash that killed five soldiers. third, special forces unit is outnumbered and far from help. there is the exchange that "the new york times" detailed. gerry, ocean city, maryland. independent color. caller: i just wanted to ask what is the reason that we are not in afghanistan in iraq? i hear plenty of reports about what is going on, different people's opinions, but quite honestly, i don't understand -- maybe i am a fool -- why are we
there? i think it needs addressing. i also think that our present needs to have some press conferences. i do not -- our president needs to have some press conferences. host: and news stories from "the washington post." in harlem, charlie rangel is still a hero. of course, the house subcommittee is looking at what charlie rangel, among other things, improperly used his congressional seat to solicit money and there are other charges he is facing. also from "usa today," white house uses joe biden as campaigner in chief. they look at stops on the campaign trail that president
obama and the vice president have taken. the coveted headliner is really the first lady. let's go to walter loeb, iowa, bob, republican. caller: i am sorry, i forgot your name. but i just wanted to say that you are doing a good job today. these odd calls an off color call are really excellent due to the heat wave. host: what do you think about this story? back to the topic. wikileaks release of affirmation and "the new york times" coverage. caller: i think the initial leakers should be scrutinized to really has to the degree that they could be jeopardized and national security or somebody's health and well-being, and in addition, the final source -- this all has to be looked at
because it is not just a fun and games. it might be to a journalist or something but, it is a mess. i have no solutions. but it needs to be addressed. as far as the particular issue of afghanistan and all of that -- well, ok -- but that is just an example of a larger problem which is leaking in the white house and the pentagon and state department, etcetera. host: wikileaks is not saying how it got the information or who it got it from. they are keeping that's private. and no more information about that. next is dennis, democrats line in upper marlboro, maryland. caller: thank you again for c- span and a classy way you handle certain situations. i apologize for a lot of that mess out there. but anyway, to the point, first of all, i think that you need
some secrets to stay secret, dealing with national security and that kind of thing. but secondly, i feel that in order to turn this thing brown to to get us -- it is so easy to get into a war, as bush demonstrated, it is so easy to rally the people around the flagpole to get us in a war, but it is so doggone hard to get us out of a war because people do not realize that it is not just in military that is conducting the war. you've got the cia that is conducting a war, you've got the national security council, almost like using a gulf coast analogy, like taking one of the
supertankers and trying to turn it around to bring us back out of this war. i don't believe in a totally secretive type of the government's that holds secrets from the people -- and one last thing. i am a little nervous. one last thing i want to make. there are four branches of government in this country. you have the executive branch, the legislative branch, you have the judicial branch, and you have the media. and when you have a media where you have 24 hours to fill, you get all of these different people, first of all, that want to be celebrities on these talks shows. they forget their journalistic training and what ever, and they wanted to be celebrities.
the atlanta, georgia. independent scholar -- caller. caller: i do not know if it was a rhetorical question about why we are in afghanistan but i will probably take 30 seconds. no, terry what i support the effort at all. basically since the attack on 9/11 was basically plotted, planned, in afghanistan by al
qaeda, under the protection of the taliban at that time, we invaded afghanistan ostensibly to prevent al qaeda or any other terrorist group from two and establishing a foothold in that country where it could be used as a base of operations to launch another attack. whether our policy there will actually accomplish that, i am dubious, to be quite frank. host: have you had a chance to look over these stories and doesn't give you any insight into the situation? but caller: i have not had a chance. i have a busy day today so i probably will not have a chance to look at them until this evening. i will probably read "the new york times" version to find out what they have to say. i just don't know at this point in time. i have a feeling -- i think people would get out of the reports but they want. it will reinforce those who are
against the effort as well as those who are for will probably find reasons. but it is what it is. host: let us leave it there. kim, democratic caller from columbus, ohio. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: what i wanted to say to that man a couple of callers back is that we are in the wars because of george bush. the afghan war, but the man just said, was because they hit us. the other man was because, i think because saddam hussein try to kill bush's father. the afghan war is the war i think we should have been in. but the iraq war, we should not even be there. host: thank you for all of your calls. we will be back in a moment where we have a conversation with the bush tax cut but the
tax foundation's gerald prante. we will be right back. >> the sec wants -- fcc wants to establish an emergency network by selling radio waves to a profit entity but some emergency officials would rather see this bandwidth go directly to them. communications officials and former sec chief engineer discussed the proposal tonight
-- former fcc chief engineer discuss the proposal tonight at 8:00 p.m.. c-span is now available and over 100 million homes, a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books all as a public service, created by american's cable companies. "washington journal" continues. host: our guest, gerald prante, is a senior economist with the tax foundation. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: i wanted to have your to talk about the bush era tax cuts. looks like we will see more and more coming it -- up in the news. this story from "the wall street journal." democrats aiming to push legislation to extend middle- class bush tax cuts. prospects for passage appear uncertain. guest: the bush tax cuts were a series of tax cuts between 2001
and to cover sets which primarily the word individual tax rates, also an estate tax reduction. but the main provisions were in the income tax. 2001 series of tax cuts, it reduced tax cuts across the board, gradually phased in. the marriage penalty relief. they reduced -- into thousand two, reduced capital gains and dividends and accelerated the original 2001 tax cuts. those are the main provisions. they are basically all set to expire the end of this year. host: why are they set to expire, why write them that way? guest: it comes with the byrd rule of the senate, all legislation that will add to the deficit beyond a 10-year window -- unless you get 60 votes. kind of a filibuster thing. to keep the deficit from getting too big in the future. host: we heard some from the administration of the weekend, treasury secretary timothy geithner talk about it on the sunday shows. we have this story coming to us
from "the new york times." timothy geithner dismisses concerns about letting the tax cuts expire. he pressed the case for letting the tax cuts for the wealthiest expire late this year. an appearance on two television programs -- and you react to that for us? guest: two concerns in washington. one is the short-term economic situation and the push for stimulus. i don't want to harm the current recovery. and the concern about the long- term debt of the united states. basically the tax cuts over 10 years, about three trillion dollars according to omb numbers, and letting those only expire for the rich would
basically save about $650 billion over 10 years so a net cost about 2.3 instead of three. this concern over the short-term economy versus the long-term budget situation. host: because congress can certainly pick and choose which of the tax cut to continue and which to allow to go away? guest: that will be the political fight over the next six months. if they get something before the election, who knows, if not, they will have to do it during a lame-duck session. but the fight will be what to do about the 2%, to 3% over to a debt of 50,000. obama basically said he went to raise taxes for people above that. host: your organization, the tax foundation. the state is uncertain as to the expiration is uncertain. your colleague writes the most likely scenario, what president obama outlined in his budget -- the ones that benefit couples who earn over $250,000 and
singles over to a hundred thousand would either revert to hire to out on one level or raised in some other fashion. sounds like what is not on the table so much is keeping the tax cuts for the -- the other tax cuts, not just the high end ones. guest: that will be the big fight. there is consensus in washington that if you have an up or down vote on keeping the tax cuts for people below $250,000, it would pass unanimously almost. the big fight is the top 2% to 3%. this is washington, so there are always political games. will republicans basically force democrats to cut everybody's taxes and order to get the one for middle-class and basically pick a political fight? guest: host: if nothing happens was montego it will expire. virtually every american would say a tax increase. host: our guest is gerald prante from the tax foundation. you can join the conversation --
"the new york times" guess they call this an epic fight, brewing over what congress and the president should do. if you see this being a major issue before the campaign season? guest: you never know what congress is going to do. they took a year to do health care reform. you would never expect them to let the estate tax expire, but they did. if congress would get something done it, likely before the election because the republicans probably hang over the democrats heads is that these tax cuts are set to expire and have not done anything. democrats should probably do something gramley the. but you never know in washington. host: what do you see it as sort of a likely scenario playing out on who could benefit politically, republicans or democrats? guest: the republicans in terms of talking points, they will have big on this, small business angle. you raise taxes on the top 2% to 3%, you will hurt small business
until the recovery and democrats, what they used to criticize the bush tax cut is that too much of them went to a higher income are mayors and therefore we should just repeal those and get this balance, and give a signal that we care about our long-term fiscal imbalance. it, is look at comments secretary geithner made this week. >> what the president is proposing to do is to leave in place, extend tax cuts that go to more than 95% of working americans and even place tax cuts that are very important to in sent businesses to hire new employees and to invest in expanding output. we think that is a very strong package. we think it is the right package. we think it is fair and responsible. we also think it is is possible to let the tax cut expired that just go to 2% to 3% of americans, the highest earning. we think that is the responsible thing to do because we have to make sure we can show the world we are willing of the country to make progress bringing down our
long-term deficits. >> don't you think it will slow economic growth? >> know, just letting the tax cuts that go to 2% to 3%, the highest earning -- honors expire, i did not think that will have a negative impact on growth. host: talking about the deficit. tell us about the tax cut into play but the deficit and concerns about reducing it? guest: the current base line, all the numbers from cbo, basing late assuming they will expire, best case scenario for the deficit, relative to the baseline cbo uses, any tax cut extension would add to the deficit, still looking at deficits right now of $1.40 trillion over the -- four years. there is long-term concern. this is before we even get to the baby boom problem of medicare, social security, long term fiscal solvency of the united states and with the united states will and to
become greece, which is on pace to do in probably 40 years if we did nothing, if you allow the tax cuts to expire and various scenarios and you never cut medicare, the united states is on that path. concern over a short-term recovery and long term fiscal imbalance. host: we have robert on the democrats' line from st. louis, missouri. caller: yes, thank you for c- span. host: thank you for calling. caller: good morning, america. it is amazing to me that the top 2% to 3% who hold all the money in this country have -- can make such a big debates and basically hold our economy hostage because they have all of the money, and they are not doling out to put any jobs with all of the money that they have the end -- have come and they are making a big fuss about getting the little guy a break,
saying i'll have to pay more, but there are people who are starving out here. if they just put that stimulus money and divided it up and gave each citizen in this country a share of that money, the auto companies would not have failed because people would have been buying cars, there would not have been a mortgage crisis because people would have paid off their mortgages, and the whole world would be a much better place. it so we believe that there. your response. guest: basically you do the math, $800 billion stimulus bill/300 million people, it would be about $2,000 per american. if you believe giving american to thousand dollars would be better for stimulus, that is your own call. some of the stimulus bill was basically writing checks to americans or giving them tax relief. to some extent, about half of the stimulus bill is basically what he said it was. the rest of it included things like bridges and building roads and so forth. stop obama campaigned on.
host: let us take a look at some details, courtesy of the tax foundation. what is set to expire. two marriage penalty elimination provisions expire. that means that the standard deduction for married couples falls, no longer double what it is for single filers. the ceiling of the 15% bracket for married couples fall, no longer double its single filers, and child tax credit reduces from $1,000 to $500,000. guest: married families would see possibly a jump in the tax bill next year. middle-income married families. child tax credits -- host: marilyn, frederick, independent line. caller: i would like to talk about the bush tax cuts, comparing them to the tax cuts that clinton had, or i thought clinton had a higher rate -- is
there a lot of difference between those two taxes? thank you very much. guest: at the end of the clinton administration the top rate was 39.6%. the top rate now is 35%. the top -- the second rate was 36 percent under clinton, now it is 33%. the other rates in the tax rates have been lowered a little bit and the bush tax created 10%. the marginal -- across the board the marginal tax rates went down. under the clinton administration along with republican congress created a new tax credits -- and cut capital gains. host: tax rates for long-term capital gains by middle and upper, people would rise of 50 -- 15% to 20%, and unqualified dividends earned by middle and
upper income people would rise from 15% to ordinary wage tax rates. guest: before the bush tax cut dividends were taxed as ordinary income like wages. bush tax cuts in 2003 made it on par, and qualified dividend's the same as long-term capital gains. long-term capital gains would go from 15% to 20% if the bush tax cuts expire for upper-income people. caller: i am calling because i feel like whether you are a republican, democrat, or independent, these situations will affect us all equally. i want to ask about your thoughts on whether or not the real estate tax will be affected by anything or will it be totally a local aspect or will it be probably countrywide to try to help counties and states balance their budgets? a lot of the things coming out of the government now are unfunded liabilities debt local counties and states would have
to pay for. i also have a question on the mortgage deductions that we are now allowed to make -- beating those will be at risk? one more thing that affects me and i will let you go. i am over 65. i live on the dividends from the investments that i made over 30 years ago. that is going to affect me? and medicare has already been cut back 21%, the benefits that i will receive. i am thinking that is not really a tax, but it is to me. i am wondering if you could respond to that. guest: the first issue is basically the situation is that local governments are in. you have the problems local governments have in their budgets. stimulus bill did have aid to local governments which possibly prevented some tax increases from state and local levels. property taxes, they did not directly affected by the bush tax but deduct of italy for high income people is affected, how
much you can deduct for property-tax as are affected by the bush tax cut for higher income people. mortgage interest deduction, it is the same way, it will be affected a little bit, if you are higher income, you get the claim less, and less of the charitable deductions if the bush taxes expire. the terms of the future of the mortgage interest deduction, it is the third rail of tax policy, kind of the sacred cow out there. if something happens to it as far as a fiscal crisis fixed -- will the debt commission address it? across the board support, oddly enough, for getting rid of or limiting mortgage interest deduction which is viewed as inefficient and almost an equitable because of the way it is structured. there is a possibility that something will be addressed on that going forward. the house and lobby is pretty big in washington. -- the housing lobby. in terms of dividend policy, it depends on washington.
whenever money the government owes right now, 30 years down the line it will not be as much. guest: sounds like a libertarian called are the ones to limit government in all respects. regarding inflating the debt away, it is possible. even do that. often in latin america we have seen that kind of -- it ruins your credibility going forward. the united states embargo right now because it as -- is one of the safest places in the world to put your money, supposedly. that long-term credibility would basically go away.
host: getting some perspective on what these tax cuts amount to, this comes from "the wall street journal." "added revenue as annual economic output generated by raising the tax rate on the top earners, by allowing marginal tax rates on the top earners to revert to the pre-cut levels, the government will gain an added $479 billion in revenue over the next 10 years according to accounts at the brookings institution and a california university. it may sound like a lot but it is actually very small compared to the country's economic output. the estimate is that the government needs to cut spending by as much as 9% to put finances unsustainable trajectories. guest: as much a some democrats
believe that you attended eliminate the tax deficit -- and long-term debt problem in the united states by taxing the rich, you cannot. $459 billion over 10 years? the obama administration called it a step forward. if you're going to solve the long-term budget problems in the united states you're going to need significant tax increases or benefit cuts. the top 2% do not have that much money. the problems going forward are to big to rely on them. the broad based tax that everyone would pay would solve the future problem. >> how much will this be a talking point on both sides? keeping the economy rolling forward, democrats using it as a talking point themselves. >> republic -- republicans --
guest: republicans are basically trying to make the point that they are going to have the typical republican talking points on tax policy. this will hurt the people and create jobs, slow down the economy. high-income people are the people that invest. host: here are the comments made by steny hoyer at the american progress meeting. >> the americans put in a policy that cut taxes but reinstated and next year so that they would go up. we have indicated that we believe that at this point in time in the recession that we should have no increase in taxes on middle-income working americans. clearly at a time of recession we want to make sure that
working people have the ability to support themselves and their families. we are going to complete and continue the tax cuts for middle-income americans. how do we define that? those making to a hundred thousand dollars or less individually-, $250,000 or less as couples. with respect to the tax cuts of the wealthiest in america, we have a severe deficit problem. those that are doing well will not have their lives adversely affected by continuing to contribute at a rate that provides for the bringing down of our deficit, continuing to invest in the growth of our country. >> does that lay out what we will be hearing from the democrats in the house and senate over the coming months? >> as you heard him begin to say, who is to blame, he is trying to pin it back on
republicans basically for not passing this permanently, that you put it in place to expire and you will get into a debate as to whether this is a tax increase or just a tax cut. your tax bill is going up whether you call it a cut or not. host: texas, republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. i do agree that the bush tax cuts should expire. i do not understand why we are -- i am 21 and i am considered ground. a substitute teacher. i just do not feel as though two% or 3% of the country, your life is not going to be affected. i do not plan on being broke forever. i would not mind paying more into the system, but one of my
questions, for what -- for young people like myself, it is just me and i am not in school yet. what can we do with our taxes? giving to the good will, asking for a receipt, etc. with a flat tax fix everything? or is that a joke? everyone paying the same percentage of taxes. would that help? i agree that if you make a bit more money, life would be better for some others. i do not paying -- do not mind paying a bit more. just do not attack me for everything. guest: flat tax would simplify the tax code, but the big debate is that a flat rate structure would basically have the effect of making the tax code less progressive. we have a fairly progressive
federal income tax right now. regarding your first question, which was more like a personal tax question, you are probably not in the business of itemizing. if you are broke you probably do not make enough in taxes or given up in charity. you'd have to give about $6,000 to justify itemizing. people at your income level and your situation, what you can do, the obama administration has refundable income tax credits that are partially refundable, meaning the you can actually get more back than you pay in income taxes. probably the biggest benefit for you from the tax cuts. you would probably know this if you use a tax professional. >> she said that she is not earning a lot of money right now. guest: you will not get much
change if you are slowing, the very bottom. however, at the bottom you do have provisions and refundable child tax credits, low and middle-income families, if you have kids and you are working family you can benefit from the expiration of the tax cuts to the tune of a couple of thousand dollars. host: you mentioned the estate tax and other things that are set to expire at the end of the year. restored with an exemption level of $1 million, the state tax law reverting to 2009 said of 2001 levels and a top rate of 45%. dividends will be taxed just like long-term capital gains. that information comes to us from the tax foundation. guest: but the estate tax is comedic but morbid in terms of
looking at what will happen at the end of the year. in 2009 there was a 3.5% exemption of a 45% rate on the estate tax. barges states, basically you have to pay taxes on your wealth. as written under the bush administration, there was no the state tax. if someone died this year, no state tax. it could come back in full in 2011. a lot of people in congress -- the reason that this would never happen, think about this, december 30 if you are a rich person in your grandfather is on their deathbed and you want to pull the plug, you could have millions of dollars in tax consequences influencing your decision. it is morbid to view it that way, but empirical evidence
shows that in previous situations like this, you see people affecting their death date to save on the estate tax. you can control your debts to some extent. not for years, but for a few days, and you could also just basically tell the doctors to force the death certificate. -- forge the debts are to begin. an ethical question, but you know, $2 million is a lot of money. host: ohio, democratic line. caller: this discussion would be incomplete without talking about the ronald reagan tax cuts of the 1980's and how effectively it did not really work and the
money did not really trickled down. we had some growth, i suppose, but not a lot. 3.5% is significant compared to what happened in the '80s. raising the tax rate, even above 35%, with that never leave force the wealthy 1% or 2% to invest in the economy in terms of growing jobs? instead of being taxed on their take-home pay now, they would reinvest it in that kind of thing? guest: either way at certain income levels you actually get more people to work more if you raise taxes. it is fairly technical and i do not want to get into a bat, but the idea is that if you raise
taxes people will increase their efforts to work or are likely to do leisure relative to price exchange. in terms of the reagan tax cuts and trickle-down economics, it is the case that you will get more income for high-income people. how much more are you going to get? the entire idea that you will raise revenue by cutting taxes, even at the highest level that is not the case. willie got static against current income? no, it will likely be less than that. but people will respond by reducing investment in a reduced work. republicans basically say that often when you raise taxes -- rather when you cut taxes the revenue goes up and they remember the correlation to two
things happening at one time, not meaning that one cause to the other. if you had a 95% tax rate and you cut taxes, you will raise revenue. host: our guest, gerald prante, of the tax foundation, teaching economics at marymount university. derek, independent line, baltimore, maryland. caller: thank you for having me. i have two comments and a question, actually. my first comments is that c- span, the video library, if you have not gone, it is really nice. extensive and i really enjoy it. thank you for that. my second comment has to do with taxes.
i think that the government should really -- the federal government should be the leader in making and billing themselves as much more energy efficient for the rest of the nation's example, drawing down many of our costs. can you please tell people what the -- how many people are making or are in the top 1% or 2%? one of the big republican hit points is that we are taking away from small businesses, but if people actually realized that the divide is so big between the top 2% and everyone else, i think there'd be more perspective on this. have a good day. guest: the top 1% of americans basically mixups about $2
million in tax returns. where does it take in? looking at irs statistics at the age high-level of 400,000, 200,000 300,000. when you hear people talk, basically $300,000 to $400,000 is where it kicks in. looking at the irs, putting you up in here for both sides, republicans talk about the income taxes they pay, probably about 40%, the top 1%, making 21% of the income. host of the president's national fiscal responsibility reform commission has a deadline for addressing the debt. how did that come into play? will we be talking about tax cuts? guest: it is interesting. i do not think that they will be
talking about tax cuts, but they will be talking about the long- term situation in the united states. given the current situation, i want to wait and see with the current fiscal situation says, going forward from there. bush tax cuts, extended for a stimulus, extending for most people, $200 billion each year, focusing that on a long-term problem. that is the debate in washington, as well as the debate over the fiscal commission and how to address the long-term imbalance. this is simply a share of each? host: you keep mentioning these numbers, put it in perspective,
is it because it is small on the radar? >> will congress do something before the deadline of december 1? hopefully. hopefully something gets done sooner than later, but if they don't, it would be a huge issue and the fiscal commission will be in a tough position. host: camera, republican line, neptune, new jersey. caller: i had some questions. you had mentioned that four single health -- households the rate was 200,000, four couples it was 250,000. why is that number not 400,000? second, we are one of those top 2% to 3%. together we earn slightly over 250,000 jobs -- $250,000, but that is all of our money between us.
wendy's bush tax cuts expire in december, we are in a lot of trouble next year. what can we do with our money to help shelter it so that we are not hit? it feels like we're these monstrous wage earners, but we are middle-class, leading a very simple life, trying to save as much as we can and every year we get harder with their tax bill. guest: in terms of legal tax sheltering or eagle tax sheltering, there is a distinction. the bush tax cuts expiring, you have a big increase in your tax bill. if they do the obama proposal, 250,000 kicking in, why that much? i do not know. it is a marriage penalty, tech
-- technically. but this entire view of the economy of scale and to what extent a single person should be half of a married couple or 1.4 of a married couple, it is all kind of arbitrary in terms of trying to get this ability to pay for the economy of scale, in terms of my own advice on what will happen for your situation, i would say that if the democratic incentive goes and what timothy geithner are says happens, you may see a tax increase or your tax bill may go up on january 1, but it will not be the full amount. $250,000, the increase would beat not on the $250,000 amount. simply a marginal delta of how much you are over that threshold.
host: leroy, louisiana. caller: i have a couple of questions to talk about this. i believe that it would be better to let the bush tax cuts expire. i feel that will be better for that to happen, as it would allow turning of some of this taxation down the line. secondly, the small businesses, everyone with a small business not making money because they are in debt, wal-mart plays a big part in that. many of these small businesses were booming and doing good until wal-mart moved in. guest: wal-mart is a tough topic in many communities. they bring lower prices to people. some view the cost of lower
wages or the impact on community as not worth the low prices. i will not address that issue. host: what about the reality of small business taxes? guest: basically, unlike big corporations, they file on the individual income tax return. if you own your own small business, you might get income for writing a column in some newspaper, you would have to file lead as small business on your income tax return. at the corporate level, if they earn profits at the individual level for distributed dividends in capital gains, small businesses have to pay the small business payroll tax, the self employment tax. basically, small businesses pay the marginal rate. small businesses that are owned
by people that make a lot of money would have to pay more in taxes. whenever you believe would happen, many small businesses would be paying with a lot of small business income having higher business taxes. you often see these debates throw around with democrats saying that it only affects a small number of small businesses, which is true, but just like the income inequality, much income is held by the top and a lot of small businesses are held at the top. a disproportionate amount of small business income is earned by those of the top. host: north carolina, good morning. caller: hello. if we let the bush tax cuts expire and the top would have to pay more, who would do that? the man that is the ceo of
halliburton? whose headquarters are in to buy? host: we had that one caller earlier who said that she felt very middle-class bill would be included. guest: it goes down to making around $300,000. where you could see your tax bill go up next year. if you call that high income or middle income, it is 2% of the population. middleclass is a value judgment, you can define it as you like. it comes down to the normative question of what the distribution should be and how we should redistribute. and i cannot answer that. host: your organization has something right on there website that looks at an income tax calculator with people wondering about their taxes for next year, they can punch in their own numbers.
guest: mytaxburden.org. the big things that did it -- affect your tax liability. it has to rescue a million questions, just like her about that. it allows you to see how much your tax would go up next year congress did nothing and how much it would be affected if the obama proposals went into affect. basically people with less than $250,000 not affected much. host: charles, republican, virginia. caller: good morning. i find it amazing that this country is basically founded on the ability to be what you want to be and be as successful as you can possibly be at your own
efforts, yet we penalize people every time for that. i am a small-business owner and i employ about 17 people. we are in that bracket $250,000 and above, my wife and i, but you never hear people talk about how to start a small business, you have to put everything you own on the line. the big deals, you lose everything. that is the risk for the reward. if you want to start a small business, it barely gets you by end makes you a decent living, that is what you want. but if you want to do more, starting a business that more, all the government does, specifically democrats, they take and they take because they consider your fair share. guest: obviously small businesses have to take risks and it is asymmetric. if you fail, because of the tax code you have an income of zero
and you pay nothing. if you are bill gates, you succeed wildly, you will pay a lot, a high percentage of your income in taxes. you could say that it penalizes success based on its ability to pay because those that have more should pay more. there are positives, as you point out, implications of like reduced incentives and fewer people investing, which is the trade-off. host: tom, democratic caller, good morning. caller: i wanted to point out the elephant in the room. a couple of years ago i left corporate america to become a net -- an independent contractor. initially i was making more, saving a lot of money. i was told that there are people in that range, the top 2%, they
get into tax shelters and do all sorts of things and their effective tax rates are somewhere around 10% to 15%. if you believe that these people are actually paying 35% on their taxes, they need to get a better accountant, leaving me to my second point. the entire tax code really needs to be looked at and reformed. as i said, these people are not paying 30%. guest: one of the ways that we see the shelters, people have -- because of this effort for capital gains and dividends. there are international havens where most people try to move income from wages to capital income dividends. escorts are one way to do that with a income question against capital income with preferential rates. the reason it receives that is
because of the idea of being double taxed. tax when you are in it, taxed on your return, penalizing savings, encouraging consumption today overconsumption tomorrow. that is one reason that we have preferential rates. but it does create loopholes and things like that. i would agree that the tax code needs an overall. does this address that? who knows. it sounds good until you tell them the specifics. when you overhaul the tax code, everyone cheers. when you talk about charitable deductions, people to know what i hear it. host: marie, new york. hello. i think we lost her. that is all for this segment of the show. gerald prante, senior economist with the tax foundation, thank you for joining us. today marks the 20 of
anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. coming up next, the chief sponsor of that legislation will join us to talk about wall. first, the c-span video library and the signing ceremony for that bill 20 years ago. here is george age of the bush explaining what bilal would do. >> today's legislation brings us closer to the day when no american would be deprived of their basic guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [applause] this act is powerful in its simplicity. it will make sure that people with disabilities are given a basic guarantee for which they have worked so long and so hard.
independence, freedom of choice, control their lives, the opportunity to blend into the rich mosaic of the american mainstream. legally, it will provide our disabled community with a powerful expansion of protections in their basic civil rights, guaranteeing fair and just aspects in american life that we can all enjoy. specifically 88 has made sure that they cannot could -- cannot discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities. [applause] it ensures access to public accommodations like restaurants, hotels, shopping centers, and offices. third, it insures expanded access to transportation
services. [applause] fourth, insurers equivalent telephone services for people with hearing impediments. [applause] these provisions mean so much to so many. for one brave girl in particular, a young washington state woman with cerebrum palsy who is with us today, will now always be admitted to her home town theater. lisa might not have been welcome at her theater before, but welcome to the white house. we are glad that you are here. [applause] a dramatic renewal for those with disabilities.
along with the privilege of being an american comes the sacred duty to make sure that every other americans rights are also guaranteed. together we must remove the physical barriers we have created and the social barriers we have accepted. we will never be a truly prosperous nation without it. host: senator tom harkin, thank you so much for being with us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. guest: what was the like -- host: what was that like to get the americans with disabilities act passed? guest: it was a tremendous day. the largest gathering ever on the white house lawn for the signing of a bill. president bush said the memorable line that when he finished his remarks, let the shameful walls of discrimination come tumbling down against
people with disabilities. a remarkable day with euphoria and the sense that finally people with disabilities have their civil rights guaranteed. think about it this way. prior to july 26, 1990, if you were a person of color and you went down to get a job for which you were qualified and that prospective employer told judy out because i am not hiring black people or asians, you could file suit for discrimination. but if you were a person with a wheelchair and you were qualified for that job and that employer said get out, i do not hire cripples and he went down to the court house, you have absolutely no rights whatsoever on discrimination. we have had some rights before protecting against race, color,
creed, national origin, sex, all kinds of things, but not this ability. so many people have discriminated blatantly for their entire lifetimes. imagine what it felt like to my own brother, people like that, to finally say that i now have my civil rights? a momentous day. host: you were the chief sponsor of this legislation. you talk about your family's personal experience, were there other reasons that this resonated for you? had people approach you about this? guest: i started in the house 12 years before, focusing mostly on issues dealing with this ability. we started getting closed captioning and the national captioning institute, things like that. it was not until i came to the senate in 1985 that the national council on disability was
working to get this legislation upper. the first sponsor was from connecticut in 1988. i was a sponsor with him. but then the senator did not come back, he did not win reelection in 1988. in 1989 i introduced the bill into the senate and it was introduced in the house in the same day. may 9, 1989. >> 20 years later -- host: 20 years later, is it working? guest: you tell me. the streets, have you seen the curb cuts? not just for people with wheelchair's, women with baby strollers levitt as well. every bus in america is now accessible. you can get it if you have a wheelchair or a walker. fully accessible. sports arenas, movie theaters.
that is excess ability. there are things like information going out in different formats for the hearing-impaired or the sight impaired. closed captioning being the most ubiquitous of those. stop signs or crosswalk signs that speak to you. books that talk. all kinds of things that make it possible for someone with this ability to be fully integrated into -- disabilities to be fully integrated into all aspects of american life. what i was working on the bill back in 1989, 1990, there was a young woman who was 14 at the time, severely disabled. she lived in the morning. when i talk to her about this she was very strong for it and i was telling her the wonderful things it would do to protect
your rights, get a job and all of these things. in her 14-year-old way, she said that is all important, but i want to be able to purchase a pair of shoes just like anyone else. that is really what the act is about. so that people with disabilities can live in the real world. guest: looking -- host: looking back at the history, what it is doing today, and what is in store for the future. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. what are some of the key provisions in the law? he mentioned some of the outcome was like a graded curves, handicap accessible buses, but what are some of the other cheek provisions? guest: we had four goals in the americans with disabilities act.
the first was complete participation. the next was independent living. after that was economic self- sufficiency. so that people could be economically self-sufficient with equal opportunity. i believe that we have done quite well. aspects of it had to do with banning discrimination at the workplace. we also provided a mandate for reasonable accommodations. an employer had to provide reasonable accommodations in the workplace so that people with disabilities to work. we also provided for educational opportunities. and ran the entire gamut of everything, as i mentioned, from accessibility to full integration. but one aspect that i might add is not in the ada that we have worked on for 20 years to try to
get past, it is providing more independent living. so that people with disabilities do not have to live in an institution, but they can live in the community with their families and friends as they see fit. we are making strides as there is a provision in the health care reform bill that will move was in that didn't -- that direction. host: the associate director of the white house office of public and basement had this article in "the washington post." "the first such adviser to be legally blind, he said it had been a sea change over 20 years since the ada was signed into law but we were not done. including new technology. when it was passed in 1990 the internet was not what it is now. technology was not where it is now. he said that one of the simplest
questions that are that does the ada applied to web sites? many courts have said no, some have said yes, but it is a pertinent question. can you talk about battle live? guest: this is a broad civil rights bill. in passing this bill we instructed the courts to interpret it broadly. i must say that there were a few cases in the late 1990's and early 2000 cost where the supreme court narrowed the interpretation of the ada. a number of us had what we call the ada act amendment, passed in 2008, which put us back in the situation we felt we had before. we instructed the supreme court as to what we meant, which was
interesting enough signed by the first president bush and the second was there to sign the ada act amendment. we have had our ups and downs in that ada. of that applies to the web -- of course ada applies to the web. any court that says it does not is not interpreting it as broadly as we intended. host: what would be the holed up in making the web accessible to all? guest: i do not know of one, do you? we can communicate with people who are hearing impaired through the web, people who are sight impaired through the web. there is no reason why it cannot be fully accessible to any person with a disability. there are technological devices now that permit someone with severe cerebral palsy, i have seen is a little magic wands, they just have to appoint a different things and they can do
everything that you can do with your fingers on a keyboard. we have the technology to do that. we should make sure that the web, when it presents itself in formats, anyone with a disability can use it. host: let's get to our callers. george, california. guest: -- caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: here is the question. i am down here in southern california. what will it take for people to come over the border and blow up a plant -- host: we are focusing this morning on the americans with disabilities act. do you have a comment related to that? caller: say again? most of the americans with disabilities act? caller: i only had $800 each
month. host: we will leave it there. bob, republican. caller: senator harkin, i am one of your constituents. guest: from down south? hope you are not too wet down there. caller: soybeans are doing good you, we have had a lot of rain. our pay is under water. anyways, i am a republican and i watch you a lot. sometimes you get pretty partisan on issues. that is ok, i get that way sometimes as well. about the disabilities act, i am all for helping people who are disadvantaged and everything else, but i of seen an awful lot of what looks like wasted money where businesses and municipalities have had to put in a wheelchair ramps and all
kinds of things that rarely if ever get used. i am concerned that when you make laws, it seems that we totally overreact. there are 100 people and 300 are disabled, do we have to penalize the other 97? i am not heartless, but sometimes there has to be common ground. rather than just changing these laws with a big wide brush and forcing these mandates, if you will, changing the thing to accommodate certain groups. guest: first of all, this is something i have heard a lot and have heard for 30 years. quite frankly, many times when we change things to focus on people with disabilities, it helps everyone. older people that use walkers love those. mothers with babies in their
carriages use those. i told my friend, build some place with a ramp and watch. maybe you do not see someone with a disability using it but every elderly person going into a place, with the option between stairs and a ramp will use the ramp. the ramp has helped a lot of people. after repast the americans with disabilities act every building built in america is fully accessible. universal design. fully accessible. it helps everyone. it is no more expensive to do that. the last thing i would tell my friend is that right after we passed ada we put through a tax measure that gives up to a $5,000 tax credit, not deduction, a tax credit to any business that has to modify it sells two weeks ada requirements. putting in a wider door for a
ramp, something like that, they can get up to a $5,000 tax credit for doing that. even look at closed captioning on television, which we did for the deaf. how many hearing people used closed captions now? you are on the phone and you do not want to miss something, you can watch what is going on. many of these things that we find we did to make sure that people with disabilities were fully integrated, everyone else is using them as well. we find that life is much better for everyone with these changes. host: following up, have you seen occasions where it has gone too far? did the court sort it out? guest: as i mentioned, the court narrowed the meaning of the ada.
we had to come back with the ada act amendment. this has always been a bipartisan measure. from the very beginning. this bill came through congress with bipartisan help. host: who did you work with on this? guest: of bonn the house side, steve bartlett, one of the prime mover. on the senate side, bob dole gave his first senate speech in the 1960's on disability rights. i can tell you about a conversation i had with president bush who wanted to get this done with boyden grave. dick thornburgh, the attorney general at that time. sam skinner, the head of the
department of transportation. there were many republicans involved in this, as were democrats. when we finally wound up with this, the chamber of commerce supported it. we had the business community actually supporting this. they saw the benefit of what would happen if we sought -- started making this universally acceptable. this has always been a very bipartisan thing. host: cynthia, democratic line, georgia. caller: i am a first-time caller, thank you for taking my call. thank you for the hard work you have done, senator. six years ago my mother had a stroke. i really do appreciate your being hard at work in terms of making things more accessible for us. i appreciate those ramps and
those curbside walks. to the previous callers, i would say that if you are trying to get in a door that does not open on its own and you have a person in a manual wheelchair and you tried to keep that door open, it can be very challenging. that is one of the things i would like to see. however, maybe you can tell me how i can address -- how this is addressed. polling stations to vote, we were there and were held up for one hour, a process that should have taken 15 minutes, because the pollsters were saying that i would not be able to assist my mother in the voting booth. now, i looked on there website to see if we could not vote. convicted felons and people who
had been deemed mentally incapable by a judge could not vote, neither of which we are. everyone that came across our pads for 60 years, i am a retired air force that iran. i was not able to assist her in the voting booth. she is not mentally incapable, but the electronic voting, my mother is 79. quickly paralyzed on the left- hand side. how should i address that? does the americans for disabilities act address those procedures for people who are handicapped? am i not able to assist her in the voting booth? guest: yes, you are, the act
does cover voting. years ago we set in motion making these booths acceptable for people with various disabilities. those that are sight impaired, for example. those that, for example, does not use an electronic measure or a pen, like if they had cerebral palsy. this should not have been a problem. sad to say, your case is not unique. i hear a lot about this around the country. people are still not quite conforming to the requirements of the ada. i would report this to your local election board that i would go to your state house, finding out who runs the
protection advocacy sort -- service. this is georgia? i would call your rehab office, find out who runs the protection and advocacy service. let them know about what happened to you. host: steve, chicago, good morning. caller: are you there? guest: i am. caller: such a great pleasure to finally talk to you. i have admired you in your work for many years. i am wondering, it seems to me that the advocacy might be enhanced by people that imagine themselves as living forever, finding themselves not as able as they once were.
i know that is an increasing population. i have to submit -- salute you for your work years ago having done the ada stuff. i do salute you. guest: thank you. host: are you seeing more stories regarding the elderly? guest: yes. and obviously ada extends to people who are getting older, who may not have all the cognitive skills. or physical skills. host: lisa, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i worked with disabled adults for 10 years. it is just wonderful that they're protected. my commitment was to integrate
them into the community to help them understand people with disabilities. by the end of my 10 years, the entire town of these people. -- loved these people. some of the institutions used had been bad places to be. my question is, i wonder when this will transfer to a lot of other states. a lot of these people, those that cannot be with their families and others, programs like this. guest: one of the yen finished aspects is the independent living aspect.
few people know this, there's a bias in the federal government in many cases a bias towards institutions. medicaid must pay for you to be in that institution. if you qualify but do not want to live in institution and would rather live in the community, it is hard to get paid for that. we have been working on this for 50 years to get it to the point where the money -- where the money follows the person. then the person gets to the site where they want to live, not the state or federal bob -- federal
government. host: is the ada giving assistance for people who need hardware for internet access? guest: in the tax credit of the bill for businesses that must modify or change. host: is there a movement, as you mentioned, the web being someplace that is in flux right now, are their efforts being made to try to find or finance guest: yes, there is. a lot of blame has gone out over the last couple of years for research and technological development to help people with disabilities. some people with severe cerebral palsy do not have the ability to use the web. or use a keyboard.
there are devices that were developed that will enable them to do so. we continue to try to see what more we can do to try to develop that technology. after we started doing this, a lot of private companies and people developing web sites and things are incorporating in their development technology that will enable anyone to access and use the web. it is becoming more and more successful all the time for just about everyone. host: houston, texas, hello. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question concerning handicapped parking. i lived in a complex. they have covered parking close to the building.
there is a handicap front. should it be penalized because they have to pay for those spots? is that the goal, considering that if you are out and about you can get a ticket? is it legal for them to be charged to have that spot? host: including the handicapped people? caller: yes, ma'am. guest: does everyone have to pay to park there? caller: if you park under the covered spot, yes. guest: icy. the parking space for the handicapped are only under the cover of spots? is that which he is saying? well, that is not right. .
host: john, what is this term integrated set in? -- integrated setting? caller: we have an integrated and quorum and this affects your access to the courts. host: so, maybe commendations for the disabled. the courts are included in this and sensibility. guest: the courts have to be successful when you have any kind of disability. i am little uncertain -- again, i always hastened to have in case i do not completely understand -- every state has a protection and advocacy service that represents people with disabilities. different states operate them differently, but you can' find
them through vocational rehab or other services. host: but go to louisiana -- let's go to louisiana, go ahead. caller: yes, hello. caller: this is still john speaking. host: we are going to have to move on to santa fe. caller: i am the mother of a daughter who is now 30, hearing impaired. i had to fight so many battles for her, because that is where you do when you are the parent of a handicapped child. she went to college and graduated.
she is unfortunately unemployed because of this recession. but she is still employed, just underemployed. however, i did have to just fight to get her a closed captioning unit when she was in junior high. and i had to fight my old school principal because that is where she was going to school. now you can hit a button on the tv and there it is it so that she can understand orders going on. and other things, like my mother was overly and could not walk very well. there were gates fur. my son-in-law was in a wheelchair after being in iraq. there was assistance for him. you have to know how grateful so many of us are here for the work that you do, and people like you. i do not think you get think enough.
guest: your nice to say that. i appreciated very much. one of the things that we have really got to address the 20 years after the ada, the one thing that bothers me more than anything else is the lack of employment for people with disabilities. by now, 60% of people with disabilities are either underemployed or unemployed. these are people with disabilities that can work, are able to work, have towns and abilities that can be applied. -- talents and abilities that can be applied. they may need some reasonable accommodations. it is part of the health care reform bill, that is, look at this. i have a nephew is a severe paraplegic. he was injured many years ago.
even in school and decided he wanted to live on his own and he did. delhi lives on his own and has his wheelchair and he rolls up to his van. he has a personal attendant service that comes and get him out the door every morning. when he comes home every evening that comes that gets is muscles to end up and get into bed. that happens every day. it has enabled him for the last 30 years to work, to make a living, to be a taxpayer. how does he afford to do this? is he rich? no, he does not have any money. he was injured in the military and thank god for the veterans' association because they provide this for him. what about of the people who were not in the military? they cannot afford that. with just a little bit of an
expenditure from personal against services not only can people live independently, but they can go get a job. buses are accessible, workplace is accessible. getting in and out of buildings, but what if i cannot even get out the door or to the bus stop and any personal attendance services? what good does all that do me? the next two big hurdles are independent living in personal attendance services to the people can actually go get the jobs and be a -- be contributing members of our society. host: let's hear from phyllis in kentucky. caller: i may parkinson's patient. i also have a heart problem.
i have worked all of my life. i did not have any big job or skill or anything. and i get medicare. i draw $630 per month. i am married and my husband is a a lot of a then i am. i will be 65 years old next month. but what i paid in, is it calling to be cut off or anything -- is it going to be cut off or anything? i am in really bad shape. i'm getting worse. i have put off being in this situation. guest: are you talking about social security or medicare? caller: on my own social security disability, what i pay in. last time that i've worked jobs did not pay much.
i draw $630 every month. i still have to come up with the $140 or whatever the deductible is for them to come in and pay the 80%. i would love to get out there and work, but i am unable to do to my health considerations. guest: i have not heard anyone trying to cut back on social security disability. i think that is a commitment that we have made as a country. in that regard you should not have any concerns. also, the new health care reform bill will helpful to you.
at the age of 65 you qualify for social security and disability. joerres our security right now and you can just transfer that over. -- you are on a social security right now when you can do is transfer them over. host: those who have a walker or a listening device are not actually panel got -- penalized for the. they are covered under the ada. guest: that is right. we passed in the bill that you should not take into account if a person uses medicine or a device to be able to function in everyday life. we use as an example, a diabetic who takes insulin. the diabetic may need special accommodations in terms of taking time to take their insulin shots, measure their blood sugar level, things like
that. but the supreme court in a case said no, you do not have to have those, accommodations. that is why we -- that is why we took care of the accommodations act in 2008. effuse eyeglasses, for example, to enable you to do your job, -- if you use eyeglasses, for example, to enable you to do your job, you are still covered. in 2008, again, a bipartisan measure passed and the second president bush signed into law.
tom harkin. thanks for joining us. coming up next, we'll talk about community banks with our guest steve verdier. first, an update from c-span radio. >> more on the lead to u.s. documents relating to the war in afghanistan. pakistan spy agency says allegations that it had close connections with insurgents are militias and unsubstantiated. and the afghan government says they are "shocked at leaks of thousands of u.s. documents on the war, but they say most of the information is not new." an update on iran, earlier
today, the european union formally adopted new sanctions against the country that are good their foreign trade, banking, and energy sectors. the announcement comes one day after former cia director michael haden in remarks on cnn's state of the union says military actions are now more likely because no matter what the u.s. does diplomatically, tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program today is the 20th anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. several events around washington are happening today, including a white house gathering hosted by president obama later this evening. and later this week, the president travels to new york city for a democratic fund- raiser and to appear thursday on "belleview." it is the first time on -- it is the first time in american history that a sitting u.s. president has visited a daytime
television show. >> the association for public safety communications officials discussed the proposal to ninth on "the communicator's" on c- span2. c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, running your elect -- direct link to this public service created by american cable companies. "washington journal" continues. host: steve verdier is the executive vice president of the in the been the making association. tell us about our community banks are firing on capitol hill. guest: community banks are fair and wonderfully on capitol hill. people in the media, people in
the agency's the much as people in general really understand the difference between the community banks and the large banks and the non-banks. we have gotten a wonderful reception on capitol hill. host: how will community banks function today as opposed to before the regulatory commission signed into law? guest: the way the the regulators are treating community banks, which is not so great, the things that will follow along with the regulatory bill and obviously, the economy is going to get better and we can build on the success we have had with the small bank provisions we have gotten in the bill. we are optimistic, but there are obviously some troubling features of the bill. 2300 pages, you're going to have some problems. host: what are some concerns that you have? guest: 1 concern is the
community protection bureau. community banks will be continued to be examined by their own examiner, but the bureau itself will have a broad scope of authority. community blake -- community banks will be a complying. there is some residual nervousness. the other issue is this durbin amendment to, which will cut back on the income that banks get from the feed the merchants have paid for the use of the above cards. that -- for the use of the debit cards. that is a real problem host: senators on both sides of the house of they wanted to make sure that community banks were differentiated from the larger banks in the bill that was a signed into law. how did that actually play out. what was included in the act to make sure that they were
separated out? guest: banks that were 10 billion in size will be regulated for their consumer compliance. the last minute paid for, the increase on deposit and insurance, the ratio for the fdic, strengthening the fdic will be paid for over $10 billion. the collins amendment was an amendment to require capital ended grandfather some community banks under $15 billion in size in terms of the holding company. those are just some examples that come to mind. the senators are working this week on another bill with a $10 billion provision. host: let's look of some of the numbers when it comes to committee banks. nearly 8000 community banks are
in the united states and they constitute 97% of all banks. 91% of all banks have assets under $1 billion and banks with less than $10 billion in assets needed 67% of loans to small businesses. guest: that is our sweet spot. that is what community banks do is lend money to small businesses and farmers and ranchers and consumers. we do well on capitol hill because of that focus. host: the story from according york from late last week says --
there has been a lot of back- and-forth over small business measures. fidelis about where things stand. the set guest: interest voted -- tell us about where things stand. guest: we expect that amendment to be considered and voted on this week and then the bill would then have to go over to the house of representatives for the modification, conference or the house's approval. host: to go to our independent line in houston, texas. caller: good morning. here in texas we only have one more -- minority bank. i am a black american and here in texas really have one minority bank in the whole state of texas.
on the grass roots level and may only have six minority banks in the whole u.s. were we doing to put money on the grass roots level to start community banking to empower those people? the last supreme court justice who retired, he invested in a community bank. can they put money into new start up banks in the minority communities? host: let's leave it there. guest: that is a terrific idea. there are actually about 250 minority owned community banks. they would be great if there were more. the caller will be pleased to
hear that the landrieu amendment does include special consideration for minority banks in the program that would inject capital into the smaller banks. i think we are on the right track there. host: you mentioned to this $30 billion lending program would be administered by the local community banks. how would that work on the ground? guest: it would work with his advice of the regulators because they will have to determine if the bank is in good enough shape to handle it. it would make the investment and it would count as capital for the bank. the payment, the amount of payment that the bank would make would increase as they increased the amount of small business lending. if they did not make additional small-business loans, then the bank would pay more for the capital. there are incentives on both ends of that. we think for the right bank and
the right market, this is going to be a real benefit to a small business. host: thomas in texas, hi there. caller: thank you for taking my call. what i would like to bring about is the major question of the interest rate for the feds. for example, if they maintain this attitude where they're going to keep this interest-rate super low, then it is a defeated purpose in regards to all banks as well as the people trying to save for those rainy days. it has no incentives for people to save and ties in very well with the wto in their acquisitions of taking over the entire united states. guest: fortunately or unfortunately, i am a lawyer and not an economist. the fed does have a dilemma and
they feel that they have to keep the interest rates low to keep the economy going. the caller points out that people try to save for their retirement in a certificate of deposit is nodding great interest rate -- is not getting a great interest rate on that. i think interest rates will allow to go back up. host: surry that in kentucky -- syreeta in kentucky, you're on the air. caller: i have a question. host: please, go right ahead. caller: what i do not understand is that interest rates will go back up and everything in the future, but right now, for me, my opinion is that this country to years and years to make
itself come down. if ever one expects for obama to come in and just fix it in a couple of months. guest: we certainly did, in in 2008 with an enormous problem. -- we certainly did come in during 2008 with an enormous problem. the administration has faced enormous problems to keep things afloat. and i think the caller is right. it takes a little bit of time. but people are impatient. if they're out of jobs, it does not -- they do not want to hear that it takes a long time. host: next call from georgia. caller: i wonder when to listen to what i have to say because it is important. when you talk about the community banks, they were complacent, as far as i'm
concerned. i will explain what i mean by that. i went to my commuting to get a mortgage. date of the paperwork. -- they did all of this paperwork. the bank did not hold my mortgage. everybody's sitting there, rivers of tears from the small banks -- representatives from the small banks did not say anything to me. my loan was with bank of america, but there was not anything i could do about it because my house is under water now. guest: it is true that the community banks sometimes do so the servicing on their mortgages. the key difference that i could point to is that during the run- up to the crisis, community banks had a philosophy of making
mortgages to people they called in their community could make the mortgage repayments. our records in terms of defaults and foreclosures is better. and there is a requirement that the consumer be notified that who is handling their mortgage in case there is a mix of in terms of payments. but the caller is right, someone may originative that mortgage and then someone else provides the servicing. the old servicing issue in terms of the foreclosure crisis has been a sticky one because the servicers have to represent the investors. the key thing is to get the loan right in the first place so you do not get into it foreclosure situation and that is what our folks specialize in. host: give us some of the numbers. what is an average loan and why would someone turned to a community bank? guest: someone might come to one
of our banks because it is a shot of 10 people and the owner needs to buy one piece of equipment. it is dependent on local conditions. the business owner will find that the community bank can make some money on a $100,000 loan on a big piece of equipment. they have a small scale that makes that possible. whereas, the big banks, the bank of americas, they need more economy of scale. the economy depends on the committee then to make those local loans for small businesses. host: south carolina, carl, republican, welcome. caller: one of the problems we face in the financial industry today is the confusion among most people that all banks are big banks. most community banks are small businesses, just like a lawn service, just like the local dry cleaner. they struggle to make their
profit just like every other small business. the media has a bad habit of dropping all banks together with the evil big banks. guest: i think that may have been the case in the past, but today it is just amazing. i have been working with community banks for a very long time and we have an atmosphere among the members of the public and the media, frankly, they do get it. that is why we have had success on capitol hill with the agencies. i can the caller is concerned about something that we have corrected. -- i think the caller is concerned about some that we have corrected. host: next call from missouri. caller: i do not know if you can answer this question or not, but i wonder how dangerous is it for us that have money in the fdic
to lose that money? is there a system in there that we could possibly lose our -- if we have money in the treasury bill? guest: if you've got money in the treasury bill, it is safe. if you have money that is injured, it is safe. as a matter of fact, the congress has just extended a temporary increase from $100,000 to $250,000 of coverage. if you want to put a cd in the bank, you can do it knowing you will be fully covered. we have already run the experiment and we know what happens when the deposit insurance system fails. it does get coverage. the fdic is not going to fail. under the new bill, the largest banks are going to be gained --
to be paying more than they pay now. they will be paying their fair share of the formula. the money is going to be there in the future and will be provided by the banking industry. host: let's go to indiana, bill, good morning. caller: i have two things to talk to you about. one is the figures that you threw up, you know, $1 billion a year, $1 billion here and then you came up with 90% of loans being under $10 billion size. how many were set up at the $1 billion size? and number two, i think the small banks were the first ones to shut off loans. they have poor would done more harm our in our to small-town america than anyone else. -- they have probably done more harm to small town america than
anyone else. host: let's take a look at those numbers again. and what we actually said was 91% of banks had assets under $1 billion. and banks with less than $10 billion in assets made 67% of loans. guest: right, i think banks are going to have to be more careful with their underwriting of their mortgages and other things. community banks do have a wide range to -- of ways to handle their mortgages, but the mortgages have to be sound. security bank is not going to make a bad loan to a local consumer just to make a loan. they have to be very careful.
we have a wide variety of ways as a program to help our banks get access to the secondary market so that we can make a loan and sell it to someone else, or we can keep the loan on the books. we can cover that contingency by borrowing from the federal home loan banking system. there are a lot of ways to do it. host: carol, south carolina, republican, good morning. caller: yes, i was in banking for over 20 years. something that was common practice today was not around when i was there and i think it is terrible. it costs us jobs. it costs small businesses. the banks are charging merchants a fee to process debit transactions.
when i buy something and use my debit card, it comes right out of my checking account electronically. i do not see why the bank can be authorized to charge a 2% fee to the merchant for my purchase. guest: the federal reserve is going to fix the price and they will come up with what they think is an appropriate price. we strongly disagree. we do not think that the federal government should be setting prices between businesses and how they interact with each other. the fundamental issue that i disagree with on the caller is that it does cost money to set up that system. the system is such that you swipes the card and it looks like magic. but believe me, it is not magic. there are huge computers, a lot of people, fraud control. there is a lot going on behind
the scenes to make it look easy. and all of those people have to get paid, those computers have to be bought, that work done every day so that it looks like magic to the consumer. host: a comment on twitter agrees with an earlier caller and says that the caller was spot on about banks merging in taking over smaller banks. he worries that it is going to be too big to fail all over again. guest: it never so much gets predicted. it would be fun to go back 10 years and see. there always seemed to be more banks less than those projections. but there is a good point to be made, and that is, one of the things that the congress did not do was to break up the very biggest institutions. we advocated for that. we read tia vote -- two hearings
in march to -- we were at two hearings in march and we advocated for pricking of the biggest banks and the separating art of the class the goliath -- glass stiegel? -- the glass stiegel act. host: henry, gore had. caller: my branch was held by the chartered bank recently and said ave. that it was at risk. it was not in default, but at risk. this is a family-owned bank. it was compelled to sell its
entire banking business to the beal bank of texas. now my loan is being treated -- is being traded and our local bank is out of business. it was not a failing bank. it was a possibility of a risk, of the commercial portfolio being at risk. guest: at the beginning of the show i mentioned one of the challenges that our banks based is just what the caller mentioned. the detonators -- the examiners are being way too tough. the policy-makers in washington tell us, make more loans, be reasonable, work with your customers. the examiners in the field are doing just what this gentleman outlined. we are so frustrated. we do not know what to do except
to keep saying it's. thank you the gentleman for calling in. host: our guest is steve verdier, ceo of the small bank association. he has all -- has also been with the community bankers and was a law clerk with the department of justice. what does the creation of the consumer protection bureau mean to the banks who are involved with? guest: one thing it does not mean is that -- we will still have our regular bank examiners handling our examinations, but the cfpb will be using all of the regulations. we're hoping that all of the differences between large and small banks will be recognized in those regulations. but what of the most important
things that agency can do is to start examining the non-banks and financial players out there, the mortgage brokers, the pay lenders, the czech asher's. -- the czech catchercheck cashe. although the folks that never seen a body. that is one of the big advantages of this proposal. host: let's hear from tammy in kansas on the independent line. caller: it is lovely to talk with both of you. i do agree with what you did say on the magic swipe of the accorcard. that is for our protection. there are a lot of things that go down the line that people are forgetting. they are forgetting the fraud,
the paperwork, and they're forgetting that americans are having jobs that way. thank goodness for that. i did live in new mexico and i was part of the banking. the only latino bank beathere, t had gone through the great depression and was not having problems, but they decided to break it up. i am darned. the central valley and we have had 200 -- i am down here in the central valley and we have had 200 close within a week. people are going, if i can now feed my cattle and i cannot get a loan -- a by cannot feed my cattle and i cannot get a loan and i cannot pay my bills, then i will not belong. it is a very tough situation.
guest: that is the economy that we are living in and the very tough, overly tough we think, examination of the environment. it all has to work together. there has to be the man for the milk and then there has to the converted bank there to help the dairy farmer -- the community bank there to help the dairy farmer with the cash flow for equipment. it all has to be there. in a recession, things do not fit together and people lose jobs. it is very hard to figure out where to start to get the thing going again. host: the question from e-mail --
guest: you have to credit the "huffington post" with the move your money campaign, and that is what the e-mail is referring to. i think some of our banks have seen that and i think some of our state and local governments have tried that as well. it is easy to put all our money into one of the big banks, but it really makes sense for the state and local government to think, where is that money go into ultimately be invested? if you put it into a local bank, it will be invested locally. it may take a bit more paperwork, but i think the payoff is going to be terrific. host: has your group been tracking changes and the number of people that might be switching over? guest: it is very hard to track that because money is moving all the time.
it would be interesting to have our economists to run of go through and say -- to kind of go through and say, you know, to compare this and see if it has had any impact. host: let's hear from pat, republican caller in california. pat, good morning. pat, you're on the air. ok, let's move on to daniel, democrats line in illinois. caller: this just touches on the lady that called asking about fees and charges and other things of that nature. these are the charges the to you people set up a that you basically shut down our throats and you said it was born to be a lot simpler and more cost-efficient to everybody.
and you keep telling us that they're all people -- there are these people that have to be paid. that is nonsense. it is supposed to be more efficient, then why if someone uses there and debit card 40 times in a month and they are charged $2, then that his allotted less than -- a lot more than i pay for a book of checks. guest: you have to look at the with the system has changed. the monthly maintenance fee is nonexistent with many banks. you truly have free checking. and the emergence get a lot of benefit from the data card transaction -- the merchants get a lot of benefit from the debit card transaction. i think there have been some
economies, i think the banks save a lot of money. the federal reserve sirloin saves a lot of money in not having to fly checks across the country to clear them. it is certainly more efficient and less costly. host: john, good morning. caller: would you comment on the state of the success with the bank in north dakota and? guest: you have small states that can experiment and do some things. it might be good to have some of the other states say, maybe we can do this, but often it is local circumstances that give rise to that kind of
opportunity. those circumstances might not attain in larger states or one of the states out there in the middle of the country. but it is certainly worth looking at. you can try it in one state and if it does not work, carmichael back to the way you were doing it. but yeah, it has been -- does not work, and yeah, go back to the way you were doing it. but yeah, it has been successful so far. host: bernard, welcome. you are on the air with steve verdier. turn down your tv and we are ready to listen to you. caller: ok, if it costs a lot to keep up atm maintenance and etc., why is it possible for banks to give out large bonuses
and not use the money to help the day to day operations? especially in the case where like bankamerica, they are giving and millions of dollars. guest: those banks that are giving our huge bonuses are so big that the bonuses may seem large to you and me and probably everybody in this building, but from the point of view of bankamerica they are not that big. -- bank of america they are not that big. it is hard to speak to. many would recommend breaking amapola -- breaking them up. host: moving on to louisiana, go ahead. caller: i have a question about taxes. i get social security and i also working part-time jobs. [unintelligible]
guest: i am not an expert, but i gather a lot of people who might be eligible just do not apply for it t. i think this person should seek out an adviser, may be a civic organization that provides advice for free. they might qualify and they might get a check. host: how dramatically as the fate of community banks change in the last couple of years? guest: i think we're at were looking at the abyss -- we were looking at the abyss. it was just terrifying during the crisis. we knew there would be legislation and we wanted to make sure that it would solve the problems that needed to be solved and not be damaging to community banks. i think we were largely successful and i think the fact that policymakers understand the difference between community
banks and large banks, and that the public understands it, i think it will be good for our industry. host: you were talking earlier about this $30 billion in funds that could be directed to community banks for the purpose of small business lending. let's take a look at what richard shelby had to say about it. he is the top republican on the senate banking committee. >> banks would generally pay dividends on the government equity investments at rates ranging from 1% to 5%. the current market yield on such investment hires is between 7% and 8%. is anybody, madame president, that find themselves nabhan participating could be at a disadvantage. -- not participating could be at a disadvantage. in effect, we are taxing small
business owners to pay banks to lend to small businesses. even worse, madame president, the government's equity in president -- equity investments would be subordinated to all existing debt. and if the bank fails, existing creditors would get paid before the government and taxpayers would again take a hit. i believe the american taxpayers have lost their appetite for bank bailouts. host: senator shelby on the floor last week. steve verdier, the executive vice president of the independent community bankers association. what is your reaction? guest: he covered an awful lot of ground there, but we believe this is a a a voluntary program and the strong gains that are able to use it to will be very helpful to the community banks. i think in response to concerns like he raised, the program has
been carefully crafted so that you really will live create the kind of problems that the head of the prize. host: the president did get a late lift last week from two republican senators. guest: that is right. host: how you word that there is any more support over the weekend? guest: i have not heard anything more over the weekend that more republicans are supporting, but it is good advice. host: cora calling from texas. caller: the credit union that i have done business with for over 40 years, i had 4 acres of land unencumbered, no mean or anything. i wanted to purchase a manufacturer of home to put on
the land. none of the banks would lend on manufacture bombs. -- manufactured homes. i finally got the loan after looking through several different states with a 7.75% interest rate. my creditéh4( rating is 8.56. i paid all my bills all of my life. i could not get a loan at the normal rock -- the normal market rates. host: was the reason that they denied the loan? caller: they said that they did not make loans on manufactured homes. guest: manufactured clohome leng is a little bit different risk than regular homes. frankly, it is a little like car loans. you buy the unit and you set it
up and it is very hard to foreclose on it. it is unfortunate, particularly in the area that she is living in, that community banks have not jump into that business. but i am going to go back to the office and talked to our new mortgage president and see if we can help in that area. it is a good option in those areas. host: of go to maryland, republican. caller: my question is with the interest rates set to rise and all of that, and all of the people on those programs -- you know, those teaser rates at 4%, while in the world that our banks not fix the programs of the people could afford to stop day in their homes?
they were at least getting payments on their income than and bree will to afford those payments. i do not know why it with an emergency situation that we had that the gains could not just fix the rates at the low rates where people were actually making their payments and keep it there for a period of time until anything -- everything settle down. guest: i look on this a little bit as an outside observer because our banks did not make those kinds of loans. i think the caller is right, it is a major puzzlement as to why investors do not say, yeah, we cannot get the high rate that we bargained for, but we never expected to get paid better way anyway. and we expected billone to roll over or refinance. so, let's do the smart thing for the consumer and the entire industry. it is extremely shortsighted.
i have read a number of articles and none of them have been able to answer the question that she raises. i'm still looking for that answer. host: laurel in florida, good morning. caller: high, it is lorelei. my question is about people that are still working and are close to retirement with a 41 k. -- 401k. our 401k is distributed in portions and my concern is how safe it is. i am close to retirement in and of the three to four years. -- in another three to four years. how safe is that or would it be
better to be put into an ira? host: does this relate to community banks? caller: this is that a community bank, yes. guest: she has a 401k with her employer and she is thinking of enrolling them into a rollover ira. that is a perfectly normal thing to do. the real question is, where does she put the money and just listening to her voice, it sounds like she should put it into a certificate of deposit that sounds fairly -- that is federally insured rather than taking risks on the stock market. again, just listening to our risk profile and the kinds of riskconcerns that she expressed. host: california, conservativren
line. caller: my question is with the major banks, concerning what they do -- what they penalize you for different things than what they do in a report in your credit rating. are all banks regulated the same? guest: they're all under the same rules in the kind of areas that she is talking about. we're all under the same requirements and the new federal agency is going to bring even more institutions under those rules. i think is fair to say that community banks have a pretty tough regulator. the fdic and other agencies are sometimes less impressed by the credit regulator, the national credit euna in administration --
credit union administration. they're supposed to look at consumer laws in the same ways and just as toughly as community banks. par for the industry -- accounts before the big banks, but it is the unregulated, the unsupervised that is the real problem. host: let's hear from rick, democratic caller in tennessee. caller: i would like to ask the jumron, -- the gentleman, if the banks fail and have to borrow money from the government, at if you borrow money for a house, it would take you 30 years to pay for that house. guest: i think the big banks
took advantage and got the money. they are part of the economy bounce back and they paid off the loans they barred from the federal government more quickly. i can understand -- they borrowed from the federal government more quickly. i can understand. you could -- i can understand saying, here it is, just pay it off. but it does not happen all the time curator host: let's move on to the next caller. caller: i would like to comment on the manufactured homes. host: go right ahead. caller: compared to a new car, which is about $40,000, how much with the interest rate be on a new car for about $40,000?
host: and what is your second question? caller: the loan term would be about 60 months, correct? what i'm getting at is, if you were to buy manufactured housing for around $40,000, why can you get it get the interest rate and duration of about 60 months? my point is, a brand new car is more of a risky investment for the bank. and you should be able to buy manufactured housing for about the price of a brand new car. guest: i think the only risk factor that i can think of that is different between the car and manufactured houses, assuming that the car is in thgood shape and even making payments, it is and even making payments, it is a little