tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 10, 2009 7:00am-10:00am EST
host: today we are going to talk a lot about the u.s. economy. and our final guest is elizabeth warren, who has been tapped by congress to be the chairman of the tarp oversight panel. they released a report that rates the effectiveness of the program eason -- even as we learn the treasury secretary decided to extend it. also talking to congressman scott garrett from the jersey, member of financial services committee, about republican concerns as the financial risk -- regulation bill works its
way. kevin hall will start today with us, mcclatchy newspapers, and then we will hear from vali nasr of the state department about u.s. policy toward pakistan and afghanistan. we will start on the role of executive pay in our economy as an engine of growth or if you think it works against the economic direction of the country. we were having this in light of the "the wall street journal" story that the payç czar plansa $500,000 cap for salaries for companies taking government money. that is the debate, the role of executive pay in our economy. host: a good thursday morning. i just want to show you briefly the three articles starting hour debate and we will come back and show a little more detail in a minute.
here is a little bit of the reporting of the story. host: a very different view from the government of new york, david paterson, gives wall street a "thank you." host: there are some different views. we would like to hear yours. but first an update from "roll call" about continuing unveiling of the compromise proposal on health care.
emily, good morning. your front-page story has this headline appeared i was struck by comparison. pittsburgh post-gazette has a headline that says health bill deal thrills democrats. what is known and not known? guest: i think what they know about that they are encouraged. i would not say thrilled. in fact i was talking to senators yesterday who were not thrilled at all. however, i think people -- there is a spirit of cooperation, i think, trying to come to consensus. that is certainly clear. and people want to at least wait to see what the congressional budget office says about what this group of 10 senators, five liberals and moderates, sent to the cbo and see what they say and see if it is a workable compromise. t(ççhost:ç by all accounts ie public option debate dead? i cannot think of another bird appeared guest: that is the
question of the day. it is something everybody including myself was trying to find out yesterday. it depends on who you talk to. as tom harkin told me, chairman ofçó the health committee, i sa, it seems to me some people are saying there is going to be public option, some say there isn't, is this just semantics? it depends on how you define it. he said, what's in a name? i really think some of the confusion here is how they are çgoing to, what we like to say message it, public relations campaign. they may have a public option or not. host: how can you package together the broad strokes, the medicare extension and the expanded national insurance plan to call it a public option? guest: what senator jay rockefeller was saying yesterday is basically if you have pretty
tight national insurance regulation, that could be, in his words, bet[5' than an actual public option. the whole point of the public option of course is to try to bring down costs, to try to force competition into the marketplace and bring down costs. he was saying that if there are certain reforms, including those on how much profit you could actually make and how much money you have to spend on medical care, that could do the same thing so that you would not necessarily have to have a public option. host: one last question. it seemed to me that as the day was closing in washington that the senate would not be in session over the weekend. guest: that was a big shocker to me as well but right now i would not get too excited. that appears what senator harry reid, the majority leader, is trying to do is force republicans to come to some agreement on the omnibus appropriations bill. i am not sure the republicans are going to be able to come to
that agreement even though i am sure many of them would like to, because there are a few people in the republican party who feel like the democrats are spending too much money and they want to be able to debate it. i would be surprised if they would be able to do itç quickl i am of course hoping i would not have to work this weekend. host: thank you very much for the update. guest: thank you. host: let us get to your calls. let us recap. question or debate with you is about the role of executive compensation either as engine of of the economy or contributor to national greed. those are two views weç have heard. the governor of new york quoted in "the new york times" this morning. here is a quote from the article.
he suggested new yorkers defend wall street just as california defended its grape growing industry or by what its corn production we need to stand behind our -- the engine of our economy in new york. icon -- contrast, the g.e. had said in a speech that mean s and greed has been a hallmark of a generation of business leaders and harmed the youth of this economy. here is a quote -- he also issued a mea culpa for his inability to oversee the financial turmoil, saying he should have been a better listener. that outlines the debate.
let us hear some of your comments, beginning with santa rosa, california. caller: i think one of the things broken about the whole system is the link between the shareholder and the boards of directors and ends -- and executive pay. i think if the company was paying its executives far too much and the shareholders were paying attention, they would simply elect new people to the board of directors or sell their shares and either way the companies would get the message and correct. because we have mutual funds and so much stock is owned through third parties, people cannot follow closely with their money is invested in and that check is broken. to the extent the government is a shareholder in some companies now, it might be proper for them to have some say in what executive salary is but i would
like to see it go through normal channels of voting shares and get executives on the board that way rather than special legislation. host: democrats line. silver spring, maryland. caller: i think this idea of a cap is wonderful. i think if you look historically in the united states of america, that we have had periods of great innovation, great productivity, and great profit when the executive pay and the pay of the workers were not soi] far apartç and and i think if you look in other places in the world is not so far apart. i think this myth of having to buy talent is propagated by people who profit from that. george washington and the other çfounders of our great system d not sit down and say we are not going to do what is right until you pay us so much. i think down the line, there are
many jobs for soldiers today -- not saying, we are only door of our best because we have to get more money than anyone in the world. it has really done great harm to our country to allow these people to exploit their positions and get so much money. it does not go back into the economy. they just accumulate all this wealth. where is if people were paid living wages or decent wages that would go back into the economy. host: with thought it would be useful to look at jeffrey immel;t's salary. we found this, it has remained static since 2005, he declined to accept a three-year cash award a bonus that was good. hisçw3 performance over the lat three years earned him long-term performance cash the board of
$12 million and entitled to a new bonus of $5.8 million into thousand seven buddy refused to accept the enhancements in the current economic scenario. about his salary in particular, from forbes.com, five-year compensation, $75.43 million and total compensation 12.0 9 million. 53 years old at this point, i believe, born in 1956, harvard mba and dartmouth b.s. degree and 2007 annual compensation from equilar, 40,200,000. let us go back to calls. dallas is next. good morning. this is david on our independent mind. what are your thoughts on this debate? caller: i think executive compensation is just one part of general flow of money toward the upper classes, toward the rich
people. the disturbing thing is obama seems to have to appoint people not interested at all doing anything to reverse this. of course, i mean people like geithner and sommers and bernanke. i notice you are having elizabeth warren on later. if you listen to her and people like stiglitz and simon johnson, it seems like those of the people who ought to be in charge of the treasury and the fed for that matterç, to help them do something to stop this flow of money away from the average taxpayer. that is all i have to stay. -- say. host: we told you earlier in greatxd britain their approach s to put a 50% tax, a supertax it is called, on executive compensation for banks. here is the headline appeared -- headline.
here is what patrick jenkins is reporting. host: the next call is from fredericksburg, va., louise on the republican line. caller: i think they should put a 50% tax on some hedge funds. host: why is that? caller: these are the people constantly buying up company. i personally think warren buffett and people like jeffrey xdimmelt are the evilest peoplen
the world. they are buying all these companies. they are the ones keeping money from the shareholders. the shareholders are trying to keep their heads above water and these people go in and buy a company and shoes -- sell it in a hurry and the average ordinary joe loses. the system is rigged. we of the state pension investment board, totally corrupt all over the country. they brought us everything from the junk bond kings to the savings and loan crisisw3 to the collapse of the so-called technology boom. these people are absolute fees. it is interesting they are all graduates of harvard. it is interesting. and immelt, as far as i'm concerned, g.e. capital is one of the biggest sum -- subprime
lenders i would not buy general electric products if i had to. host: more from "the wall street journal" story on ken feinberg's plan to put a $500,000 salary cap on companies that accepted government funds. host: jodi in baltimore, democrats line. -- joe. caller: it is a disgrace how these executives get all this money and a regular guy wants to make 40,000 to $50,000 just to live. they live in these big houses. i'm just saying before you know
it, we are going to have a civil war in this country between the rich and poor because the rich they don't give break to nobody. host: stan, republican line. harrisburg. caller: thank you for having me. i have a comment regarding the pay. i think the reform act of 1986 encourage a greater greed among executives and has discouraged shareholder distributions and encourage -- with bonuses it encouraged a great deal more excessive risk.
the executive pay, as a result of the tax policies, the cards a great deal of greed among baseball players, football players and all the way through society. it does not matter what the position is, it is at the higher levels, it incurs higher salaries all around. host: thank you. appreciate your comments. karen has a reaction to governor paterson's marks. let's go back to the calls. çaustin, texas. rodney on the democrats' line. caller: i like gov. david paterson, but i think he is off base on this. he really has not offered any evidence or facts to substantiate his claims that giving all of these big wigs on
wall street, who have a track record of cheating and lying and stealing, and the evidence to prove his claims. if you go back to ivan bosky, all the way to bernie madoff and in betweenç, you can seew3q thy giving these people on wall street increased salaries and all of these things, incentives, it doesn't do anything for the common blue-collar guy here on the street. so with all due respect to governor paterson, i think he needs to go back and do his homework and check the history and in fact he can even go back to 1929 and sees some of the
players back then, many of their descendants are still living today and still pulling some of the same games they did back with the great crash of 1929. anyway, the bottom line is i just thing governor paterson is putting out of formation did get his campaign donors up, goldman sachs and people like that. host: thanks. we got your point. appreciate your call. this suggests here he's could stand to benefit from wall street, considering the uphill climb. more detail on what he had to say -- spoke at the museum of american finance.
host: next is a call from johnson city, tennessee. what do you think about all of this? caller: i do believe that executive compensation and how it has gotten out of hand it's a big part of what has happened to the economy. it is not just the amount of bonuses but how executives guide companies to get the bonuses in greenways. we need to get back to giving the shareholders more power.
-- fought the -- -- funds should not have a vote unless there is a way you can pull the shareholders, just keep them out of it. right now executives can control the executive compensation committee. they have representation across boards. who scratches who's back. and once they get the bonus is the guide the company in a way to maximize them. host: maryland, n.j. on the republican line. your contribution to this discussion. caller: you take a look at something like detroit last year, where you had other failures going on. but if you put $500,000 cap in place, how good with the detroit lions. -- would the detroit lions be? compensation -- it is a competitive field, just like everything else, part of
capitalism. and i think using the detroit lions is an example. if you did not have anybody on that team you could pay more than $500,000 how competitive the baby in the nfl? host: we learned the president will be meeting with a dozen big bank chiefs. the washington post reporting on that. pledging to do more for the economy even as many of the firm's struggling to get out from under the governments of some. host: next call is from kalamazoo, michigan. caller: let me start over.
japan when they had what they called the last decade, they instituted i think seven or eight stimulus packages before they found out that lowering the rate of pay for executives down to i think 1 million for the top company and a lower than that for the other ones, that is what got them back on track and brought them outç of the recession and got everybody back working. when you lower the money down to where you need money, then the money is going to come out to the businesses that need it. and start producing again. host: thank you. "the new york times" gives
economy. sarasota, florida. kevin on independent line. caller: there is no way anybody can justify these bonuses other than sheer greed. and what has become real clear for the mac -- average american worker who works in 925 job, -- 9:00 to 5:00 job, lost their job and home and tension, i wonder at what point it enough is enough and the people just say i will not take it anymore. it could get really, really awful for a lot of people. there is no way these bonuses can be justified other than just sheer greed. you say you can't attract talent to do this. i strongly disagree. it is not talent. this is manipulation of the system. host: sought a monkey shares of this tweet.
ççlouisiana, robert. you are on of the republican line. caller: i think the democrats are always trying to tell people, the government trying to tell people what they can make with minimum wage and jealous of people that make more money and they say republicans are all rich. i am not rich but i do enjoy watching lifestyles of the rich and famous and this is just going to mess it all up. host: more detail of what is happening in the u.s. on this compensation debate. from the "the new york times" article.
host: next call is from california, air, democrats line. audit of good morning today. i need people to listen to me. the problem is people in this country really don't know what they want. they want to make all this money but when the present administration of people on the administration tried to put caps on what people make they say you
are trying to change the fabric of our america. capitalism is not about greed and how much money, it is about making money to prosper the country. at some point in time you have to be like, what will i do with that money? $75 million you cannot spend in your lifetime, child's lifetime or grandchild lifetime that is agreed. host: weston, florida. a couple of minutes left. thomas on the independent line. caller: i'm an ex banking insider, driven out of the business due to essentials. a lot of the abuses we are seeing now -- driven out of the business due to essentials lee a lot of the abuses we are seeing now. i think if anything it should probably be more strict. i have been there. i have worked with plenty of bank presidents and i have seen
that kind of abuses that go on. i used to joke about this. if people really knew about the banking abuses that go on out of the radar, they would take their money and put it under the mattress. host: don't forget, elizabeth warning is coming up at 9:00 eastern time and she will be talking about oversight committee assessment of the tarp program. i heard questioning of timothy geithner -- and her questioning of timothy geithner. you are on the air. caller: first-time caller. i retired from chrysler in 2001, making a good salary. in 1975 went through the energy crisis period. i had to go back -- at that time, $15 an hour. when i retired from chrysler in
2001 and i went to look for a job they only wanted to pay $9 an hour. that was aç tremendous drop frm 1975 until 2001 yet you have the greedy bankers who think they should be able to make as much money as they can. but the reason why they are making some much money is that they laid off so many employees. if they want to provide for their wars they should pay as fairly like they used to in the old days. unfortunately my generation is embarrassing to me because it is my generation that is so greedy. pre baby boomers and baby boomers. our children have no future. host: thanks. nice to hear from a first-time college. we have lots more discussion on the economy and at times to regulate it. later on congressman scott garet from new jersey and elizabeth warren and in a couple of minutes, kevin hall from mcclatchy newspapers recovers the economy for the newspaper
chain. a quick break and then talk more with kevin hall. among this week's senators continue debate on health care bill. watch live gavel-to-gavel coverage on c-span2, the full debate, and edited and commercial free and get latest updates from reporters and editors from congressional quarterly or roll call group, we partnered with cq roll call for
enhanced coverage throughout. this weekend on book tv, a look at climateç change with former vice president al gore and reducing the effects of greenhouse gases. and lawrence solomon on the scientists who question the validity of global warming. after words, a bio of the supreme court justice antonin scalia she is a defeated by former solicitor general can olson, and then how google became a media giant. this weekend on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: kevin hall, mcclatchy newspapers national economics correspondent the administration is beginning year to and so is that global economic meltdown. if you haveç to give a broad carrot -- categorization of the policies in year 2, what is it?
guest: year one, plug the holes and don't let the boat sink and nowç itt( is billing the watert and buy end of next year getting the book actually moving forward. -- getting the boat actually moving forward. host: what are some of the broad strokes? guest: a lot of continuity, the effort to jump-start housing, lending, a lot of the programs jointly with the federal reserve designed to get the secondary market started. right now for the last 15 years most lending has happened because banks don't keep loans on their books. what they are trying to do with these various government programs is create a venue by which this stuff moves in some fashion so there is some lending going on. they desperately need to start lending again. host: we really want to get your calls. kevin hall will be with us for just a short time. and we will hear from president
obama from oslo as he accepts the nobel peace prize. çthat is happening in just a fw minutes. we thought you would like the flavor and we will record the entire iran does not work and to show it live on c-span2. let me ask you about the concern over banks' lending. how do you do that and at the same time not encourage excessive risk-taking which everyone seems to say is the heart of what happens in the past couple of years. guest: with a pendulum in the other direction. we had to loose lending and now we are going overly restrictive, people who have had good credit, years with a credit card company and bank suddenly finding they cannot refinance their mortgage. one late payment and suddenly 28% interest rates. we have an over correction. that over timeç will balance itselfñr out. ççbut i think the general feeg is this economyç with a 10% unemployment rate, it is not a good time to have loose lending
standards anyway so i think it will be a tight credit environment. host: secretary geithner talk about the extension of the tarp program. guest: $700 billion was passed in september of 2008. they had what they call savings, which is a bit of a misnomer. banks are paying some of the back faster. end of next year they expect 175 billion paid back. host: was all the $700 billion use? guest: no, in fact there would be a surplus for lackç of a better word of 200 billion they are anticipating and now the question is where it should go. çpresident obama and speaker pelosiç suggested may be spent some on deficit reduction and some on job creation. secretary geithner said he would like to keep in reserve just in case things turned sour again with an eye toward housing and community lending host: it
suggests the secretary actually thought there would be more speed bumps ahead for the economy. what is the thinking of what the economists and administration officials? guest: it dovetails with the question of job creation. the traditional drivers -- consumption, the housing sector, those are all pretty depressed said the stimulus is basically the driver of economic growth right now. what you will have with each passing quarter is the stimulus sidling out and if the private sector does not step in with investment and hiring you get an economic slowdown and with that you do not have the kind of growth to knock down unemployment and youth are back in recession with 9% or 10% unemployment rate. host: what about the jobs creation program the administration is supporting? guest: it dependsç on the industry. people i have talked to out in north carolina, employers there,
and i sat on the jobs summit and the overwhelming view of industry is the tax environment. payroll tax holidays, corporate tax relief. unfortunately in this town you can't talk about taxes and it is hard to imagine it will be on the table. hogç what about specifically the $3,000 tax credit for hiring guest: that is interesting. most economists say it is awfully hard to enforce and hard to tell what hiring would have taken place anyway. some have made an argument that the fact it might depress hiring until this passes because why hire now when you might get a credit later? a lot of doubts as to whether it would work. some like mark zandi from moody's economy.com, a cash for clunkers program, $25 billion using end of last year, first
come first serve for new hire rees. host: how much would it means for a business to the worker costs $25,000 in salary and another 56000 benefits? guest: would you spend $30,000 for a $3,000 tax credit? probably pretty unlikely. you might get some free money doing the hiring you were going to do anyway. host: beginning with a call from buffalo. , on the independent line. caller: first of all, mcclatchy is one of the best real investigative newspapers left in the country. they do some great reporting. as far as the job bill goes, a lot of the economists like paul krugman said the original stimulus was wateredç downç me everybody happy and not enough spending on infrastructure to create jobs and what not.
what direction should we put the money? should it be short termu! jobs, but talk about tax cuts for companies to hire people back, or investment in green jobs. what is the best way to get people back to work? i have been out of work for a year. host: what business are you in, tom? caller: i was in radio business. my job, i wasç replaced with automation basically. i worked for!q bigççç corporn and they just cut all ofç myi] shows over the united states and i was replaced by a computer banks to be regulation that started with ronald reagan. çwe outsource all of our jobs d everything has shrunk and the ceo pay is out of control. çokin the 1960's, 1970's, 198's they were making 30 to 40çmç s what the average worker makes and now they are making 300, to
400 times. host:ç you have a great radio voice and good luck. çcaller: maybe i can come in today on c-span. guest: i can second that as a former radio reporter. they have to see where it to get the biggest bang for the buck. w3the sectors hardest hit -- construction and manufacturing topscoúç that list. some of the green initiatives would help on the manufacturing side of itç, but construction s where i think you can put a lot of people to work very quickly and!@pá i&o why you have a growing interest in public works program. but the difference is back then we were building things that were new, dams and bridges that never existed and at this point we are looking at repairs and things of that sort and now they are talked about inner-city program, talking about urban blight, tear it down and build something new.
host: this is more of a comet -- ççç q guest: i have not seen the tax as part of it. in fact, with everything we have been hearing they will limit the taxes that were going to sunset in 2010 for those making over 250,000. a lot of us and economic circle did not believe it will happen to the that they will either sunset for everybody or they want. host: the so-called bush tax cuts? guest: yes, 2001 and 2003. i talked a lot of people in the private sector about what will get them hiring again, and the question is customers. you have negative feedback loop where it feeds on itself in a downward spiral. the fed and the two administrationsççw3 -- and confidence, you got to haveç -ç
guest: i think the feeling is they have to get it early for a better business environment. host:i]qokç atlanta, steve on e republican line, you are on the air. okcaller: first of all, as he ws talking about, mentioning consumer confidence. i was a small business owner in çatlanta for eight years and i have never seen anything like this. consumer confidence is way down.
first of all, since obama got in çoffice the only thingç he has been waryw3 abouti1ñ his health. in officeçç, the economy, ande has not done anything for jobs -- he needs to do something jfk and some of the other presidents have done, lower taxes to get money back in people's pockets. now they are coming out with the news that, well, by lowering taxes -- our revenue went way up every time available taxes, and they did it way before jfk. çguest: and revenue also went p atçç the end ofçç the 1990'n çclinton raise taxes. so there is a debate how much çtax cut to bringq in new reve. i think if you are going to argue that the new spending is a bad thing, you have to argue the tax cuts are a bad thing because thew3 cost revenue in the short run. that is kind of a conundrum,
because deficits are so high, almost everything they choose to do willqç increase the deficite way or another. çthey aret(w3 in a box and a w ççw3xdñrçi]beforeç he went guest: before he got out and have a negative effect and the çbush tax cuts cameçw3w3i] int raised up revenues. different things. cosseting here talking about çspending aç trillion dollarsd nobody is working. çhost: ok, thank you. weç will let go. çi am goingç to ask you to hod your thoughts and we will come çback and take more calls. the president hasç taken the çpodium for the?xnobel peace pe and let us listen in a little bit. çóqçç>> my accomplishments are
slight. then there are the men and women around the world who have been vççjailed and beatençóçó in pç justice, those who toilç in okçhumanitarian organizations o relieve suffering. okxdñc3w3çu!çunrecognized milt actsççxdi]çççi] ofç couran inspireok even the mostç harded cynics. oki cannotxd argue with those wo find these men and women,çq soe those who help, to be far more deserving of this honored that night. çbutttç perhaps the most profod issue surroundingç my receipt f this prize isç the factqw3 th'm the commander in chief of the military of the nation's in the midst of two wars. q+nñrçone of these warst( is wg down. i]the other is a conflict that
america did not seek the one in which we are joined by 42 other countries, including norway. in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks. still, we are ati] warv:omç. i am responsible for the americans to battle in a distant land. and some will kill. and some will be killed. ççyçsoç i come here with ane sense of the costs of armed conflict. xdfilled with a difficult xdfilledestions about the relatp çççbetween war and peaceçw3e effort to replace the one with the other. host: that is president obama in osloç addressing some of the controversies about his selection of nobel peace laureate this year. full coverage live on c-spanç2f
okyou would like to see the entirety. the final part of the program we will pick up clips and talk to you about the awardt( presentation. join us from 9:30 a.m. until 10:00 this morning. fromw3ç mcclatchy newspapers. - let us go back to your phone calls. at lancaster, pennsylvania. çjohn on the independent line. caller: obama peace prize is as not as kissinger getting the peace prize. at any rate, with theçó mortgage being one of four houses being under water, realç unemploymen, the impending real-estate crash, are we headed for a day -- double dip in the media not telling us about these things? guest: we keep seeing more and more reference to commercial
real estate and the threats. can you help us understand what is at stake? guest: we certainly have been reporting on the commercial real estate crisis for quite some time and it is something that will hit community banks and smaller regional banks much harder. we are going to see higher bank failures next year as of these loans come due. it is a different cycle of when they reset, so it is kind of layered on top of the housing crisis we have had. i think the caller raises a very legitimate point that there are growing concerns about a double- dip recession. when you look around and see what the drivers of growth might be going forward, you still have a very flat real-estate market, consumption down, manufacturing returning and still a very low levels and there is nothing out there saying this will be the driver that pulls the u.s. economy along. there is a realization that that is why more stimulus money is needed. how long can we go with this, how i can deficits go?
host: for kevin hall from mcclatchy, wichita, kansas. caller: i am calling in reference to the higher salaries they are paying and in the small guy is constantly suffering, and the layoffs going around the country today. it doesn't even make any sense that the economy still hasokñ nt ballooned out. we are over there and afghanistan and iraqççw3t( pag billions of dollars, can't even been justified any more. it has been eight years and now this country is going down because somebody decided that we have to stop terrorism. why did these terrorist exist and our economy is going down the toilet, because we are spending billions of there. that is all i have to say. this country could do a lot better for the people over here. health care could have been passed in the 1990's and paying for itself right now. host: thank you.
let us get a response. guest: i think our caller is suggesting our infrastructure projects as other countries and not our own. i think you hit on a point that a lot of people feel on the excessive salaries and another caller reference it as well. i think you are starting to see reaction to it, whether the pay tzar, today's papers had headlines of it looking to go in the banking sector and financial sector more broadly and trying to impose some sort of caps that would not affect the entire market but at least send a signal. the u.k., looking at 50% tax on bonuses. over the last 20 years we have had income inequality and as but previous caller noted, increasing widening gap between the top and and bottom end and overtime they will have social consequences. host: joe on twitter -- guest: i don't think obama
himself did. i think to the federal reserve probably had -- that belongs much more on the federal reserve. i think last september we were at a point where we were very near an abyss, a place we had not even been in the great depression. in today's electronic world, a financial panic is not a depositor-led panic but it is an electronic panic and that is what was going on the federal -- going on. the federal reserve took steps to calm the markets. they threw everything it possibly could add it and it stopped at least to the point of where it was falling and leveled it out and we are digging out -- xdççxd< çit will be a long so comew3 back from these problems but i think that credit goes to the federal reserve and the treasury department working in tandem. host: of alabama. tina on the republican line. caller: thankw3 youçóç for that
opportunity. mr. hall, why is congress never held accountable for the increases of spending we continually do what we give them more tax revenue? guest: i would phrase it differently -- why is and congress accountable for the mess weçxd are in question of congress, both parties, they were regulating the financial çsectóréçççko had oversigh they are pretty good beating of the federal reserve and others in hindsight but never heard them caught their colleagues and ask, why did we hold a hearing on the mortgage issue? how come we did not look at the leverage issue? all of these things were out there and congress was asleep at the willie -- we'll. -- wheel. host: mackinac, mich.. caller: mike comment is on the health-care debate. i want to say this. i read a book a couple of years ago and it was about a 19th
century political pundit and he was trying to promote a book that he wrote. and someone in the audience raised their hands and he called on them, how can i help you? this person said, could you share with the audience your definition of a politician? he said, a politician is someone who sees light at the end of the tunnel and they order more tunnel. this is what has been going on with this health care debate. the side that voted against it can go back and tell the people, see, i did what you wanted me to do. and other ones can say, well, i tried to do what you wanted me to do but it didn't happen. then what happened? then they start campaigning right now for the next term in office. the time has, that we have to get serious about -- the time has come we need to get serious
about term limits. we have it on the president. what -- let's put it on the senators and congress. put it on themko soç they can't make themselves a home there for ever. what happens, they are passing the -- congress has access to the best health care on the planet. but when it comes time to take care of we the people, by the way, paying for their health care they've just sort of passed us by. and that has to stop. host: let's get a response. guest: not sure i have much to add in terms of term limits but in terms of cost of the health care, the drag of health care on the system, when you look at all the unfunded liabilities, the big expenditures going forward, it is medicare and social security -- much more medicare. and i think for all we want to talk about not doing health reform, they have to find a way to get costs under control.
this may not be the measure that does that but at least we are talking about that and were not doing that for quite some time. host: later on we have scott garet of new jersey, republican on financial services committee. what is the status of the debate on financial markets regulation? guest: it is on the house floor, 238 amendments last count, so what will be a long process. seldom have there been so many well-dressed, well heeled lawyers and one hearing room about this whole process. a lot at stake, a lot of people from the insurance industry, banking sectors, markets, heads funds, you name it. a lot of people have an ox that can get bored -- gored. i watched the congressman throughout the debate and he offered interesting the debate, but on the other side of the aisle there has been very little in terms of concrete things. that has been a lot of, we have to be careful, can't go too far.
part of it is just being in opposition, you oppose what people and how we're doing but i think the american public wants i]real solutions and i am not sure as much as they probably could be getting. host: of how far apart are house and senate democratic leaders on this? guest: dynamic in the senate, one senator can block the whole thing. there has been a lot more consultation of -- senator chris dodd has brought people and from both parties. he has taken a different probes than what barney frank has done in the house. host: wayne from king of prussia, pennsylvania. caller:ççt(çwce çread a lotçów3 about theq fruy çmovement in the united states and how it is growingw3q very, y rapidly. cod
states, has been a consumer driver of the global economy for a long time. and i wonder if the american people are just getting tired of spendingçç moneyt(ç frivoloud starting to sett( back andç sa, let us save a little bit. thereç are preliminaryç statis to back that up. çt(çi wonder whatççokçççm affect might be on a more macro ççççscale of thatt( movement changing philosophy. change the way the world worksy and the way our economy is i]structured. thank you. jt: a very good question. i recommendi]ç reading theç lt çchapter of alanxd greenspan's book, his memoir, that kind of looks at what the world might lookok like without the cheap ì(lc@&c+ everything weiuçw3 have, whetht issues, footwear, clothing,
electronics. s crisis. i think it has a lot to do a/'t with consumption. =)w3ñrçççmççt(çwill higs make us less of a consumer society? in past crises of this talk about becoming frugal as a nation was there in 2001 and there in 2002. maybe this time is different. w3=9nbçñrhost: woodbridge, v quick question. caller: my real concern is jobs. we in no way of paying for it, not now with the future. artistry is disappearing and going to china and other countries. if you look during the
elections, mccain and obama went into michigan and said they would retrain everybody. retraining to do what? if you work in an automobile manufacturing plant for 30 years, the question is, where are the jobs? will they be by arista's at starbucks? . host: thank you very much for being here this morning. we are going to take to it --
take a quick break. nancy calo is going to tell us what is happening in the news this morning from c-span radio. coming up we will be joined by vali nasr in the state department. we will be talking about u.s. policy towards the pakistan afghanistan region. we will be right back. >> president obama has accepted his nobel peace prize in norway. president obama was asked about five americans arrested yesterday in pakistan over possible terrorism links. the president did say that twisted ideologies of terrorists can reach young people in the united states and affect them. ñirobert gates has arrived in iraq. his visit comes inñi a week in which coordinated baghdad
bombings have killed 127 million people. his umbrella group in iraq this morning of more to come. meeting with u.s. troops and afghan leaders, including hamid karzai. he did not meet with kim jong il during his three day visit. he and other north korean officials had exploratory talks on how to get the stalled six nationñr. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is vali nasr, senior adviser to richard
holbrooke, the special representative to afghanistan and pakistan. he is a senior fellow at also interesting, he was born in 1960 in tehran. i wanted to start because the president of pakistan has written an opinion piece that was published this morning about how to mend fences with pakistan. he writes that it is useful for americans and pakistani is to consider what has brought us to this point and what the conflicts true endgame must be. in the eyes of the administration, what is the endgame of efforts in afghanistan and pakistan? >> to bring peace and security the south asia. creating a circumstance in which
afghanistan can have a normal government and its people can live under peace and security. also helping pakistan with its challenge of extremism. tell them that country to have a prosperous economy. host: as we attempt to do this i want to go back to this piece. it has some interesting observations about the challenges for both countries. "there is deep suspicion in one country toward the other. many americans still wonder if pakistan is doing all that it can to fight terrorism. some of them re believe is an absence of gratitude. considering the history as seen by pakistan, twice in recent history america abandoned its values to support dictators and manipulate pakistan. how would you respond? >> there is no doubt that there
is a gap of trust between the two countries. the president is correct that there is a great deal of suspicion on u.s. interests, that the united states would abandon the issue once again once the war in afghanistan is over. in the united states there are still lingering memories of 9/11 and the fact that al qaeda use that region to launch attacks against the united states. the efforts in the last year have been about bridging that gap. çówe have been reaching out to several societies in pakistan, both to the government as well as the opposition groups. the united states is now pursuing a much broader relationship with pakistan. the secretary of state had a major trip to pakistan in which she not only reached out, but laid out the road map for a relationship. we have to be patient, but
ultimately the goal is relations between the u.s. and pakistan at this critical juncture in history will become closer and that the interests of the two countries will be much more aligned. host: vali nasr, many administration and defense officials have testified about the administration's policy in the region. yesterday from general petraeus we heard americans say that there is an annual $1 million -- $1 billion price tag. $150 billion over 15 years. i wonder if there is an estimation from the state department on the diplomatic corps community building side of the equation. guest: i do not have a firm number on that. obviously, going forward we will be investing in civilian
assistance to afghanistan and pakistan. on the nature of the military campaign on the ground, there is no doubt. we will have to invest in not only helping both governments in afghanistan and pakistan to become stronger, to be able to do more for the population, moving the population away from the extremism, shielding the most vulnerable segments of the population. the disenfranchised, stopping them from being lured into extremism. ñrparticularly in pakistan we nd to help them address their development needs and the trust in positive returns for the people of that country. but we are only sort of rolling out these approaches to the region and we will have to see the tally.
host: vali nasr is joining us live from the state department this morning. we are discussing u.s. policy toward afghanistan and pakistan , especially the diplomatic efforts in that region. questions or comments? for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. one question for you, sir, before we get the calls, we spend so much time on the academic side of this. what is it like for you to be need deep in the policy implementation? guest: it is actually quite rewarding. we are able to bring years of experiences from the academic world into the policy-making arena. at the same time we also gain insight into the workings of the policy environment, how government works, relations between these countries and how that worked, making our own
analysis much richer. host: do you think that the teaching will be different as a result of being this close to the operation? guest: there is no doubt that one comes out with a broader, wider perspective for the challenges and an appreciation for the opportunities. host: let's get to some of your questions, beginning with michael on the republican line. caller: in your book, "the forces of fortune," you talk about the economic prosperity of muslim countries. i wanted to pose the question, how long do you think that these areas in afghanistan and pakistan would take to come into this framework of development? to what extent should the u.s.
fund this type of framework of development that you so eloquently expounded in your book? also, similarly in the book, mr. gold steam talks a lot about corollaries that we can see that are very much aligned. vietnam is now an economic power as well. guest: the immediate challenge faced by both countries is security. dealing with extremist forces and allowing the population to live in peace, ending the conflict and facing stability. in the long run stability means economic progress and development. in afghanistan and pakistan is important that the country has a
viable economy. that people have gainful employment. that they are able to sustain for themselves and their families, and that there is a vibrant economy to keep the country together. there is no question that if you were to look down the road and ask how this region could once and for all move beyond the specter of dealing with extremism, with the kinds of challenges that we have, there will need to be economic prosperity. a lot of engagement with afghanistan and pakistan right now is directed at laying down those foundations. in afghanistan we are not investing massively in agriculture. during the taliban time there was a lot of unemployment and poverty in the country as a consequence, as well as a narcotics trade because there is no other agricultural capability
there. we are attempting to invest in agriculture in afghanistan, building infrastructure that would produce a self sustaining afghanistan economy. similarly, pakistan is going through a similarly tough time. there are segments of the population that are vulnerable to being attracted to extremism. because of poverty, absence of opportunity and unemployment. in the long term it depends on pakistan gaining economic footing, being able to unleash the potential that it has. our aid to pakistan, submitting $7.5 billion in non-military assistance, that is designed to
jump-start the pakistani economy. there is no doubt that dealing with the extremism and stabilizing these countries requires economic vitality. host: we just completed a segment where we were talking with people about how difficult it is to stimulate job growth in the american economy. how successful could this country be in stimulating job creation in afghanistan and pakistan? >> the challenge before the u.s. economy is quite different than the challenges faced by afghanistan or pakistan. in afghanistan a% of the population depends on basic farming. the problem is the absence of security in large parts of the country. as a result people cannot actually conduct farming. doing infrastructure development and providing basic support for
farming can go a long way. that is a much different challenge and, in some ways, a much different process than unemployment in advanced industrial society, where there are links between financial markets, global supply chains, and the like. challenges in afghanistan and pakistan are much more rudimentary. rural development, community development, which will provide people with very basic substances. host: the next question comes from virginia. your on with vali nasr. guest: i do not a member congress authorizing a war action in pakistan. it is being reported that we have tens and thousands of troops, namely blackwater, in pakistan right now.
when did this more switch to pakistan? who authorized it? what are we attempting to do? are we attempting to overthrow the government there? when did this more become about pakistan? when are the american people going to be asked their opinion? up guest: first of all, blackwater or any other private contract thing organization is not the u.s. government or the u.s. military. çósecondly, the presence of blak water in pakistan, particularly these exaggerated numbers, are simply rumors and gossip circulated in the pakistani press. they distract from policy. these reports are not basedçó on facts. they are often floated to generate anti-americanism on the ground. there is no basis to these reports. i am not aware of any blackwater
presence in such huge numbers of u.s. personnel in pakistan. there is no basis for it. host: a viewer sent us a message through twitter. "what are the main economic activities in afghanistan that could absorb the currently militant taliban into a peaceful afghanistan? guest: afghanistan has tremendous agricultural potential. before the soviet invasion in 1979, afghanistan was a major food exporter. raisins, fruits. it has farmlands and orchards. it sustained a country based an agricultural economy. it has the potential to produce a lot of agricultural products. many countries around them could actually be markets for them.
agriculture generates jobs because people work on the farms, feeding their families and earning money by working on the farms. there is also potential for a lot of reconstruction in afghanistan. they have a lot of roads and dams, rivers etc. to belong. -- build on. afghanistan could serve as a conduit of trade between central asia and the persian gulf, the indian ocean region. all of these activities would put money into the economy. money into the economy would generate additional demands for a variety of other services and goods, producing a self sustaining economy that would employ more and more of the population. we have to begin with where there is a great bang for the
box, impacting the largest portion of the country. host: related questions from twitter -- why do we hate the taliban if we pay them to stop poppy farmers? guest: it was not a payoff to the taliban. we had a policy of trying to eliminate the drug trade in afghanistan. we have tweet that strategy to emphasize -- tweaked that strategy to emphasize the building of new agriculture after the revocation of poppy fields. the previous strategy did not work. it only drove farmers into the hands of the taliban. we are trying to create an agricultural economy that would compete with poppy farming,
doing so competitively and successfully by providing the ability for farmers to grow food, wheat, or cash crops like pomegranates, earning them a sufficient amount of money so that they do not have to grow poppies. there is no such thing as the united states paying off the taliban in relation to drug farming. host: democratic line. your honor. caller: thank you for having me on the air. this really ruffled my father's to see how the government is doing this. just like the politics. we need to change. we need to be right. we need and new laws and new rules. seems like the u.s. is always paying for everything. bombing this, bombing that. losing troops. it is terrifying when a body is shipped home. come on.
if john f. kennedy was president, this would be history. more would be over with. host: anything to assuage concerns? guest: we live in a globalized world. when you have extremists halfway around the world, and a broken state that is not able to protect its own territory from extremists, it directly impacts the united states. it is a very different environment from the 1960's, where if you had a broken state or extremists halfway round the world, they did not have the ability few directly impact the homeland. the question is not staying in afghanistan indefinitely, the question is having a government
that is able to protect its territory, provide security, keep al qaeda out, and make sure that the afghan territory will love be used as a staging ground for terrorism globally again. i think every president going back has always addressed imminent threats to the united states. but the nature of that threat is very different in 2009 than it was in the 1960's. host: texas, republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. 16 of the 19 terrorists bombed of the towers were from saudi arabia. right now the taliban pays the people of afghanistan more money not to join the military than we pay for them to join the military.
i do not believe, sir, that the next terrorist will come from afghanistan. the next terrorists will come from the sponsors of the last terrorists, people from saudi arabia. people from dubai. they are our strongest allies. why should we believe that anything will be solved by our involvement in afghanistan when the terrorists did not come from afghanistan? >> they might not have come from afghanistan, but there were trained, they were planning, all in afghanistan. afghanistan was the staging ground for 9/11. the question is not whether the terrorists will come from somewhere else, the question is that afghanistan, without viable security to protect of the territory, having free rein the terrorists will bring it back to where it was before 2001, a
staging ground for extremist groups that could pose a threat to the united states. the question is not to change -- chase their nationality, the question is to make sure that afghanistan cannot serve as a safe haven and staging ground for al qaeda like it did before 2001. host: the question of corruption, i am wondering if you could talk a bit specifically about the u.s. concerns over corruption in the karzai government. guest: we take this issue very seriously. we have been at the forefront of criticizing corruption in afghanistan. it is no secret that the u.s. was very vocal in challenging the karzai government to address this issue. we have been very vigilant in our dealings with the afghan government.
we have made sure that there is accountability and transparency for the money that is spent in afghanistan on the civilian side in order to develop the country. obviously we are dealing with outside of our own political system in a different country, and therefore we must be constantly working with the afghan people to make sure that the money is spent properly. that it is accounted for, that most of the money gets to the intended targets, and that is spent efficiently. that is the major concern of the u.s., and it is part of the planning. host: robert gates has arrived on the ground in afghanistan. his job is to assure the u.s. troops that officials are committed to winning the war. yesterday he spoke about the karzai government.
>> president karzai is set to meet with his cabinet next week and he is under a lot of pressure to set ministers that are not tainted. has he shown you the entire list? are you comfortable? was the u.s. given the right to vet of -- vet any of those ministers? >> he did not give me a list, but i was frank with him in terms of our expectations, same thing with governors and police chiefs. host: doctor, any further comments? guest: afghanistan is a sovereign government. the united states does not decide to the ministers are and we do not interfere in the process. but we do have an enormous amount of investment in their future stability. we just announced a strategy to deploy more troops and commit more money. as i mentioned earlier, we are
going to be relying concerns very directly to the afghan government, demanding of them to appoint people that are competent, not corrupt, capable of doing the job, to be our partners on the ground. once those people are in office, they would adopt the proper mechanisms to make sure that all assistance to afghanistan is properly accounted for and that we have transparency these of the the corruption issue. -- vis a vis the corruption issue. secretary gates has made it clear that when high-level officials traveled to afghanistan, they relate these concerns very directly. host: our next telephone call comes from boston on the independent line. brian. >> i do not seem to think that these goals are attainable. what has pakistan been doing for
the last 50 years? how much carbon do they admit right now? -- emit right now? we have problems with our economy in the united states. the way we are living, resources running low, they will be running out. can we really attain these goals and say to these people that we are just looking for allies down the road when things get worse? these people are going have to go without. they will never be able to get on their feet and become a powerful economy. things are just going to continue to get worse. do we really want these people to drive cars and admit carbon? of -- emit carbon? they want to live how we live,
but we have problems with how we live. host: let me interrupt -- this is a question about the end game again. guest: it is about bringing stability and security to south asia. what happens in that region directly affects peace, security, economics, and society in the u.s.. is in the interest of the united states to help that region gain stability, making sure that extremist forces do not have run of the land, are not able to use it as a staging ground against us. to achieve that we do not have to make sure that they become china or india. what we need to do is make sure that they have government that is capable of protecting its own territory. that they are able to keep
extremists out. that they are able to have a viable economy to provide jobs and security to the population. so that the population does not turn to extremism. essentially we are there to make sure that his basic goals are attained. host: we were talking about the peace in "the new york times" this morning. the united states, getting involved in the kashmir problem. is this nation ready to do that? >> ultimately -- guest: ultimately, peace between india and pakistan requires a commitment from those companies to solve the problem.
this dispute has been there since pakistan gained its independence. the united states would welcome any kind of forward movement on disputes between pakistan and india, reduction of the tension between them. those will all be good for the world as a whole. the united states cannot solve that process. the principal engagement has to be from pakistan and india. they have to show the will and commitment to wanting to resolve that dispute. the united states would support them in that process, but they have to be at the forefront. host: the last question comes from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. democratic line. caller: your comments fly in the face of myñi brother, a 34 year
veteran of the navy seals. he was very point-blank about the level of corruption. not just in afghanistan, but pakistan, who created the taliban in the first place. it is a construct of the pakistani government and they have no intention of doing away with the taliban. for you and president obama, who i supported, to waste -- meet the treasury of our country continually, i echo what my friend in boston just said. we are becoming a bankrupt nation to act as a guarantor for the middle east. they are not our allies. you are not our allies. you will never be our allies. it is a fabricated lie. host: i have to jump in, we are
almost out of time. guest: first of all, corruption is an issue wherever it is. a concern of the united states and it will be addressed in terms of our engagement. we will take every step, from talking to leaders to taking every step to do away with corruption. pakistan is a part of the stability and security issue in south asia. our efforts are to get their full cooperation in addressing the problems we are facing in afghanistan and pakistan. the president address that in his speech. general petraeus and talked about it yesterday in his testimony. pakistan is facing a threat of their own from the taliban, regardless of the history. the reality is that they are at
war internally with their own extremists. their engagement in that regard is a positive move. ultimately resolving in a resolution that will require cooperation between the united states and pakistan. our engagement is to make sure that that cooperation is smooth and effective. alternately, it would be much more difficult dealing with the extreme is an issue, and the path forward is not that we are doing this out of the desire to build economies around the world. we are doing this out of the desire to address a critical security situation. everything that we do is driven by the logic of how to get regional cooperation between the actors on the ground, a
particularly pakistan, in being able to do an effective job for the security concerns that are paramount to the united states. host: thank you for answering these questions this morning. vali nasr is a special adviser to the ambassador in afghanistan and pakistan. we will be joined in a moment by congressman scott garrett of new jersey as the house debates financial market regulations. after that, elizabeth warren will be with us, the chairman of the tarp oversight panel. ♪ >> once again, u.s. ambassador to afghanistan and the top military commander in afghanistan are heading to capitol hill to testify about u.s. strategy in the region.
speaking to u.s. congressional committees on tuesday. general mcchrystal said that he expects to see significant progress over the next 18 months. live coverage this morning at 9:30 eastern on c-span.org c- span 3. bad -- c-span 3 and c-span.org. >> the senate continues debate on health care bill this week, watch on cut live footage from c-span 2. c-span has partnered with congressional quarterly for enhanced coverage of the senate debate throughout the month. find out more at our health care hub. >> this weekend, a look at climate change without gore, reducing the effects of greenhouse gases. lawrence sullivan and scientists
questioning the validity of global warming. afterwards, how did google become a media giant? "book tv" on c-span to this weekend. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman scott garrett is our guest this morning good morning. guest: good to be with you. host: the house of representatives is now in the middle of a much-anticipated debate of financial market regulation. you have been a vocal critic. why? guest: the american public does not want any more bailout. they want to create jobs, not
destroy them. the bill that we have on the floor provides more for bailouts, as more job destruction, and negroes government spending at phenomenal levels. host: how does it do that? guest: on the bailout side we had somewhat of a debate going on last night about this. we had to point out to the chairman that there was language in the amendment that basically said that the taxpayer is on the hook for an unlimited amount of money. $50 billion, $100 billion, over the next several years. the treasury has unlimited authority to borrow the money to bailout of wall street banks or anyone that they want to end there is no limit in the bill.
that is a bailout like we had at the beginning of the year. the american public has said enough, so do we. host: what about jobs? guest: there are multiple parts. a new consumer protection agency sounds great until you realize how it works. an outside organization realized that it will basically raise interest rates out there. if you can get a loan today at 6%, after this it would be 7.5%. it businesses have to pay more to borrow, they will have less to invest in the business.
there are other provisions as well. host: we had a guest in our first segment, kevin hall, expressing concern over a second wave coming in and 4 -- coming in the form of commercial real estate. what are your concerns? guest: i have been concerned about that for a long time. i always ask my constituents how they see the recession going. the consensus was that if we do not get out right now -- remember when the white house was projecting that earlier in the year? we are looking at a double u-
shaped recession. ben bernanke going around, talking about green shoots. we had a little bit of a pickup. now things are leveling off again. just like with holmes, you had adjustable rate mortgages resetting. commercial real estate, they will not be able to borrow money. that will push back down on the recession. the other u. ñihost: what is the prescriptio? guest: is not to put it into programs that do not work. you see that with the stimulus plan, which by all accounts has been a failure. what we need to do is allow americans to keep their own jobs
andñr create newçó jobs, gettine government out of the way in that regard. republicans have offered a solution. only if harry reid will allow us to release being gauged in the discussion. nancy pelosi said that she did not want to hear from us on any of these things. is present our plan. like on health care. when the president spoke one month ago he said they wanted to work -- that when he was coming down the aisle i had with me a package with two dozen different republican ideas on health care. i said -- he wanted to work together on these things, when you get back to was we would love to discuss these ideas. that was months ago.
guest: let's get your phone calls. you can also send a message by e-mail or twitter. scott garrett is a republican from new jersey. the house began debate last night on the democratic leadership bill that would let's begin with a call from san bernardino, california. stephanie, democratic line. caller: thank you. republicans worked with democrats when republicans were in the majority because of the pharmaceutical billñi. i believe that the tax-cut issue, top earners are not paying their fair share.
host: top earners not paying their fair share. guest: first and foremost, your question before was what is our solution to the problems? one of the solutions was tax cut across the board. we would suggest that everyone would be better offñxi if they right now. about where she wouldñr want to keep and spend her money. we would try to allow her to be in the driver's seat on spending. ñihost: we began the program ths morning talking about kenneth feinberg, talking about a cap of $500,000 on firms that
receive government money. what do you think of that idea? guest: in general i am opposed to the government stepping in like that. in general saying that the government should not be stepping into the private sector. in this case we are talking about financial institutions that have received the largess of the american public. so, we certainly have a reason for involvement there. the legislation from last night, the so-called total reform of wall street's, would go even further than that, basically giving the government the authority to step into any business out there, allowing the government to start dictating the person making $1 million a down to the person making $20,000. i am opposed to that idea because the government has no right to get involved. tax dollars are a different story and we should be careful.
host: kelly, republican line. ñrguest: down on the jersey sho? caller: the beautiful jersey shore. my husband has a question about charlie rangel. just a moment. host: their television is turned up too loud. are you there? caller: has any action being taken against charlie rangel in view of the charges against him? it seems that that is just lett:)u go on and on. host: thank you for your call. guest: the short answer is not reallyxd. i am frustrated by that in other areas as well. three years ago they said they were going to have the most open, ethical, and transparent
congress in history. ever since then we have seen everything but that, with charges and allegations of people not paying their taxes, putting monies and to their freezers and others of the things. action on this matter has taken far too long. charlie rangel even said we should have an investigation, a hearing. as we sit here right now, you can see that there has been no final action on it. host: is the worst since a twitter message -- businesses will not hire or invest until customers, in the door, which will not happen until people have jobs. guest: that is true. also circular in that businesses will not invest until they know if their investments will pay off? the period -- pay off.
action until they see what business is doing. we are creating a problem for businesses as well. if they do not know what the health care plan is going to be, they will not hire new employees. if they do not know what the tax rate is going to be or if there are going to be new taxes, they their businesses. duff what it means is call list but needs to take some action now, but do it in the right way to support jobs. we think that the tarp ii bill will do the opposite. host: cathy, good morning.
caller: thank you for taking my call. i only have a few points to run down and i will take my answer of the air. one, i think that the first problem that we have is with congress. we have a congress and not representing the people, not representing the interest groups of the lobbyists. because of the supreme court in their rulingñi, saying that lobbyists have the same rights as individuals -- the only recourse that we have is a constitutional amendment to take care of that problem. there is no money that can be used for the congress and senators. that is all that we can do. unfortunately we need them to bring in a constitutional amendment. and they have to agree to it. i believe that there is a grassroots organization in which
we could probably pressure them into dealing with that. i am sure that the population would agree to something like that. now, when it comes to health care issues, the republicans keep on saying that they are concerned about the costs. well, if you want to take care of the costs, there is a program out there where if you tax wall street 1% sales tax on all their transactions -- i pay sales tax on bubble gum or anything that i buy. wall street does not pay anything. if you tax them 1% in one year you would not at all of the money that we paid out in tarp
funds. guest: the first issue is the constitutional issue. it is interesting. one of the first things i did when i came to congress was formed a congressional constitution caucus. i believe that congress has exceeded what the founding fathers intended. i always suggest to members that every time that you vote, here is what you should be thinking, constitutional or not. you are saying that lobbyists are a part of a problem, which is a widespread fought, and i feel what you are saying as well. many times they're not representing the people they represent at home. if you are a part of a group of lobbyists you can feel left out in the cold. there is one area, talking about financial matters, i suggested a
couple of years ago that they should not be able to lobby at all anymore. they're using tax dollars in, tax dollars going out, but it did not work. your idea is a constitutional amendment. you are right, that would only come about if you had huge grass-roots support for it. it could start with anyone. it could start with you. thinkñi of it this way, if you d that grass-roots support in the initiative, you could make sure that your own representative, whoever that might be, is listening to you. first and foremost that is what we should be doing. your second issue about health care -- host: cuff if i could interject, she proposes paying for health care with a transaction fee. that is a debate going on right now. guest: we can raise taxes on in
a lot of areas to pay for health care. one of the proposals democrats are suggesting in the senate is to tax tanning salons and what have you. they are having a whole bunch of ideas to raise taxes. your suggestion is another one that they are suggesting, taxing wall street. at the end of the day none of these ideas bring down the overall cost of health care, it simply shifts the cost from one place to the other. if you put a tax on wall street it sounds as if you are going to be taxing rich people in manhattan. by the end of the day those transaction costs filter down to whoever it belongs to. that could be you. if you are in a pension plan that is administered by some fund in wall street or something, and they are paying that tax, that tax will be borne out by you and your pension.
if you are an investor in funds, it all comes back to a higher cost to you, the consumer, at the end of the day. it is not just that little guy from the monopoly game paying all of this. the solution is not raising taxes to pay for health care, the solution is trying to drive down the cost of health care so that you and i and everyone can afford the services that we need and expect to have a in a country as rich as the united states. host: the louisiana, democratic line. caller: thank you for c-span. i would like to ask one question and make a comment. you say that republicans are not being consulted on the health care plan at all.
the president met with the wall in the white house. he met with a conservative commentator. and he was made fun of at the beginning of his administration. your stated goal was to break this president, break this administration. i would like to ask you one other question. what do you think of a governor that would beg his senator to introduce an amendment to help with a problem of medicare? and then after she does that and gets called everything from a prostitute on down by the republican party, he does not have the guts to admit that he begged her to put that into the bill. if she is a prostitute, we know who the pimp is. thank you very much. guest: i am not sure where to go
on that last point, but going to your main point as far as what americans want to hear coming out of washington, a bipartisan discussion and dialogue. i do not know who the conservative commentator you are jfreferencing is, but they are t a member ofñi con/yp55ñ. this -- the responsibility of congress is to work together. there can be conservative and liberal commentators out there saying all sorts of things. i am more concerned if the administration is willing to discuss ideas in an open and frank manner. i personally presented several dozen ideas to the administration, and they never called me back to discuss it. another example would be when the health care bill, when it did go through congress a few weeks ago, republicans had a
number of ideas. proposals on here is how we think if you can do it. out of those 100 amendments, they expect it -- accepted one of them. you can see that in order to have a majority and the dialogue, both sides have to come together. and you have to have it be open to different ideas. when they are only excepting one technical amendment out of 100, the evidence is clear they are only working from their side of the aisle. host: this news came across the wire -- growing exports are hoisted by a weaker dollar, expecting to boost demand for american economics.
what do you think of the dollar policy here? guest: this administration, when you think about it, has adopted so many policies of the bush administration. in afghanistan they're doing the same thing. in other foreign-policy areas. certainly on the dollar as well. i was a critic of the bush administration's weak dollar policy. they thought it was a way to get exports going again. i do not think it is a good idea the matter which president does it. we should have a strong u.s. dollar and have a strong, vibrant economy based on that dollar. everything that timothy geithner has been doing that has been counter to that idea. host: the next call comes from eric, republican line in maryland. caller: i have a question about this tarp business.
the constitution says that revenue bills must originate in the house. the final tarp build originated in the senate and then they pulled out a bill from the mental health dictionary. they called that an amendment. the constitution permits an amendment of the bill presented by the house, but it must be within the scope of the amended bill. tarp was not within that scope. my question to you, is the original tarp legislation unconstitutional? did the speaker had a duty to blue slipped it back to the house without action?
bisecting question -- are they proposing new money for this jobs program? or are they simply going to repurchase the old money? guest: the second question, the answer is that they want to reprogram the money. as it was paid out in has been paid back in. now they are telling us that we can spend it on all of these programs, which was one of the other problems. i was opposed to the tarp, as you recall, because i said there were no limitations whatsoever. any administration could spend any amount of money on anything they want without limits. you are right, this is just a recycling of that money. $700 billion in programs going into perpetuity as a slush fund for this administration.
the constitutional issue is quite an interesting one. whether or not a court would take this up for strike it down, you raise an interesting question. you might say that this is a political issue instead, but it is an interesting issue to look at. you gave a good history of how the bill came through. barney frank was on the floor, saying that the bush administration did it, but as you pointed out it was barney frank and speaker pelosi that pressure the bill through the house during their administration. that is another reason why i opposed it. i did not believe it was -- i believe it was a violation of house rules. . .
this while continuing claims for benefits fell to the lowest level since february. overall, unemployment benefit rolls have fallen 11 of the last 12 weeks. the u.s. trade deficit has narrowed as u.s. exports rose to the highest level in nearly a year. economists had expected an increase. congress is expecting to raise the debt of nearly 1.2 trillion
dollars. steny hoyer says we have incurred the debt and we have to pay our bills. the anticipated increase could be nearly the -- nearly twice the amount the budget reduction for fiscal year 2010. and then agree on the group of zero white firefighters to civil rights case went to the supreme court. the high court ruled in june that new haven connecticut officials violated of white firefighters the civil-rights when they threw out 2003 test results in which two -- too few minorities did well. sonia sotomayor ruled against them when she served on a federal appeals court. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: elisabeth warren is at our table, the chair of the congressional t.a.r.p. oversight panel. they have asked treasury secretary tim geithner to appear
before them today and on the t.a.r.p. program drew a report came out in anticipation of this hearing, the headlines are the study of this effectiveness is what? guest: there is good news and bad news. the good news, and it is very good, is that t.a.r.p. in conjunction with other federal actions, action from the fed, the fdic, the stimulus, kept this economy from plunging over the cliff into what would likely have been a depression. that is a powerful impact. the bad news is that it was not the only purpose of t.a.r.p. it was not there just to save a handful of large institutions. if you read the statute, it is clear that congress intended that t.a.r.p. was going to get ahead of the mortgage foreclosure crisis, that it was going to restart lending, particularly to small businesses, which would have an impact on employment. and it was going to be used to
clean up the balance sheet of the banks. did not happen, did not happen, did not happen. host: i know many of you have questions. we will put the phone numbers on the screen. twitter and e-mail also ways to get to us. this week, the secretary announced the oversight of the t.a.r.p. guest: the soul of the discretion of the secretary of the treasury. the wood is interesting is that he says the reason he is extending t.a.r.p. is that -- is so that he can now focus on small business lending, home mortgage foreclosures, not talking so much about the balance sheet of the banks. there is clearly a tie-in. that is how deep the refocuses itself, if so, there would be
some support for that on the panel. host: but focus on the mortgage crisis. the second wave is going to be exacerbated by job losses. what really is the key to unraveling the mortgage situation and the situation the country finds itself in? guest: part of the key, i think, is to admit the problems we have are not working. we have known about this crisis, basically. this is not like we woke up one morning and said oh, my gosh, there is a mortgage foreclosure pryke -- prices. there are some folks, some that were perinton on this years ago, but even two years ago we could see that the numbers were jumping. and basically, taking in approach of asking the mortgage investors, pretty please, would you help deal with this crisis by working with your our worst -- which were borrowers? and the mortgage lenders, many of them, the way they did it is
to increase the payment and up the penalty fees. the program has not worked. we started under t.a.r.p. now with what is really the third foreclosure program. this one has problems because the scope is too narrow. the scale up this way too slow and too small. and ultimately, it is not going to put homeowners, enough homeowners into permanent solutions. in other words, we are deeply concerned that this program is just kicking the can down road. i want to pause for a minute to say that as a real problem no one focuses on. just delaying foreclosures means we are creating an economy that would have an elevated foreclosures. i do not mean by a little bit, but a lot, for years. that has powerful indications in the construction in -- industry directly, but also things like the furniture by industry -- the
furniture buying the industry, and restores. there is an economic impact into having all of these foreclosures. host: with the extension of t.a.r.p. the oversight panel's duties are also extended. i will put on the screen the information of the oversight panel members. our first call is from david from oquossoc, texas, democrats line. -- from el paso, texas, democrats line. caller: i was wondering what your problem is with this money being paid back into t.a.r.p.? guest: there is no problem with that. any money not spent in tarp will necessarily -- will not necessarily make the deficit smaller or make it spent somewhere else. all of this is about is that $700 billion was allocated to t.a.r.p. and the treasury of the sec -- the secretary treasury
said at this point that he does not anticipate using all of it. that means the deficit will be reduced. if he uses even less, the deficit will be reduced even more. host: we will put the numbers on the screen about how much the of the deficit has been committed and what we estimate those payments are. as we look at those, let's listen to it, it from buford, n.c., chris on the republican line. caller: you mentioned that you were not very happy with some of the usage of the t.a.r.p. by some of the bigger banks. i was wondering how you felt about them, i guess, using some of those funds to underwrite at some deals to pay back the tv money. -- the t.a.r.p. money. guest: the big concern i have with the money that we put in the large financial institutions is that we shoveled literally hundreds of billions of dollars
into those financial institutions on basically, no questions asked basis. secretary paulson a year ago told us, oh, they will start lending again, that will get the economy evolve, money for small businesses. originally, we will use those to solve the foreclosure crisis. none of that happen. instead, we just gave the money to the banks and i'm not quite sure how they used it. we believe some of the financial institutions use it in order tod just plump up their balance sheets. in other words, they held on to the money and did not lend it. others used it to buy other banks, increasing the contras -- concentration in the industry. others use it to buy specific assets, including in foreign countries. now the banks are on solid foot -- a solid footing, or so they claimed. they're not making boat -- big earnings from lending.
which i was thought was the purpose of banks. and they are making big earnings from the credit card areaxd or frok actually trading. they are actually trading and making profits right now from the trades. so, ok, we have gotten enough money from that, we will pay to our back and get out from underneath any restrictions -- will pay t.a.r.p. back and get out from underneath any restrictions and basically want to take the position of party on like it is 2005. host: we have information that can feinberg's recommendation to cap at $500,000 per year. are you overseeingñr his recommendations vis-a-vis how they affect t.a.r.p.? guest: i hope this is an area we will go into more deeply. this is a bipartisan panel and i have raised the issue. there is another catalyst that
has raised this issue multiple times. not all -- there is another panelist that has raised this issue multiple times. not all of the other panelists have wanted to talk about compensation. it is back and forth othat. çóchost: maxwell in cleveland, independent line. caller: the money it originally was targeted for toxic assets, if i'm not mistaken. how long you think is going to be before the american people, the hundreds of millions of them that are out of jobs now, are going to stormed the congress and do something about these people but are no longer representing us in any way, shape, or form? they are simply taking money out of our pockets and lining there's, along with the lobbyists, to push÷ñ this throu. but what are the american people going to -- when are the american people what to wake up and use thexd power we have to
clean house? ñiguest: i certainly could describe t.a.r.p. as a bait and switch. the secretary paulson came to the american people, came to the congress and said, in effect, the economy is on fire and we ought to do something really fast. we said, what? and he said, we will use this money to buy toxic acids. the ink was barely dry it before he said, that is not how we're going to use the money. the we're going to give it directly to the large institutions. that is a pretty stunning turn. i heard, that is at least in part why people have been angry about this from the beginning. the money was used very efficiently to bail out large financial institutions. but the payoff on the rest of the economy simply has not materialized. and you host: report suggest that what it has at -- host: and
your report has suggested that what has done is taken on a large institutions you will not take on more risk because the government will back them. guest: a year ago, the problem was that there was too much risk in the financial is a street and a few companies were too big to fail. and too much toxic assets on the books of the banks. let's roll the clock forward. it has now been 14 months and where do we stand? there has been more concentration in the banking industry than there was a year ago. the big banks have bought up more little banks and more little banks have failed. we have not cleaned the toxic assets off the books of the banks. they're still holding on to the trash, making it very difficult to figure out the true financial standing for these institutions. and the guarantee, the too big to fail?
we have now worked ourselves into a position where we rushed in, gave them money, now they have paid the money back, but the guarantee continues to linger. so that investors are now saying, let me understand, if i invest in bank of america or goldman sachs, if they win, if they take my money and go to las vegas and had gone back 22, i will be rich. -- and get it on black 22, i will be rich. if they lose, if they make a terrible that and it does not work, and i do not have to worry because the taxpayer will be called upon to bail us out. this is not just hypothetically speaking. the rating agencies themselves have talked about the difference in how they rate the big companies based on "with guaranteed" citigroup has and a
based on with -- "without guarantee" it has a "c >" this makes the whole economy riskier. >> is there a word for your emotions -- host: is their reward for your emotions, mood watching all of this? guest: yes, i think i alternate between a furious and astounding. i am stunned by this. and i will tell you something else that astounds me. a little over a year ago, the financial institutions -- let's face it, they were insolvent. there were crashing over the edge. they turned to the american tax payer and we did something we have never done before, not at that level with those kinds of numbers, and revealed them out. and right here in washington, those same financial institutions are spending huge amounts of lobbying dollars to
have the senators and the congress men and women because they still want to be writing the rules for the financial institutions. they want the status quo. they do not want changes that would cause them to have to alter their business plan. they like a business plan in which they keep all the profits and that taxpayers pick up all losses. host: before our next call, another message since you have taken this job, every time i have heard you speak you have been little -- critical of the level of transparency. why is it that they cannot tell americans affectively how the money is spent? guest: off to be fair. when we started with secretary paulson 14 months ago, i could not get him to answer the phone. if we could not get him to appear before the senate for a hearing. we could not get any explanation. i felt like standing -- like i
was standing on the outside of doors that were locked. then there was the second phase of the administration that came in and they said they wanted to know, but it was hard to find anyone. it was a lot of chaos, but a bit of information began to trickle in. we are now in the third phase and there's more information. there is a website. there are things you can see. but still not enough information. the treasury and federal reserve really seem to believe it can operate behind closed doors. maybe they can do that in good times. no one asked before. but they have a long history of operating largely in secret. but these are not corporate -- ordinary times. when they turn to the american people and say, august $700 billion of your money to spend our we want to spend it, -- give us the $700 billion of your money to spend how we want to spend it, they have to be
completely open about how they spend that money. host: south carolina, you're on the air. caller: all i want to say is that your allocated a bunch of money to another country to be of the people out. i know the government is me and the people. the people need to take care of the senate and the congress. 2010, we will. but at the same time, you gave $250 to social security. why couldn't you give the government, which is the people, some tracking? the multimillionaires you got and the millionaires making over $350,000, you could have given all the people in afghanistanñi a lot of that $30
billion or $40 billion that has been lost. and i would not vote for president obama because president bush was smart. the weighted -- he waited until three months before getting out of office to build his boys out. host: all right, thanks. it is a question of prioritizing. guest: i hear your point. ñiit is the right place to go, d that is congress. congress created t.a.r.p. and in this case, an oversight 40 peak so there is someone here to talk to you about it. -- an oversight for t.a.r.p. so there is someone here to talk to you about it. ultimately, it will be up to the voters whether or not this is ok with them. host: john sends this message about transparency. next telephone call for
elizabeth warren is green bay, wisconsin. this is travis, republican line. caller: i guess, mainly, my comment is, the free market system that we have in this country, if left alone, would ñiregulate itself. i do not believe that recessions and depressions are created by the free-market system. i think they are graded by overregulation from the government and government sticking its fingers where they doñi not belong. the banking industry, and particularly the mortgage programçóxproblem that we have s country would not be there if we have not force banks to loan money to people that they could not pay back. in one respect or another. now what we have is w[ have the banks with a lot of toxic assets on their books that basically
because of the deal that was made to their government and to the banks, where are we supposed to do? they have to be bailed out by the government. the government made them to get these -- give these loans in the first place. unfortunately, they did this with our money. the problem in this country on social issues, financial issues regarding the business of the united states of america is being mismanaged by congress, mismanaged by our presidents and their of ministration's and it s about time that the people -- and their administrations and it is time that the people stand up and take a referendum vote on a lot of these policies. new people, the decisions that you have made in the past and the decisions that would have been made by the american people would be quite different and we would be in a different situation at this point. guest: i want to agree with you
ñion one point and disagree on a different one. that is, this crisis, this particular crisis did start one bad mortgage at a time. that is where the whole game began. and that is what inflated housing bobblehead and that -- the housing bubble and that is ultimately created the toxic acids that put the bank's africa cause us 14 months ago to rush in and bail out the banks. we are in the same -- but the banks at risk and cost ucost uso rush in and got the banks. we are in the same place on that. where we differ is on the government. the government is trying to encourage low-income borrowing. let me show you what the statistics show. i have just gone through the numbers to understand it better. what the statistics show is that the real first wave of subprime mortgages was selling mortgages to people who already owned a home.
that is, subprime started as refinancing, largely older americans who builtxd up a lot f equity, and these folks would come sometimes even tdoor-to-dor because it was so profitable and talk them into giving up the last 30 years of a fixed mortgage into what they promised was going to be lower monthly payment. of course, once you read the fine print, it turned out there were huge fees associated with this and the lower monthly payment only lasted for 24 months. the first wave of these were sort -- were simply tricks and traps. the government part of this can be measured at summer between 2% and 4%. this is -- at somewhere between 2% and 4%. this is an industry deptthat fid out how to cheat people, plain and simple. and the consequence was a huge bubble. there were some people that could jump in and figure it out.
but mixed in were a lot of people who got cheated. might view is that that is what regulation is designed to do. you've got to write contracts about people can read them and a comparison, no hiding stuff back in the fine print, no tricks and traps. that is the kind of government support to let markets work that i believe in. host: a question asked by twitchell. -- twiiter. guest: i think that is the right question. we do not want to have big banks fail in a way that causes ever went to set their hair on fire. it has to be done in a controlled way. you have to make the announcement and say, we will sell off the parts that are valuable and we will have to liquidate the parts that are not. but it happens. my background is bankruptcy. i am a teacher. i teach contract law and i teach bankruptcy law, kind of the alpha and omega of the economic
system. xdbankruptcy works. and we need bankruptcy. an economic system, a free market without bankruptcy is like christianity without ñithere has to be some dissent - christianity without hell. there must be some discipline on the other side. my view on this is that we could lead la@gg institutions be liquidated, in fact, in some circumstances that is exactly what we should permit to happen until we can credibly say to big financial institutions, if you make bad decisions, you will pay for it. you will be responsible. you can loseááh!usiness. your shareholders will be wiped out. your top management will be fired. your debt will take a hair cut. until that day comes, we live in a world inñi which thexd biggest ñiguys have implicit guarantees and only the rest of us can fail. host: just a few minutes left
with elizabeth warren. she is going to capitol hill for a 10 am eastern time sharing with the treasury secretary. the most important question you want to ask him? guest: that is a tough one. i will only have him for two hours and i have to share them with four other panelists. i want to start with exactly where you have started. he has announced that he is going to extend the sharp -- t.a.r.p. and go in a dupe -- in a new direction. ñiñri want to believe that now. for example, he said he wants to vote with small-business lending. i have gone back and checked the documents. they have already announced three different initiatives on small business lending. how many times do we go through this? where is it? i want to ask about this. i want to ask about aig. i want to ask about this notion that the big boys do not fail and the rest of us do. host: minneapolis, what would you like to ask elizabeth warren? you are on. caller: my question is about the
federal reserve and the national debt. how can the national debt ever be completely paid off when every dollars loan with interest? where does the money come from to pay the interest? guest: 0 ultimately, we pay our taxes and there are other sources of revenue for the government. remember, i know this sounds hard, but it was back in the early 1990's when we actually had some fiscal responsibility and we were running surpluses. the government was net positive. so would it have been nice if we -- it would have been nice if we put some of that back for a rainy day. expenses went up, as you know, in the 2000's. we got involved in a very expensive war and now we are in deeper and deeper trouble. host: memphis, good morning to you, on our democrats line. caller: i'm so excited to be
hearing elizabeth warren thi morning. i have a quick comment. i do have a special problem because i was a mortgage broker. also, i have a quick solution that could possibly help. i am so happy to hear her say that the investors cause a lot of the spirit and a lot of people talk about subprime and people who could not -- caused a his. and a lot of people talk about subprime and people who could not afford mortgages. you could turn on the tv and everybody was talking about get rich quick schemes with these mortgages. that is a big part of the problem. secondly, i have an aunt who right now is having issues with a household bank. hsbc will tell you that they did not take t.a.r.p. money, so they do not have to help you, even though they bought toxic loans.
her loan was not passed to,ñi bt she had this balloon note. she tried to refinance. she eventually had to file bankruptcy. right now she is asking to be modified because of programs that were created. they will not work with their people. lawyers cannot get them to work. we are now working with steve collins office, our local representative, to try to get something to happen so that she can get intoçó the program or at least get some sort of assistance. it is like pulling teeth. host: i haveñr to jump in becaue we are out of time with elizabeth warren,ñr but that situation is not uncommon. guest: i wish it were uncommon. i have to say, 2 million american met families have already lost their homes in this crisis. we are projecting out another 611 -- the 6 million to 11
million families that will lose their homes. by and large, mortgage lenders have cut -- have behaved abominably here. they are standing on the sidelines and i think they're waiting for another -- their own version of another government bill out here. they made a lot of bad decisions and they should be the first ones to pay for those decisions, not the american taxpayer. host: last question, new jersey, lorraine. a short question, please. caller: i want to know there is such passivity in getting these guys convicted. why isn't someone in jail? guest: i will just say, you preach to the choir here. i am old enough to have lived through the savings and loans crisis when we also had a big house in bobblehead and when it brought down a lot of financial -- had a big house in kabul and when it brought down a lot of financial institutions. only that time, what happened is
that the investment institutions were wiped out. the management all lost their jobs. no depositor ever lost and nickel. that is what deposit insurance is about. a lot of people got prosecuted. i am just amazed that we have gone through a crisis that is much larger this time and no one even seems to be asking those questions. everyone kept their jobs. bonuses are back up. i'm not hearing of those kinds of investigations. host: we will let elizabeth warren to get to capitol hill to conduct her hearing. thank you for talking to our viewers. we're going to spend our last half hour talking to you about president obama's acceptance of the nobel peace prize. here's what he had to say in oslo. >> i receive this honor with the gratitude and great humility. it is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations, that
for all the cruelty and torture of our world -- hardship our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. our actions matter and can bend history in the direction of justice. and yet, i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. in part, this is because i'm at the beginning and not the end of my neighbors on a world stage. compared to some of the giant -- of my labors on a world stage. compared to some of the giants of the recipients of this prize, king, marshall, and mandela, my accomplishments are slight. and then there are those men and women around the world would have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice, those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve
suffering, the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion in spiral -- inspire even the most hardened cynic. i can argue that a and those who find these men and women, some known, some obscure to be more deserving of this honor that i. host: president obama just a short while ago in oslo acknowledging the controversy around his selection as this year's nobel peace prize winner. çówe will take your telephone calls. the numbers are on the screen. you can also send us a message -- a message by torturtwiiter au can send us -- by twitter and by
e-mail. "in light of irony for the u.s. every manñi -- a night of irony for the u.s. every man. let's hear what you think beginning with a callq from there? all right, sam is not there. let's show another clip from the speech and then go back to calls quickly. >> i do not bring with me today a definitive solution to problems of war. what i do know is that meeting these challenges will require
the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. and it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of a just war and the imperatives of a just peace. we must begin by acknowledging a hard truth, we will not eradicate violent content -- violent conflict in our lifetimes. there will be times when nations, acting individually or in concert, will find the use of force not only necessary, but morally justified. host: more on president obama in oslo. sam, are you there that now in orange, texas? caller: yes, i am most proud person of our president. i have been a republican all my
life, but i am so proud of president obama and what he is doing and will be doing for this country. thank you very much, ma'am. host: the next caller is from new orleans, norman, an independent line. caller: i wish your previous caller would have been more specific. what0 the heck is he proud of? in nobel prize seems to beñi achieved on e-bay these days. you have al gore and he has shown to be a complete fraud. you have this crowd -- this clown and he is a president who gets the nobel peace prize and immediately princess of an increase is wars. we live in a time -- prances off and increases wars. we live in a time when nobody has been held accountable for the financial mess we have gone in. these awards are just basically fascist type of dog and pony
shows to placate the idiots who keep on following this dog and pony show and think is real. i have something to bewrayed c- span for hear of it. -- to be great c-span for hear a bit. thank you for the format for the callers that calling in, but with the two toxic topics that you refuse to be fair about -- one is the global warming. i have yet to see anyone come on here that is a skeptic of global warming. it is always pushing the corporate fraud nonsense. and yet -- and then it is 9/11. i have yet to see someone come on here -- and there is of least 50% of people out here and i have done an average of the polls -- that are skeptical of the government action down here. dr. stephen griffins, dr. stephen jones, someone who is a
proponent of an investigation of 9/11. host: next up is mary, bree sinton, fla., democrats line. mary, are you there? caller: yes, i am here. i am so proud of our president. i'm so proud. please, ma'am, give me enough time. he is trying so hard to help everybody, everybody. brown the world and here. -- are around the world and here. that last caller that you had, that is toxic. talk about toxic. he is criticizing our own president. i do not get that. you have got to be there with him and help him. i watched the debate going on, i watch it all day long. i see what happens.
can't nobody fully. i see what is happening. they want him to lose. i am just sick of it. why don't they stop acting like children and act like a grown man and help obama? that is all i have to say, thank you. host: california, a tweet. the "washington post" in its headline today said, "war president will address incongruity of accepting peace prize." tom, you're on the air. caller: it is just a shame. he should have taken dick cheney with him. he is escalating the war in afghanistan and he says 18 months. it will never be 18 months. and he is killing a lot of innocent people in pakistan with
drones. and he is ratcheting of the people to want to bomb iraq and pretty soon. thank you. host: the "washington times" has used its front page to call obama the "mps sued nobel laureate." -- the "empty suit nobel laureate." the next call is clifton, tennessee, your thoughts on the peace prize, robert on the independent line. caller: i find it disrespectful that this man has been given this award when we have a former president in ronald reagan that peaceably brought down the berlin wall and was never a
knowledge for his contribution to world peace in ending the soviet union and bringing stability to the european region. that is all, thank you. host: next is fayetteville, n.c., joe, you are on the air. ñicaller: i would like to addres the other callers that are saying they're so proud of this president right now. this president has really thrown eggs in the republicans face right now because every time they come into power in this country, they just about take it under. i am so proud right now to see a democratic president in the world being shown as much love as he is shown. this price did not come from the opinions of the american people. -- this prize did not come from the opinions of the american people. we need to stop putting ourselves on a pedestal. this prize is coming from other nations to appreciate this president at this time in history.
next is belleville, ohio, good morning to the republican line, you are on the air. caller: i did not vote for president obama and i do not like where he is taking our country, but i did listen to his speech in its entirety and i think he did a very good job. overall, the whole content, i agreed. he-he initially acknowledged the controversy about even receiving this prize and he went on anchor of a lot of issues that the people that were sitting in that auditorium probably did not want to hear. overall, i think he did an excellent job. host: here is a bit more of the president's address in oslo.
>> i know there is nothing we, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creek and lives of condi and king -- a gahndi and kean, but as a head of state, i cannot be guided by their lives alone. i face the world as it is and cannot stand idle to the threats of the american people. make no mistake, evil does exist in the world. a non violent movement could not have halted by hitler's armies. negotiations cannot convince al qaeda as leaders to lay down their armor's. to say that force is sometimes as there is not a call to cynicism. it is the -- is history.
host: the full speech is at the cfl library. a comment from marion hansard by twitter. ken is next from georgetown, indiana, on the air right now, independent line. caller: good morning, i have to say i am a democrat being held hostage in the state of indiana. i just want to say, the gentleman from louisiana said it, he took my steam away. he was so elegant the way he spoke. i wish i could speak so well, a lack of education prevent that. he is so right, this is a dog and pony show. this is business as usual. i am an african-american male in indiana. things are bleak. things do not look good at all. i do think that the reason our
government brought that the gate -- brought that brigade back from afghanistan and put them straight into civil disobedience. and the thing about ronald reagan not receiving the nobel peace prize for bringing down the wall, that is a farce. their military-industrial complex brought that wall down just like we are following in their footsteps, all of these makeshift wars, fighting these force -- fighting these wars that keep shell and exxon in business. it is just business as usual with obama and i am disappointed. us, as black folks, in this country have always had to do things extremely better than the average bear. it is not going to matter what he does. he is still a black man. he needs to be a little bit more like fdr and just set things straight, say where we are, and if he has to come and go out on
the white house steps and fast through lunch. we might get things change. host: the "new york times" is talking about the financial regulation bill. there is a depiction of barney frank here. next is a call from cleveland toma j.c., democrats line, you are on the air. caller: yes, i was listening to the show just now and some of the people were calling obama clown.
i would just wonder how you and someone else wouldn't cut these people off to let them talk about the president like that. i have been 14-year-old. what is going to happen to this country? these white folks, everything that obama do, they have -- my kids have gotten so that they hate white folks because everything that comes out of their mouths, they have nothing to say good about obama. how can you sit there and listen and let them call him a clown and you do not cut their phone? you know, if i was obama, i would not even try to do anything because you have got all the white folk who are still living in the '40's. this country will never change until all the white boys are out
of here. i am from the south. i was born in 1940. it is 10 times more prejudiced now than it was in the '40's when i was coming up in the south. this country will never be no good until they get rid of all of these white folks and the young people take over and do not see all of these prejudiced old white folks. host: thank you from cleveland, ohio. we will be reassuring -- rearing the presentation 8:00 p.m. eastern on friday night. next call from new britain, pa., maggie, republican line. caller: i would like to comment
that i see obama at exactly the same as bush. i call him o-bush-a because he has escalated the war, does not want to investigate 9/11. it was an inside job done by our own government. people have to wake up. it is not right or left. it is right and wrong. get on the internet and just type in "building 7." start there, but do something. stop hating republicans and democrats. it has nothing to do with that. it has to do with world government. basically, obama has hired wall street to run our country. host: thanks for col. some headlines about afghanistan today. in the "new york times"ha poll mixed with skepticism. ñr also in the "washington times
from general patraeus on capitol hill, "patraeus predicts a tough slog in afghan war." and in the "wall street journal,ñi" the u.s. qectsñi the search to exacerbate afghan violence. çóñrñrñr next is the call from new york, greg, independent line. caller: for aboutçó a year-and-- half now, every 30 days, or at -- as often as i can, i call and i want a president to talk about
slave reparations. i do not know what's state or city that a a black fellow was from, but the anger in his voice towards white people, this president getting the nobel peace prize is the creepy as thing i've ever seen. if you want to talk about justice, fairness, and healing this country, i am sick and tired of him swerving around the world. get back to this country. all of these trillions of dollars that are being spent on wall street. i want to talk about slave reparations and healing this country. it is your obligation on c-span to help me with this and i want the american people to force this president to address the slave reparation issue. thank you so much. i will talk to you in 30 days. host: ok, greg, we will see you then. now let's listen to it more of obama in oslo. >> it is not just trees and
decorations that brought stability to a post-world war ii world. whatever mistakes we have made, the fact is this, the u.s. has helped america underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens, and the strength of our arms. the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from germany to korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the balkans. we have borne thisñi burden not because we seek to impose our will,ñ. and we have done so out of enlightened self-interest because we see a better future for our children and grandchildren and we believe their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity. host: about seven minutes left
to take your phone calls and reactions to the president's nobel peace prize acceptance speech. there are a number of stories to call your attention to. the first, on health care, " senate democrats satisfied with khiel." -- with deal." above that is the story of the so-called anti party movement for political spectrum apolitical surge. -- for political, a political surge.
story. pakistan arrest five northern virginia man, probe's possible jihadist ties. five young men from northern virginia have been arrested in pakistan at the home of a man linked to a radical jihadist group. pakistani authorities are questioning them about possible links to terrorism. back to your phone calls and the president of the nobel peace prize. york city, -josh, democrats line. caller: i am prouli of this president. it was ançwi interesting choiceo present him with the nobel prize, but there -- it is
important to realize that his receiving the nobel peace prize would not have happened if it were not for the last eight years of george w. bush and his reckless abandon of peace. i think that is important to note because a lot of people are planning obama that he should have turned it down, or perhaps not have gone, which would have been ridiculous. host: huntington, west virginia, ravi, republican line. caller: i saw the speech that the president made this morning accepting the nobel peace prize. it was a very, very good speech. i am a republican, but words, you know, it is just words. that is all it is. come back to this country and work on unemployment. i was thinking, these officials in d.c., they are elected officials. the american public with them in. these people that are laidñi of,
now let's go to the senate and congress and start playing some of those people off. thank you, and have a good day. host: some headlines about health care and the senate package. and another headline in "usa today." ñiñinext is a phone call from tallahassee. this is diane, independent line. caller: this is in reference to the nobel peace prize. i felt that he was in good company. i do not think he had been put it -- had been put up for it to weeks into his presidency, so he had not done anything. long story short, he is in good
company. çóarafat, inventor of ) ñ suicie bomber, al gore, a liar. i think he is in good company. the lady that called before, the republican, she is right, it is not about democrat or republican. because everybody was mad at bush because he supposedly gave all of these tax credits to the rich. well, the democrats are stealing from our children and great- grandchildren they bought these industries with our money and we are paying for it. host: dallas will be our last comment on this thursday morning, alan, democrats line. caller: i am an immigrant from iran and i have been watching the politics in the past 20 the politics in the past 20 years and i watched the