tv Washington Journal CSPAN July 8, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
they are proposing. there is a tally of how the cost of a lectionary in the united states has changed of the past decade. what i have highlighted on this page are presidential election cycles. let's look at the ones not highlighted. back in 1998, total spent was $1.6 billion. in 2006 $2.8 billion. if you use a widget, there is a tally of the cost of the 2010 election so far and it keeps changing. you can see that on the bottom left of the screen. it is in the neighborhood of $2.4 billion so far, the cost of a campaign 2010. let's show you this advertisement that they are releasing today in washington,
d.c., to argue for public financing of campaigns. >> pp destroys the gulf, we pay the price. -- bp destroys the gulf, we pay the price. congress is putting special interest first. why? isn't it obvious? make congress accountable to us and bring back elections of, like, and for the people. " congress to allow -- hleelp congress to allow the change we keep asking for. john lawson is a democrat and walter jones is a republican of south carolina. all of them have been co- sponsors.
the bills differ slightly in their spending mechanism. the house bill would devastate funds through a fee on auctions. the senate bill would rely on a fee paid by large federal contractors. supporters said they hoped to get a vote this summer with timing less certain in the senate. ed decker says --edgar says there's changes are approved by separate legislation by separate legislation now under consideration in the senate aimed at countering the supreme court decision. our phone lines are open. what do you then about the concept of public financing for campaigns? there are groups of the other side of this. the supreme court with the citizens united have offered its voice on past attempts to reform, and we would like to
appear what to you, the person out there voting and looking at the role of your legislator in washington and your money, has to say about all of this. the numbers are on the bottom of your screens. you could also send us a message by twitter and an e-mail on this topic. let's begin with a call from minneapolis. brent on the independent line. caller: and you for taking my call. i have so much to say on this that i could not possibly condense it to a few moments but the citizens united case exemplifies the problem. the notion that we get personal status to corporations with all of the benefits, but not the rich -- responsibilities that we as individual persons would have to sustain it is just emblematic of the whole problem. exactly how we go about getting
ourselves into public financing is the statistics that you put up earlier indicated it you look at the difference between 2000 and 2008 it was nearly doubling. i am in my early 40's. we have known this since the early 1960's. it is fundamentally different now that it was 20 years ago when i was a young adults. we absolutely do need radical finance reform. exactly how we achieve it i am not sure. i do not understand what the problem is for either political party. if we have the airwaves and auction them off ourselves, why
can we not donate time to whoever it is that is using the spectrum, whether it is the table spectrum or the public on air spectrum. did you for taking my call, and i wish you a very next day -- thank you for taking my call, and i wish you a very nice day. caller: i am from jamaica. yesterday i tried to call someone in washington to [inaudible] ici think if you use the same number over again, with the
spending and gliders in support for the campaign. money should be spent. host: thank you. ander would like to see the cost of the spending in capitol hill reduced. we showed you the charter the last call. it is a website that tracks money and politics. looking at the most expensive races so far in 2010. the florida senate at 24 million. california senate 23 million. can netiquette senate no. 3 at 23 million. now that at 19. arizona at no. 5 with 17. in the house the most expensive
races today, south carolina district to, $6.2 million. new york district 4.5. a minnesota district 4.2. just look at how much money is being raised for this year's 20 tend congressional alexian's. next as a call from pittsburgh. -- just a look at how much money is being raised for this year's 2010 congressional election. caller: i would say that i have a queensacquaintances that haven in public office is all they do is spend their time raising money. but at the gas to be linked to
term limits. host: you think term limits is that answer? caller: i think it an answer of public financing and term limits. host: you are calling in of the republican line. how you square that with the majority view of your party? caller: i'd think it is common sense. i see these people going out to campaign every night looking for money. they need to spend their time doing something else. host: let me get a response to this idea from the other side. there is a group that organizes themselves to a post campaign restrictions. it is called the center for competitive politics. the proposal has serious flaws, according to a article.
he also highlighted a recent report from the government accountability office that said it was not clear whether public financing programs already implemented in arizona and maine had much benefit. his " is we take a system where people support people they believe it rather than using taxpayer funds as the way to go. that organization is easily found on the internet. brad smith and runs it. -- brad smith runs it. the next call is from long branch, new jersey. john on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. the way to deal with, in my opinion, campaign financing is
the way that the greeks did it. the greeks originated democracy. and they did not ever have won election. hiss--- did not ever have one election. it was just a random group of people that said you are now our representatives. get joe the plumber in there, an assortment of big business people, small business people, the plumber, electrician, office worker in an actual representation of the american people. while we have now is a bunch of millionaires in their. -- what we have now is a bunch
of millionaires in there. as long as you have campaign contributions, you have people that you owe. if you are appointed, you do not zero people anything. we would actually maybe get a democracy. host: if there was some way to get money at of elections, which would have better candidates and a better selection p process. again, they are announcing a
multi-state campaign, including tv advertisements targeting wavering lawmakers for the fair elections now act sponsored by john marston and walter jones a north carolina. next is a call from texas. barbara on the democrats' line. good morning. caller: bank you for taking my call. whenever the supreme court decision came down that corporations were born to recognized as individuals, and that they had the constitutional right to donate money, therefore ending campaigns and different politicians, whenever this happened i'd noticed there was an article about a chief justice starting a lobbying firm of her own. to me, that look like a
conference of interest with her husband on the supreme court. this money will be funneled through who knows where from here knows who. isn't that a conflict of interest? host: thank you for the story. it is an organization that jini thomas has been involved in. i will not comment on the conflict of interest part. it is time for public financing, equal time tv and no favors will have to be replayed is a tweakeet we received. hothe next call is from robins. caller: overturn the 19th amendment.
give the state legislators [inaudible] host: suggesting state legislators have the opportunity to appoint. caller: i think this has to be discussed in the context of how the money is spent. hal campaign money is spent -- how the campaign money is spent. host: do you want to tell us more on what you think that is the aspect of it? caller: it is very expensive, especially in some sections of the united states. the same people that are promoting certain candidates are the people that [inaudible]
host: russell on the democrats' plan. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. as far as bob at occuedgar's res on the recent supreme court decision, definitely now is the time to look reform, -- host: house would reform the structure so that it would be most effective? -- how would reform be structured so that it would be most effective? caller: the communications act which was recently changed. when you follow the money, it is all about communication and getting the message out. the worst possible scenario would be term limits because
that would always create the situation where candidates had to get their name out, and would also take choices away from voters. the airwaves belong to the people, and since the new communications act passed, i do not remember what year it was, but it has created this situation where there is a spiraling of money that it cost you to do elections. it has really taken away from legislature's ability to actually get things done since they have to constantly be going to constituents asking for money. parsifal we have to change the communications act -- first of all we have to change the
communications act of more disclosure. free air time. definitely, definitely, no term limits. host: jr stephenson's input is the only truth about campaign finance reform is it is always aimed at keeping the incumbents and power. next is a call from madison, virginia. jim is on the line. caller: thank you for joining said everyone else are not. campaign financing is a big issue, especially if you take a look at the figures you just showed about the cost. it seems to me that it is cost prohibitive for anyone to actually do something, and this is represented by the money people. if you want to get elected, you
have to have powerful and many people behind you. i think it is cost prohibitive for someone that is in it for the people who just wants to get in there and do things that are for the mass of the people and not special interests. this also goes for the lobbyists who get in there and they are always big and powerful corporations, and now the corporations have a dual effect. that not only finance the campaign in unlimited amounts, but on top of its big it to send their lobbyists and. whereas the general person like you or myself do not have a chance of getting our views and agendas addressed. this is a major problem. host: we are talking about
campaign finance reform, specifically of fair elections now act, which will be the subject of a multi-state campaign by groups in favor of this. here is what it would do. it would establish a voluntary system in which candidates would agree to a sect only donations of $100 or less from contributors and their district or state. after meeting the minimum amount a qualified contributions, they would get $400 in matching funds for every $100 raise. we showed you funding mechanisms for the money, which are different between the house and senate bill. johnson this message. scotus has recognized corporations for 150 years, as has the u.s. code. the citizens case acknowledged this will establish facts. caller: incumbents are in
office. they have a job to do. i have nothing against people running for office, but incumbent should run on the record and should not spend time and expenses fund raising. that is one thing that keeps the problems stalled. host: next is a call from cedar grove, north carolina. this is dan on the democrats' line. caller: i am just a dumb, old country editor with 50 years of experience. the honest reality is there will never be kidded treform. to me, basically the idea is to get this thing down where there is a limit on how much can be
spent by all parties for everything, soft money, tax, everybody. there is a limit to the congressional district on how much can be spent. a limit that cacan be spent for the presidential elections. and the same thing for all of the state elections. as long as money is a factor, you will never have honest politics. i came out of a state where all but one of the supreme court justices went to prison for corruption. as long as you have money involved and money is a factor, you will have corruption. host: one of your states congressman is co-sponsor of this alexians legislation we have been talking about. the provision of the bill is that has to be small donations and has to come from the district in which to surge. do you think those are important
aspects of any reform? caller: you will never get it in. the incumbents are not going to vote for it. i have been watching politics for a long time. i worked in republican politics in the 1930's. i worked in the politics well into the 1960's. i left. if they stole my party, i was leaving the party. i was republican the day the republican party stood for something besides obstruction and bad mouthing. host: demand from north carolina. the next voice comes from michigan. -- dan from north carolina. caller: this is bill coldeulver. i am just great. great to see you. i am totally in favor of the
suggested change after what the supreme court did enabling corporations to put all the money in. it pinpoint how much more we need this public financing campaign. to get the money out of it. host: i want to go and repeat it, because we have had a lot of voices from this article an advertisement on the pro-side. let me go back to the communications director that opposes campaign financing. saying this proposal has serious flaws, including a reliance on public money. pointing to the current financing system for elections, which most experts agree is faltering and was not clear based on follow-up reports whether public financing programs in arizona and maine had much benefit. we would love to hear from callers in those states involved in the debate.
tell us how it is work in your state. next is a call from millboard, florida. harold of the independent line. caller: i agree we didn't have campaign finance reform. -- i agree we do need to have campaign finance reform. until we have that, we will never have honest elections. i would like to see a voucher system where each individual taxpayer is given about tour of the dollar's, and this voucher could only be used to contribute to candidates of their choice. they could hold his doctor for up to three years, and that the money would go back to the government coffers. this way the people would choose to their money would go to. that is my idea. -- that wayey could hold onto te
voucher for up to three years. host: his name is dr. donald burr with. since then the internet and talk shows have been engaged heavily in a discussion about them. to give you a different point of view on the reaction to them, and editorial page finally at medicare sheet is saying it was a sensible move when he bypass the senate and appointed him an expert in reducing health-care costs. by contrast, the lead editorial is on the doctor and calls it the power witberwick evasion. we have n.c. aizenman on the
phone with the spiriandus. caller: dr. berwick is a very well known doctor in the community. he has made a focus of and an abiding -- innovating health care and cutting of waste and medical errors and being successful in persuading hospitals and doctors to adopt those changes. that is probably the feature of his record that the people most point to when you looked at why he was chosen for this incredibly important job. host: what does the job do exactly? caller: is hard to overstate how to import his job is.
he oversees 500 people. ed has an annual budget of 500 billion. he administers both medicare and medicaid. on those grounds alone that would be a very important position, but this comes at a time when the new health care law requires massive changes and a lot of the changes are to those programs. they will be adding about 16 million more people to medicaid over the next 10 years. medicare will be a testing ground for innovations that reward high-quality care by providers and penalized providers for poor care and it will have to reduce payments by 400 billion over 10 years, hopefully without affecting quality of care. host: give us all a little lesson in how the process works in recess appointments. caller: the senate is in recess for two weeks. that gives the president
opportunity to make the appointment. it means that the doctor will be allowed to remain in this position until the end of 2011. recess appointments are not so on common. i think obama has made about 18 now, including this one, compared to 23 but the last president at similar time in his term. what is unusual about this one to some degree is that often recess appointments are made when there is a long hold up, there has been no hearing, or no vote. in this case at a hearing had not been scheduled. he had not responded to questions that the senate finance committee have asked. it was not officially in the stage where the hearing was being held up. host: the reaction of the people concerned by this. isn't that -- is it a complete
party split? caller: democrat terry came out welcoming the appointment. senator max baucus is the chair of the senate finance committee, although he welcomes a the doctor and said he looked forward working with him, said he was troubled by the appointment because it sidestepped the standard progress. on the republican side there has been a lot of complaints about the process and have concerns about berwick. host: would you give us a highlights of the major concerns. caller: doctor for wir. berwickd he believes there is a lot of
wasteful spending. he believes the decision does not whether or not we will ration care, it is whether we will ration with our eyes open. right now we're doing it blindly. basically saying that rationing is already occurring by insurers that make the choices, and he would maintain, i think, that he is talking about cutting back on wasteful spending and over use of medical procedures that are actually not necessary, but the concerns republicans express is he going to cut back by a care? host: for those that are critics of the appointment, didn't have any recourse -- do they ahve ahe
any recourse? hcaller: not really. hone of the things people are speculating as to what degree it will affect his relations with congress to be on the republican side. from the point of view of his position, that he is now going to be the administrator through the end of 2011. host: how long has the position and open? caller: it has been open since 2006. there have been acting administrators. quite a long time. host: appreciate your time this morning.
you will hear lots more if you follow cable news and follow news on the internet about dr. berwick to head the centers for medicare and medicaid services. we will go back to phone calls. we are talking about whether or not you're thinking has changed about the way we finance campaigns. common cause and also a public campaign are starting at 24 states tv advertisement campaign that will push support for a bill called the fair elections act. they think the public mood has changed. let's go back to telephone calls. this is bad rouge, louisiana. -- that rouge, louisiana. -- baton rouge, louisiana.
caller: sometimes i think we tell the inmates in the asylum to go run the country for what appeared ifor awhile. the thing that kills me is ever since the horrible decision by the roberts on-activist court, everyone is upset about it. the first thought that popped into my mind was they should change the dress code and all of congress. they should look like nascar drivers with all the patches. just a silly idea for a lack of the day. have a good morning. host: there is a pessimistic
view on quitter. you will never change crooks. why worry about it? -- a pessimistic view on twi tter. caller: i certainly hope this gets off the ground this time around. my question is related directly to c-span in financing. i know that it is financed via the cable industry and i think for 25 years they have had a very pure hands-off policy regarding your content. i am wondering if it is an open-ended arrangement or do you have to renegotiate with them from time to time? host: we charged them 6 cents per month for every household that they serve that carries us. it is a much smaller amounts, but the same kind of a mouth that cnn or espn makes with
cable companies. -- it is a much smaller amounts, but the same kind of thing that cnn or espn makes with cable companies. that is really how it makes it different from other services. caller: the reason i ask is i am sometimes concerned that the nature of the relationship may change in the future. is there anything that walks in this arrangement? host: we operate by contract. we also have a board of directors. all of the ceos of cable companies. it is thereby lost as a no involvement in the editorial process. -- it is there bylaw that state they had no involvement in the editorial process. caller: can the public afford to
keep financing everything, financing banks and giving money to foreign countries? what ever happened to back in the 1960 cost when there was free advertisements for public officials? host: how would that work today when 98% of people who get their television signals do it with either satellite dish or increasingly over the internet, watching video, and people who have cable? it is a different world than back in the 1960's. caller: wasn't it a better place back in the 1960's. they did not have run away debts. there's only so much we can afford as a country. it will affect us later on in our kids' future. host: note to public financing because you do not think the country can afford it. -- no to public financing because you do not think the
country can afford it. caller: we have to pay for things that we need. there is a lot of people in this country suffering that do not have a voice, and i think we can do better if we just go back to the old ways. we looked after one another. we are moving closer and closer to a socialized form of government. people do not realize that. host: doug welsey goes to the common cause sponsors of the corporation. where did they find such global donors? back to your calls. independent line. caller: i am all for the reform, but what is really meant by that? the sec is watching this, but
they take hundreds of thousands, so they are capitalizing on the stealing of money. in the last eight years it has tripled. where is all of the money going? when you have something like that you are responsible to show where a lot of this is going. if you do not show it, they will keep on stealing it. it will get worse in my mind. host: from the front page of "a washington post" cuba says they will free 52 dissidence. it was met with skepticism. you are beginning to hear more and more coverage of this.
the united states and russia are negotiating over the swap of five suspects. here is one confirmation of that. in moscow an attorney for russians arms researcher who has spent 11 years in prison on espionage charges said her client was unexpectedly brought to the capitol on tuesday from a penal colony in the far northwest and told he was being included in the exchange. he has maintained his innocence and was also issued a passport. the last call is from new york on the democrats' line. caller: mike question is concerning the idea of one man and one vote. if ims ameri am a member of a lr union, don't i have more than one vote?
host: the u.s. marks the third largest single-day debt boost, $166 billion jumped in one day. this comes at a time when congress is balking over higher spending and debt has become a key policy battleground. the one day increase for june 30 totaled $165 billion, bigger than the entire annual deficit for fiscal year 2007 and larger than 140 billion in savings the new health care bill will produce over the first 10 years. this works out to nearly $1,500 for every u.s. household. there is also a new magazine that has been started by a u.s. yemeni radical clerk targeted for assassination by the obama administration they say. it is a publication published by
e. p. arabian peninsula offering messages to osama biosama bin laden on the way to save the earth from his deputy. we will close out our discussion on campaign finance reform discussion. we have a lot more ahead on our program. we will talk about the electric grids. we will talk about the financial reform legislation, and our final piece, a discussion about the role of the u.s. as a superpower. all that is ahead. first, we will hear more about what is happening from c-span radio. >> in the headlines, authorities and norway have arrested three suspected al qaeda members. norwegian and u.s. officials say the suspects were planning attacks with powerful homemade bombs.
like those that were to have been used in last year's attack on the new york city subway system and in a related plot in manchester, england. bp is managing director said the oil gushing in the gulf of mexico might be stopped by the end of the month. bob dudley also said that would be what he called the perfect scenario. and the hurricane season could cause interruptions. forecasters say the heat might be a little less brutal in the east today but likely to remain uncomfortably humid. the nation has been suffering through a heat wave that has seen triple digit highs recorded for new york to south carolina over the past four days. authorities have slowed commuter cotrains. we will talk about the electrical grid coming up. finally, a machine is being introduced in pennsylvania where the liquor laws are winds from
supermarket shelves. customers will have to swipe their driver's license, look into what surveillance camera, and blow into a press center. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. to go before the senate judiciary committee vote up or down, watch the entire confirmation hearing for elena kagan, including her testimony, questions, and all the witnesses of mine at the c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> prime time "book tv" continues tonight. nuking bridewt gingrich.
and boston radio talk-show host, michael gramm, defends the tea party movement. it is all this week on c-span to. -- cpspan2. the cspan's congressional directory, a guide to every member of the house and senate, supreme court justices and state governors all at your fingertips. order online at c-span.org /store. c-span is now available and over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and non-fiction books all as a public service, created by american cable companies. "washington journal" continues. host: check out your morning energy hostess.
answering questions about summer blackout, the electric grid, renewable and electricity standard and power plants only climate bill. email questions, comments, and complement's s to firstname.lastname@example.org. c davenport is coral davenport. how was the electric grid holding up so far? guest: we had several blackout last night. over 1000 residents lost power. that tells you about the state right here in the nation's capital. as far as i can tell it looks like in new york, they were pushing hard and managed to keep it together, but certainly it seems like up and down the eastern seaboard where the heat
wave is hitting us, utilities are stretched to the limit, and that is not something new. we will certainly see that as a summer proceed in going forward. host: coned center fights to keep the lights on. they talk about a new technology they have employed since the big blackout in 2006. and all of the money they have put back into the system. can you talk and more general sense about lessons that the utility's learned from the blackout. guest: what happened after the blackouts is utilities and regional management services invested pretty heavily in new transmission, upgraded transmission. they made early first steps in doing what we call the smart grid technology. they are little bit better
prepared for the increasing demand. they are also doing basic things like making sure they are keeping branches trimmed. that was really the main reason for the big 2003 blackout. they have also been given authority predicts the federal government now has authority to fine local and regional electric companies that do not comply with basic standards. they had definitely tried to any of mp up. host: wwe want to talk about the power supply. obviously our conception of power increases exponentially as we add more devices were lives and certainly the industrial sectors have more and more need for electricity. at the same time our electric grid is complex and also aging
and basis security threats as well. all of that is in the mix as washington debates energy legislation, reaction to past failures of the system and hears about new threats from those that want to do harm. we would like to involve you in the discussion. we will take your messages on twitter and you can send us an e-mail as well. this is a map that is from fema. it is a look at what the power grid really looks like. i am just getting ready for this yesterday, learning there are 3000 separate utilities that supply power to the nation. how is the infrastructure set up, and what are the biggest
challenges? guest: there are thousands of utilities, and the idea of one national grid is kind of a misnomer also. there are several different regional grids that were put in place over the last 60 to 70 years. they were not necessarily made to match up and communicate with each other. it is a very patchwork, not always comprehensive, well- organized system. this is one of the big challenges facing policy-makers right now, looking at this aging patchwork, regional system of different networks, a different grades, a different utilities and trying to overhaul. it is kind of a mid-20th century system and trying to figure out how to overhaul this physical infrastructure into a system that can beat 21st entry needs. host: you reference this marg
concept. what is this about? gu-- you referenced the smart grid concept. guest: you have a system whereby you would have computer hookups, and essentially this idea were digital technology and sensors would understand where need and demand is greatest, where it is leased. it would distribute electricity to where it is needed most. it would dial down production of electricity when it is least needed, for example, at night a smart grid would understand that
there is less demand on the grid so it would tell generators to produce less or save electricity to be needed, to be deployed during the day when demand is high year. it would be combining the wires and the brain of the computer to most efficiently deploy electricity, but it is still very much in the research and development stage. host: have an article from october of 2009. this was an announcement the president had made in arcadia, florida. territories that would receive a federal subsidies to modernize the electric grid. the administration was expected to inject more than $8 billion into grid modernization nationally. administration officials said represent a fraction of what is needed to bring the entire grid into the digital age.
how does the distribution of the fund a stand right now? guest: i think about half of the fund has been put out, but this is very much a research and development project. experts estimate it would require an investment of $100 billion. this initial investment of $8 billion is really does seed money. some of this is for communities to test out what kind of smart grid system would work for them. it is really very much in the early stages. it will probably be a number of years before we see the system start to work together. host: less of a survt's overlayt energy debate that is going on.
guest: the piece of energy legislation that right now looks most likely to head to the senate floor in the coming weeks has some really key, the big changes to the electric generation and consumption system. it has of renewal bulk electricity mandate, which would require that as much as 15% of the nation's electricity be generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar. that is a huge jump up. it is less than 5% today. in doing so, that would transform the transmission mapped for electricity. instead of being power plants located close to cities and a wire going from power plants into population centers, we would start seeing a lot more wind and solar being generated in remote locations. being generated in deserts' or on plains.
that triggers all whole need for electricity transmission. the legislation would set up a new transmission highways going across the country that would be aimed at moving all of this new solar and wind and other renewable technology, but it would be a big change to the grid as we know it. probably very controversial. host: i want to get to telephone calls. the debate over the energy policy has been going on for a couple of years now. one bit of irony. energy department uses to much energy a report says. like losing weight, saving energy is easier to promise that actually do, even if you are department of energy. the website advises 2/energy use by 15%, but they're having trouble taking their own advice
according to an internal audit released on wednesday. very few have switched to a promising technology, light- emitting diodes. use a this is not the first time. guest: unfortunately this at least the second or third report we have seen on the energy department, which of course has been front and center and promoting all of the new energy- efficient technologies and all of the new mandates for new efficiency and renewable technologies really not taking its own medicine, sort of fitting into the stereotype of the government bureaucratic dinosaur. maybe the third time is a charm. host: we welcome your input into
this conversation. if you live in the east coast and have been going to the heat wave and would like to report to us on your utilities and whether you have experience any blackout and what your comments are about that, we would like to hear about that. robert on the independent line. caller: i have a question. i thought there was supposed to be money in the stimulus package, and has any of the money in any improvements in infrastructure? that is all i have a. guest: there are several billion dollars in the stimulus package for smart grid, for new infrastructure. one of the problems with energy spending on the stimulus package is it has been pretty slow. we see that of the money that was allocated for a lot of the
energy spending, for several projects, less than half of the money has been spent. those projects have been quite slow to get off the ground. while we are hearing from the energy department is as the years go forward, but we will start to see this investment taking place, but it might be a few years before we see a significant change, a significant impact of the infrastructure. the money is there and the department tells us it is being deployed, but it it appears to be a very slow process. host: our next telephone call is from kentucky. good morning to don of the democrats' line. caller: i want to thank c-span. mrs. davenport, back in the 1970's when carter was president, all of the federal buildings have solar panels. as soon as reagan got in there,
he took them down. back then he wanted all the federal buildings to have solar power and we were talking about electrical problems. the problem is there is too much corruption. if obama was sincere, he would already have done that, what carter did. it is on the bush administration and too much money and corruption. our politicians will not do anything. if they are sincere, he would have major all of the federal buildings has solar power. my dad and florida has hooked up a panel on his radio just to try it out, and it has been going for years like that. the problem is it is too much money in the pockets of the politicians. i will get off the phone and listen to your response.
that has been the report that has influenced so much of the national policy. there were some findings from the university of east anglieng. there were questions about how the research had been done and this exploded into a climate gate. these have been put under certainty by their peers -- squinty by their peersquintcrut. so it puts that international scientific process back on track. the caller also mention nuclear power. where does that debate stand
right now? guest: this applies 20% of our overall electricity. the big it damage it has is that it does not produce any carbon emissions. this makes it a huge player in the ongoing global warming debate, and of course the other side is that it does produce nuclear waste. in the united states we still not have a solution. that is ongoing back and forth about nuclear power. that debate is probably just going to increase significantly as we see potentially a price put on carbon emissions and growing demand for nuclear power. we see that a lot of people in the environmental community had a fear about environmental
waste. they said they're willing to embrace new nuclear power because as the environmental advantage of no carbon emissions. we have not had a new nuclear power plant built since the 1970's and the united states. the obama administration is really pushing with loan guarantee incentives to grow nuclear power. we will see that debate going forward. we will probably see the share of nuclear power in our electricity. host: the last thing he reference was the wind turbines and how we would bring green jobs to the country. guest: what the administration is trying to do is put in place mandates requiring wind power to be generated in the united states. the argument from the administration is once you have the mandates, you will see those
turbines and those equipments build in the united states, but right now since there is no market signal, there is no requirement, demand, there is no mandate for wind or solar energy and the united states. that makes it difficult for companies to invest in that manufacturing. for the time being the biggest sources of manufacturing for wind turbines are countries in europe where they do have that mandates for nuclear power and of course in china. host: the next phone call is from texas. michael on the independent line. what is on your dmind on this discussion? caller: would it not be feasible to go ahead and make it mandatory for all new construction to include solar paneling.
that said, the legislation that is being put together a head of the senate floor right now includesç a mandate for a generation of technology of renewable electricity. çwell and does not mandate that individuals put solar panels on their homes, the mandate would lead to a great deal of new generation of solar power, abruptly on the utility scale, which is more the purposeç. it does include packages of incentives andç benefits for he owners who choose on their own to add solar panels to their homes. i know there are several states that have beenç reprogrammed to that allow homeowners that generate their own of the city
to sell their electricity back to the grid. çso that is being addressed ina mix of state and federal mandates, although i can see the construction of the having a problem with the requirement that they include solar panels on their homes. çhost: fairfax, virginia. ben çon the republican line. >caller: i was interested in the topic earlier us integrated and electricity --ç where youç tad about integrated electricity. buying back excess of power.
çwhat are the long-term prospectsç for power generation sources for the electrical system to carry? for the artificial intelligence- type of control at the grid çlevel, of course it is excitig to hear about, will youç be setting standards across grids? host: many of those are detailed on the engineering side. this is beyond the scope of your reporting. çguest: one of the big questios about smart grid technology is how do you começ up with one st of standards so that everything
communicate? that is one of the press -- questions being looked into with all of this r&d, stimulus money. you do not want one community to putç in place a set of softwar, a certain kind of technology that wouldç not be standardize, that would not communicate outside of that utility region. that is one of the things being developed right now, suites of softwareç standards, so that smart grid across the country could be able to communicateç. as for the question of artificial intelligence, i do not know, although i use expressions like "theç grid wih no" -- i do not jíow if we quite
see artificial intelligence being integrated, but it is certainly possible and could come down the road in the future. that would probably raise a new set of challenges and questions as well. host:ç lynette sends us this - that is one aspect of it. the ability of the people who operate the electric grid to controlç consumption. çthere is a later explanation f
how that happened. they have a program that allows coned toç reprogram the thermostats in homes and businesses. çso the signals are sent to the individual homes and businesses by coned when they need to lower demand over all. jason, democrat line.4j you are next. caller: i just wanted to point çout, and in the 1960's, we put in a lot of hydroelectric dams and it has not affected this deal had or sal -- theç steelhd or salmon runs. i do not see aç problem with te
technology. guest: the debate we see in congress about hydro electric dams, although there have not been too many negative environmental impacts inç his region, there is a very lively debate that creating tremendous amountsç of hydroelectricity through new dams could have potential negative environmental impacts, in terms of fish population, wildlife habitats. for thatç reason, hydroelectric has not really been part of the renewable electricity toç date n washington. the focus on hydroelectric has been increasing the efficiency and hydroelectric production, but there is a great deal of
concern,ç but a broad scale deployment of hydroelectric, where is not appropriate, could çhave negative repercussions. the industry would benefit to differ with that, but that is the state of the debate. host: don't us from oklahoma city. independent line. -- jonas çfrom oklahoma city. cocoa view just read something about the electrical grid. started to research. i also hear that people will be taxed on carbon emissions. now i am hearing aboutu! lights being shut off. i can leaveç my light on as log as i want.
it will eventually go to the point when the government will tell me when it is time to turn them off. that is an invasion of privacy, an invasion of theç constitution, and it is wrong. çnothing has changed since the bush administration. it is all hype. it sounds good. he said he was going to bar the patriot act. çwe are a human beings. since we exhale carbon dioxide, are you going to tax uq guest: the caller raises a legitimate challenge about a smart grid -- the smart grid. does the idea of integrating technologyç with our electric
system, does thisç give an elector utility or anyone monitoring that, too much information on consumers, could there be a violation of privacy? one of the previous callers mentioned this could create aç big brother to an area. this is one of the challenges that the energy department is grappling with as they try to çfind a way to create a system that can use energy efficiently, save money, save fossil fuels, and not violate privacy. it is a question they are strugglingç with. i am sure we will see these questions continue to arise. host:ç patrick is in arlington, virginia. the morning. caller: how are you this morning? i just wanted to touch on a couple of points. you were talking about theç cr,
and how they cleared climate gate. çthat was really just a bunch f e-mails. in the end, it turned out, the cru and dr. jones was refusing to look at refuting the evidence. theç cru has a vested interestn cap and trade,ç and the scienc. also, dr. phil jones said there has not been any evidence of global warming in the last 15 years. as early as theç 1400's, the climate was warmer than it is today. in the end,ç what we are told s
america only has 2% of the world's doyle bud uses 25% of the supply. the supply. the fact is, we only explore 2% if you look at oil and natural gas, bothçó on the east and west coast. i am reading this offline -- 1.364 trillion cubic feet of the çpotential. that puts us at number two in terms of energy supply. host:ç phil jones, who he referenced, is the leading climatic researcher. çguest: the caller raises a number of questions.
at the end of the day, the çscientists, there are several thousand of them there. they are independent scientists. if you look at who the list of these people are, look into their research,ç most people, institutions are comfortable with these independent peer- reviewed assessments. çpeople will still raise questions and point to the cyclical trends of warming that have existed through the centuries, by and large, we see çthese assessments are broadly accepted. host: a tweet -- challenge that will absolutely
be part of developing smart grid technology and policy. right now, we do not have one standard ofç smart grid. as u.s. policy potentially moves legitimate c13 question. it has been addressed by members of congress as they figure out how to write a policy. it is true, if you are incorporating i.t. pitched the technology with the distribution of energy resources, thereç is the potential to know much more clearly who is using what kind of energy, potentially to disruptç that, to tap into a lt more information. this is absolutely a question being wrestled with as lawmakers try to come up gkuxúa way to use the smart card technology. host: "u.s. plants cyber shieldç
interests. it seems to me, people should be apologizingç to bp. the thing that gets me the most is the amount ofç lies that go on. could you state that it is irrefutable, that there is global warming, that human beings are the cause of the it? on theç other side, we gain nothing by sending our money out to the people who are trying to çdestroy us. we need a carbon tax so we can get off of our intention of oil and get us back onto renewable, which the rest of the world is doing, including china,ç puttig us in economic straits. guest: just to clarify,ç i am t a scientist. however, the ipcc report is a
report compiled by thousands of scientists and has come to a firmç majority, want the peer- reviewed, excepted, andç that fossil fuels and carbon emissions are contributing to global warming. that is something that most journalists who cover this issue are comfortable with. çwithin the media, again, i thk there areç journalists -- there is a shortage of journalists who truly understand the science, but the majority of us are comfortable with these peer- reviewed reports. host: richardç is next on the independent line.
caller:ç certainly, in the electrical grid control is significant. there is one thing i have been wondering ever since we have been talking about energy efficiency. people anticipate with the use of alternate fuels, and electric çgrid, that we are going to increase our energy efficiency by perhaps 15%, 20% in the next 30 years. the only thing that seems to be overlooked this, i think there is a per capita energy price. in the next 20 years, the worldùs population is probably going to increase that sameç 15%, 20%. nobody seemed to pay attention to population control in terms of energy costs. guest: certainly, when the u.s.
department of energy takes into account what energy demand will be in the coming years,ç when they make those projections, they take into account the increasing population,ç but you are absolutely right, and the gains that are made in energy efficiency are, one might say, countered by the increasing population. if you look at the energy tremendous gains inç efficiencs and use of renewable, but we still see the use of fossil fuels rising over the next 20 years simply because that is the base load source of energy and there will be more people using energy. i do not know thatç the energy department would advocate population control, specifically as an energy
policy,ç but growing populatios is certainly a director contribute to the energy debate. host: sasha sends us this tweet ç-- you write about that in your column today. ce you tell us the status of this grant? guest: sure. this is one of the many stimulus grants that have gone to alternative energy projects around the country. te)one of the reasons the president is there today is he is doing a bully pulpitç tour ahead of bringing energy legislation to the senate next week. he is giving a speech after touring the economy and we expect him to give it a bigç ph
to clean energy economies, new mandates, that would contribute to the his plans. we expect to hear from secretary steven chu, and again from the president tomorrow about how he isç going to try to push these things through. here is where the money is going, hereç is how it is contributing to the economy. host: sarasota, florida. a dream, a republican line. caller: this subject that you brought up about president obama leads me toç believe the insanity about our electric power grid situation. we are telling people toç use electric trucks, cars, plug- ins, where is all of this
electricity coming from? with all of these people using it, are we going to blow up the grid? guus,: once again, do have brought up another one of the challenges to our electric grid. çwe are probably going to seeka significant increase in demand as we move forward with the development of plug-in vehicles. they can go far toward çdiminishing dependents on oil, but they put tremendous new demand on the e&ctric grid. this is one of the major issues, as policy-makers try to figure out how to take the old 20th- century british and overhaul it into a 21st century grade. you have to think about war çdemand comes a new sources of supply, definitely new demand from vehicles.
if this questr is not solved, i do not know if we will see a blowup of the grid, but we would see a significant increase in demand that could lead to blackouts until we see an overhsul of policy. host: this is from the pew institute showing the largest sources of energy. the subject of the debate in congress as they face energy legislation. as next week? guest: they have not yet nailed bill to look like. we are betting on july 19. they have to get something debated and passed before they leave for august recess.
once they do, thatç is sort of the end of the legislative season. right now, senaá majority leader harry reid, his staff is working with staffers in the capital to work on a final package. the white house has made it clear they want to get that done in july. electricity will probablyç be a central part of that. host: if you are interested in the eejtricity politics, go to politico.com and you can have her report delivered to your computer every day. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. let me tell you what is coming our next guest is joining us from new york city. stephen spruiellç will be talkg about the financial regulations
bill, which the senate is likely to take up. first, it is time for our update on campaign 2010. president obama and vice- campaign trail today, raising money for democratic candidates. a o talk about these different the o events. the president makes his first campaign stop today in kansas city. he will be there for robin carnahan. çwhy will he be there? >> this is aç tossup senate rae where republicans feel like they have a chance to make gains. he is going over there for the secretary of state, democratic candidate. he was in missouri back in march to raise money forç clear and a castle, but she decided not t
attend. çshe was concerned about being seen with obama's and his approval ratings have been going down in part of the midwest. she will be doing two of bed with him today. one of whichç should raise considerable amount of money. >> she is running against congressman roy blunt. çhow are the two doing with the fundraising? >> both have respectable numbers come in the million-dollar range. neither has released their second quarter numbers, so it will be interesting to see how they are doing. carnahan had several primary challengers, noneç of whom were expected to give him much of a challenge, but he may have to spend more money before august.
>> missouri is one of the states that got away from president çobama in 2008. some say he is focusing on this state, to give it back to democrats. ç>> absolutely. this is a tossup. democrats have been able to take republican seatsç before, and with a strong female candidate likeç carnahan, it speaks well. >> we will also be covering that offense with roy blunt. the president later today will be going to las vegas, raising money againç for harry reid. why is he going back there, why is the whiteç house calling bak
there to raise money? >> he was not expected to have a very tough race. he says he needs $20 million for his reelection campaign. he is close to the halfway mark. çhe faces sharon engle, ça republican who many did not think would make it through the primaries. it is surprising that he is getting so much help. % candidates in the field. but the president obviously wants to help the majority leader. as discussedç earlier, he wants to get his message out on energy as well. >> is angle benefiting from her tea party-favoritism, it is she
getting money from outside the state? or>> no question, she hired the same fund-çraising team that helped scott brown. there is no question that a lot of folks who are upset with the democratic agenda, congress will donate to her campaign. çharry reid's approval ratings are quite low, he is not terriblyç popular, so she will get a lot of support in state as well. it will just be a question of keeping the focus on reid. there has been some back and çforth. her campaign republishedç her website since the campaign because some of her platform were at odds with the republican
stance. >> joe biden coast to california to raise money for the çincumbent, democratic senator barbara boxer. she is running against carly fiorina. what is the latest? the white house has gone there several times to raise money for barbara boxer. how much money does she need? >> back in 2004, she spent close california is an incredibly expensive way to runç ads. it is difficult to campaign grass-roots style there. a new poll shows her approval rating continues to go down. this is a candidate that the administratimn is concerned about. she faces carly fiorina who is out ofç the mold from the peope
that she has gone up against. the conventional wisdom is that senator boxer knows how to beat your typical maleç candidate, t she is facing something different now. >>ç thank you. we will be covering the president's event as well as other happenings. for more information, go to c- span.org. host: guestçlet me introduce yo our next guest. from new york city, stephen çspruiell, a staff writer for e "new york times." good morning to you.
thank you for being with us. ças we begin, let's talk about the legislativeç head counting. what is scott brown so important in the process? >guest: as he said he might be, he is the 41st vote. depending on what happens in çwest virginia, with respect to the seats filled by the late robert byrd. the latest cloture vote was as closeç as these things can be. democrats were barely able to get 60 votes. when the bill itself came up for a vote, it passed with four republican votes. chuck grassley, theç two senats from maine, and scott brown. two democrats voted againstç i, recant well and russ feingold.
cantwell has said she will support the bill this time around. susan collins and olympia snowe has also -- have also said they wouldç support it. chuck grassley will likely vote for it again. feingold çhas decided he will e sticking with his opposition. it does not do enough for the liberal priorities, does not do enough to limit the size of big banks, does not do enough to prevent a future crisis. çif you are keeping score at home, that makes scott brown the 41stç vote. of course, that could change, if a person sent to washington than to fill byrd's seat is a democrat, as well as someone willing to vote for the bill. çhost: we have confirmed with s
office that senator brown is not yet ready to make a decision. çyour magazine's editorial says this is a bad bill. would you make the case, based on your reporting, about someçf the concerns that some of your colleagues have? guest:çlh2f sure, and it is not me and my colleagues, but senator brown has stated himself, things that were not addressed in the conference committee. first of all, thereç is the ise of cost. that is the original reason scott brown said he would not be voting for the bill thatç camen a conference committee. house and senate negotiators, when they met to reconcile the senate version of the bill, had a problem in order to meet the
democrat pinko restrictionsç -- in order to meet the democrat's pay go çrestrictions, the cbo told them that the bill would cost around $19 billion, which they decided to fund the by placing a tax on large banks. scott brown opposed this tax in his campaignç for senate. he was asked about it in a press conference near to his electionsç. in the estate as blue as massachusetts, he said taxes tend to be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher fees, so i will not support a higher fee on banks. hav[ng staked her out that position in his campaign, he could not be consistent and vote oor a bill that placed a $19 billion tax on banks, regardless
of what you think about the merits of the tax. so democrats have to go back to the drawing board and reconvene the conference committee, which is rare, and figure outç what they will do to get that one senator's kofvote. çthey replaced the mechanism wh something that is nothing short of fraudulent. we are going to cancel the one the three months of authority under the troubled asset relief program. remember, this was the bailout that passed in the fall of 2008. çthat would "say the $11 million." --ç save $11 billion." that money was not meant to be spent. as far as we know, they were not planning to make future loans. those were losses that would be
made in theç remaining three months of the programs authority, but they were not going to make any loans. çso that is pure deficit spending. because of an accounting trick, they will be able to say that it is spending cut. they will make up the deficit through the fdic investments. çthey've raised the money for that activity by imposing a premium on banks. çthis legislation would raise e premium. the problem with this is small and large banks alike pay the premiums, but the cost associated with the bill is attached to this new power that the fdic has beenç given to wid down a large, non-financial banks. one of the problems in the last çcrisis that battle regulators said they had was they did not have an fdic-like process where
winding down insolvent investment banks would occur. this would only apply to commercial banks. ifç they had that power, they could have prevented the lehman brothers bankruptcy andç all of the messiness associated with that, and they would have had better tools to take part a.i.g. but those new powers only cover large financial institutions. now we are going to raiseç fdic assessments on small banks to pay for future assessments on large banks. çwe made that point in the editorial, that if you want to be consistent to not adding to the deficit and not raising taxes on banks, this bill still does have that. it adds to theç deficit, wheres the previous bill, which wasç
consisted of taxes, does not. there are also a host of other reasons. host: your editorial does have a multi-part position here. it is available atç nationalreview.com. çlet me tell you how you can gt involved. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. çalso, as always, you can reach us by e-mailç or send us a message through twitter. our guest is a writer for the "national review." he has been discussing financial
regulation. we begin with a call from tampa, florida. óá on the democrat's line. çcaller: i just wanted to comment, why is this person playing games with us? we are working class people. çthese people have millions of dollars and they can finance what ever they want to. we are working people. we?7ç live check by check. host: the concerns of working class people not being met by legislation, compared to those with money. guest: this is a separct issue. i believe he is talking about the unemployment extension that the senate democratic leadership hasç been unable to find the
did notç have the proper incentives to really investigate the quality of mortgage-backed securities they were investing. they simply saw it was rated aaa and the added it to their portfolio. that is what a lot of them came before congress and said, this is not u[ fault. how can you say that we or engaging in reckless risk-taking when allç of these mortgage- backed securities were rated aaa by credit rating agencies? we need to break up the oligopoly, the government-backed oligopoly, that concentrates the market for risk assessmentç in these handful of firms, and let other firms compete to provide credit ratingsç. better yet come into rich bankers and investors to do their own risk assessment. host: as we get involved more in
the senate debate, we will bring on other bourses toç have opinions in this. next phone call from new jersey. ritaç on the democrat's line. caller: good morning, everyone. i just want someone to explain to me, how can you get anything done when you have toç compromise on everything you do in washington? it does not make sense!do me. you need the republican's help to do anything and they are refusing to help the president push anything through. you know you are not goingç to get the bill if you cannot get any assistance from republicans. can anyone explain this to me- how can america be so confused
to not see that these republicans are doing everything they can to destroy the president? guest: i understandç your point of view, and it is one that the president and other democrats have expressed. çrepublicans, deep down, do not have strenuous and printable objections to this legislation, but are opposing it simply to hand the president a political çdefeat, and i think that is wrong. i have talked to a lot of republicans who have worked on this issueç, people like scott garrett of new jersey, bob corker of tennessee. they want to get to a bill that is a good bill, that will avoid some of the mistakes that led to the crisis in 2008, and that will put inç place new and stronger financial regulations that do with the problems that
still exist in our financial sector. çthey are trying to find a solution. but they still have legitimate concerns, as do we. we wrote in the editorial, as susan has been talking about, 10 reasons for scott brown to oppose this then enter regulation bill. çthere is probably a good bill somewhere in there. there are some thingsç that moe us in the right direction, but there are too many parts that would encourage the same kind of reckless risk-taking that led us to the crisis in 2008. otherç things that absolutely must be addressed, such as problems with any mae and freddie mac. çthe way we framed it for scott brown is your continued opposition to this bill could lead not just to improvement in the cost area where you have raised concerns, the
improvements across the bill. there is no reason this needs to çbe done right now. the democrats put an artificial timeline on this and rush it throughç congress. by contrast, the last two former financial regulation bills took 97 and 74 calendar days. we have rushed to this process. the financial crisis in agree çcommission, the panel forced o look into the crisis, has not even issued a report(ydt. so we do not have an official word from the government on what went wrong, and we are already trying to fix it? there is no urgent need to pass this right now. we have other problems to worry about, such asç continued sluggishness in the economy, that this bill does not address. host: what is yourç response to
people who say that it will be two years since we have the financial crisis? guest: the government took a similarly wamp amount of time to pass financial regulation reformç after the stock-market crash of 1929. it was years before the legislation that craáed the sec and other kinds of reforms that were passed -- in the 1930's, and they did some investigations. but they spent a lot ofç time gathering information and figuring out what went wrong. r theing out what went wrong. slowness here, first of all, democrats had other priorities. they wanted to move health care. they wanted to do the stimulus at the beginning of last year. they had other priorities that they wanted to make sure they
got doneç while they had favorable numbers in congress. we expect some of that to change in november. çthey certainly would not have been able to do health care. that does not necessarily mean that they have been spending that time perfecting this legislation. take for instance the new çresolution authority given to the fdic to seize and on one large, non-banking financial çinstitutions. a lot of which looks like it was copied and pasted from the legislation that created the fdic. but non-banking financial institutions are not like commercial banks. when the fdic takes down a %1 bank, it is designed to bail on one class of creditors for that bank, @íd that is the depositors. as a society, we have decided that depositors deserve a
bailout. it is a good thing to have that in place to prevent panic and bank runs, but you cannot justç cut and paste that language and applied it to investment banks whose creditors are not çdepositors, there are sophisticated investors who know very well what they're doing with their money. the way the legislation was originally written, it would have allowed the sec -- fdic to build these predators, which meansç that they would take an even bigger risk. thanks to oppositionç from richard shelby, the ranking member on the senate banking committee, there were some changes to that legislation that improved it. . . ç
that encouraged banks to lower their lending standards to make home loans, for instance, to people that might not have been the best credit risks. i think the cra was a contributing factor but not a primary factor. i think it worked in concert with a number of other regulations and government efforts to subsidize home ownership that fuelled the deterioration of lending standards that led to so many bad loans being made. i think almost more important than the community reinvestment act is we go back and look at some of the things the clinton administration was doing with respect to fannie mae and freddie mac. pushing the two to make homeownership and particularly low income home ownership a bigger part of their portfolio, pushing them to lower their
standards so that more low income people could qualify for loans. discontinued -- the bush administration was also guilty of this. --- this continued. they felt home ownership was good everywhere and we need to do a lot of things to encourage it, even among people who might not be financially responsible or ready to take on a mortgage. so i think that across the board, politicians in both parties encouraged home ownership. among communities and economic groups for whom home ownership might not have been the best option. host: shares of freddie mae and freddie mac will begin trading over-the-counter thursday nearly a month after it was delisted by the new york stock exchange.
we are talking about coverage of and the editorial opposing the dodd-frank proposal. we have someone on the republican line. caller: i am 72 years old. not one thing have they done for the working man. they have done medicare. they can say they have done a lot, but they have not. they have tried to destroy this president. if we say no to everything, we can destroy you as president. that is what they have done. come on, a young boy.
you are smart enough and educated enough to know that the republicans are for the rich. that is why you don't want regulation on banks or businesses. you don't want to take any tax breaks from the businesses. you want to take the money from the working man and they don't have it. host: thank you, paul. guest: i think what paul is voicing is a common frustration among democrats. i find it interesting that, you know, a lot of these calls have not had much to do with financial regulation. i just -- the only reason i say that is because i feel like this bill is very misunderstood. paul said that republicans don't want regulations on banks because the party -- we are the party of the rich.
a lot of the problems i have with this bill and that other conservatives have with it is it would continue to subsidize wall street. russ feingold is as liberal as they come. he is from neighboring wisconsin. paul is in minnesota. he said the bill does not do enough to prevent the kind of bank problems we saw before. i think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what this bill does. i think the democrats have been very effective at labeling it wall street reform. when people are asked in surveys do you support wall street reform, do you support a bill that would crack down on wall street? they tend to be in favor of that, they say, yes, of course. that is why does bill into is broad support. but there is a lot in the bill that really entrenches the status quo. as i said, the fdic resolution
authority really would allow for some of these large financial institutions that failed to get a better deal than they would have gotten in bankruptcy. the bill also entrenches the federal reserve authority to make credit available to firms experiencing liquidity crises. as we saw in 2008, the federal reserve has been willing in the past to make this credit -- these lines of credit available to not just illiquid firms but insolvent firms, firms that would fail if it were not for the fdic willing to -- if not for the fed's willingness to accept garbage loans as collateral and make loans to keep them afloat. there are a lot of provisions in this bill that subsidize wall street. that is one reason a lot of
conservatives oppose it. contrary to paul's impression. host: there's this front page main story in usa today. rohrb h one of our viewers has tweeted this question, what are five or six proposals that would present as financial reform? give us an idea of what your editors believe would be effective for what ails the markets. guest: one idea would be to --
as i said, there are some things in the bill that we support and there are steps toward things that we support that are in the bill but that do not go far enough. we discussed in our editorial leverage limits. the use of leverage was key to making the crisis as large and severe as it was. in the time since the crisis hit, there have been a number of interesting ideas floated for what to do about leverage. leverage is just debt. it is when investment banks, for instance, borrow a lot of money in order to magnify their returns on their investment. as it has been reported many times, at the height of the crisis, some investment banks were operating with leverage ratios of 25 or 30 to one.
for every $1 of equity they had, they were boring $25 or $30. when things start to go wrong and you cannot repay all that money, that is when you run into the kinds of problems that took down their stearns and lehman brothers. a big question has been what to do about leverage. well, one person has come up with a really interesting proposal to limit leverage. a libertarian economist suggested simply taking a trust- busting approach to the largest banks and breaking them up. that would limit their ability to use leverage to get so big. the idea that i personally thought was the most interesting was to have a hard caps on leveraged that worked in tiers so that the larger of baguettes, the more tightly it is constrained on its leverage. -- the larger a bank gets.
this allows small banks to use leverage to grow and take risks and if they fail, it will not bring down the financial system. if they fail, it puts hard caps on the largest banks. and none of those approaches are represented by this bill. this bill is read it -- this bill leaves leverage requirements to the regulators. that situation existed before and was allowed the large investment banks to convince the fdic to let them operate under leverage requirements of 25 to 1. one or two decades from now after memories of the crisis have faded, the banks will come back to regulators and say we are big boys and we know what we are doing and it's ok to let us operate with these big leverage ratios. a lot of the time the regulators will be convinced because either they want jobs on wall street or
if they are understaffed, they don't have the capability to keep up with the investment banks. this legislation really does nothing about leverage. it is one reason why russ feingold opposes it and i think it could be improved. host: victor on twitter sends this: we have one call left from north carolina, clifford on the addendum line. good morning. caller: good morning. will there be taxation without representation in the future? guest: the financial reform bill -- so, i think, to address your point, which is where is the revenue coming from to fund some of the things this bill does?
that gets back to the problem that scott brown had in the first place, if the democrats are unwilling to cut spending elsewhere in the government to find the reforms they want in this bill, they only have two ways to do it. they can raise taxes, presumably on financial institutions or they can increase the size of the deficit with the with thein tarp. that does not solve the concerns that brown has raised. if i were brown, i would have to look at that and say i cannot support the bill. host: thanks for being with us. i want to tell our viewers if they are interested in additional opinions of the editors of the national review on the bill, it is available at nationalreview.com. thank you for joining us from our new york city studios. thanks for your time.
guest: thank you so much, susan. host: will introduce you to peter bart arent, here this morning to talk about american power in the world, america's role. he thinks about this through the lens of history in his new book. "the excellus syndrome -- >> some of the headlines, a spy swap between the u.s. and russia might take place soon although officials are not saying anything. security has been increased around a moscow prison where convicted western spies are said to be. in new york the federal court is set to decide the fate of 10 russian spy. suspects spy u.s. and russian officials met secretly yesterday. the pentagon has started sending out troops a survey of 100 questions looking for their
views on the impact of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" restriction prohibiting gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. the survey, which will be e-mail to service members, asks about issues including how the unit to maumelle readiness might be affected as the commander is believed to be gay or lesbian, the need to maintain personal standards of conduct, and how the repeal might affect willingness to serve in the military. at a meeting today in beijing, the international monetary fund says the global economy is recovering faster than expected, raising its 2010 world growth forecast to 4.6% up from 4.2%. the imf is also warning that the european debt crisis may stall the rebound and that governments need to shore up shaky public confidence. toyota plans to open six offices in north america to gather information about vehicle problems. it has been trying to improve safety and quality since
recalling over 8.5 million cars and trucks starting last october. finally, a french surgeon said today his patient is doing well after getting a full face transplant including eyelids and tear ducts. the doctor says the operation took place at the end of june at a hospital near paris. the patient is a 35-year-old man with a genetic disorder. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> before the senate judiciary committee votes up or down, what's the entire confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee elena kagan, including her testimony, if senators' questions and comments, and witnesses, online at the c-span video library. to purchase a copy of any part of the hearing, click on the buy now button. >> prime-time "book tv" continues with politics.
president obama, year one. newt gingrich on stopping obama's socialist machine. also, attend a book party for bill press with his new book "toxic sac." and boston radio talk-show host michael graham defends the tea party movement in his new book. all this week on c-span 2. >> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books as a public service, created by america's cable companies. "road to the white house" continues-- "washington journal" continues. host: in this new book it says
"we remain in thrall to a series of assumptions about american omnipotence that are not true and never were. what are those assumptions? guest: for america to be secure and prosperous in the world, we have to extend our dominance further and further. in the post cold war time, america's military footprints increase dramatically around the world. dick about where america was at the end of the cold war. we did not have military presence in eastern europe, very minute -- very little military ground presence in europe or central asia. american power spread much more widely. we need to remember that we were a relatively safe and prosperous country even before the spread of american military power. we don't believe any retrenchment would necessarily believe the imperiling of american security.
for me the fundamental challenge of obama's foreign-policy is coming to terms with the fact america does not have as much power as we thought we did during the bush era. america was a little like a man who thought his house was worth a million and was only worth five a hundred million and he was borrowing against the value of the house. america is still an immensely powerful and dynamic country but we overestimated our ability to remake the world in our image and we overestimated the limitless nests of america's economic resources. the trauma of obama foreign policy will be trying to find a way of bringing the american power back into balance, to bring our enormous series of commitments overseas back into balance with a more realistic assessment of how much power we have. i wanted to write about other is trying to respond to the dilemma in the past. host: you look at three stages in the 20th century. i pulled a clip because you
reference one of those, the decision about going into vietnam. this is john kennedy at his inaugural, sort of setting the stage for the american view of weekend export our views of democracy to the world. -- we can export our views. >> let every nation know that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of the nation. host: he is not saying the success of american liberty but the success of liberty as a concept. how old original was this i did to john kennedy? guest: it was not original to john kennedy. you see echoes of this in early
american presidents, in particular woodrow wilson and his vision of america exporting democracy to the ". kennedy's inaugural statement was one of the classic statements of the beautiful lie. it is a very powerful, inspiring vision, the idea that americans will pay any price, bear any burden for the survival and success of liberty. that idea that americans will stand for people struggling for freedom around the world, that america envisions a radically better world is an important visit to uphold. franklin roosevelt of hilda that in the atlantic charter during the second world war, the universal declaration of human rights at the beginning of the cold war. if it is critically important that in some ways it is a fantasy. america is not going to pay any price or bear any burden, as we found in vietnam. oftentimes -- sometimes when we think we are fighting for liberty as in vietnam, we were
not really fighting for liberty. we delude ourselves into believing it was a great moral mission. in fact we were fighting for a corrupt and authoritarian government in south vietnam, an artificial country. the american people were not willing to pay any price to bear any burden to maintain south vietnam as an independent country. i am not saying that america should abandon our dream that america can help make the rohde better place. i am saying while you have that faith in the long term, you have to balance it with a realistic assessment that we are not a country that will pay any price for their any burden. we would perhaps for our own security, but not for conflicts in distant parts of the world and that sometimes even when we think those conflicts are fought for the most idealistic motives, if you looked at them closely, they are a lot more morally
messy. host: u mcnelis the political pitfalls for presidents or presidential candidates trying to offer a vision other than that. guest: that is right. there is a duality. american s know we're not going to pay any price. average americans sending their kids off to fight wars and pay taxes are very aware of the fact that there are limits to the price we will pegg and burtonsville will there except in circumstances where we feel our own homeland security is directly threatens. on the other hand, americans want their president to be optimistic, to tell them all is possible and there are no limits to what we can do. so i think the challenge for a president or president obama is to reflect that sense of optimism, that belief in what america can do and be and to respond to the realities that
there are limits to what america can do, limits that americans understand even if they don't want their president to sound depressed or defeated. host: you frequently make positive references to ronald reagan in your ridings. how did he do in a good shading -- in negotiating the duality? guest: ronald reagan came to office six years after vietnam and right after the humiliation of the iran hostage crisis. he recognized americans wanted to feel proud and strong again. he was a master of creating the sense that america was back and we did not need to apologize for america anymore. on the other hand, ronald reagan deeply understood that americans did not want to pay any price or their any burden in the fight against the soviet union. they did not want to go and fight another vietnam. he was extremely cautious about using direct american military force. he would not invade panama in
his final year in office because he feared it would be another vietnam. george h. w. bush did that in 1989. what ronald reagan shows is the ability of a very politically skilled president to make americans feel strong and proud again but actually to respond to the real limits on the direct use of american military force imposed by the calamity of vietnam. host: we are talking about your book and pieces about american hubris in foreign-policy, the role of americans in the world today, how much responsibility to be there as a superpower to help export our views of democratic society to other places and how much you are willing to pay for that in blood and treasury. let's begin with a call from colorado. this is on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a first-time caller.
my question is after the last eight years of the bush administration, have we gained any ground back as far as world wide status? guest: i would say, for me, one of the tragedies of the obama administration is although president obama is much more liked around the world than george w. bush, so in that way he has improved america's image. the financial crisis has probably undermined the attractiveness of the american model much more than obama's election has increased its. people call this soft power, the country's power to attract or persuade rather than coerce has never been based primarily on the person in oval office. it was based on the degree to which people thought our economy in particular was something they wanted to emulate. unless we rebuild the foundation of american economic power and rebuild the american economic
model in a way that people believe it is more stable and humane rather than prone to the cycles of boom and bust, barack obama will have a great deal of difficulty restoring america's reputation in the world. host: we go to fill on the republican line from kansas. caller: good morning. i accept the idea that it is becoming more and more difficult for america to exert its influence on the world, but i want to bring that to a piece you wrote about the jewish sense of --and america's role in the middle east. that we are trying to exert a lot of influence and pressure on israel to make concessions and seems to be more concessions israel is willing to make. and bring that to i am having a
difficult time with the thesis that you have that to the jewish community, particularly the american jewish community, is using a sense of victimhood to further its ends. i want a solution to the middle east and i want america involved although i'm not sure how much influence we can exert. how do we reconcile that when all amount is will there is hezbollah, their charter is dedicated to the destruction of israel. iran is. hamas and others. i am irish. in conversations that i have had in our family, particularly the generation preceding me, was that the potato famine and british social policy and other things are part of our history, same thing with african- americans.
i think it would be offensive to tell an african american that you have to get over the sense of victimhood from the slavery heritage. host: thanks for your call. guest: it is a very thoughtful question, something i have wrestled with a lot. i was taught about the holocaust as a child. i and will teach my own children about it. we have an imperative to get thousands of years of jewish exiles and anti-semitism sought. one needs to understand the past but also recognize that there can be changes. while i think it would be a terrible thing for jews or anybody to forget the history of oppression of jews throughout the world, which has deeply
influenced my own family. i also think it is dangerous to be stuck in the past and not to see how europe has changed radically. i was just in israel. one of the extraordinary things is that one of the most popular destinations for young israeli children to go and spend a year or two is berlin. many are spending their entire lives there. a testament to the extraordinary change in german society. there's been a radical decline in antisemitism in that state. what worries me about the holocaust is not remembering. it is trying to suggest that we still live in 1938. israel has very real enemies, but its situation as a country with nuclear weapons and the strongest military ithe middle east is not the same as the jews in warsaw get thos.
host: what do you think of the administration's path forward with regard to middle east peace? guest: president obama is in a difficult situation. the palestinian leadership is weak and divided. the israeli leadership is led by a man who has spent his entire career opposing the palestinian state and today is not interested in bringing that about. obama understands that at least if there is no effort at moving forward, then what you tend to find and the least is you move backward and you could have a situation where hamas takes power in the west bank or you for the possibility of ever having a palestinian state. it is right that he is very involved. but his chances of full success are slim. host: speaking of america's role in the world, our discussion is based on your new book.
our next phone call is from san diego, kevin on the independent line. caller: hello. i want to say i agree with what you are saying about america having to reckon with the consequences of the unfounded over confidence in what america can do. it is a lot broader than the international issue. david brooks has talked a little about this like the failure of social institutions. we see all of these giant domestic problems -- or agendas with the u.s. government, failing, basically. they were all pretty stated on big confidence in what the government can do and what the u.s. can do. it is a very broad issue in that sense. i also wanted to get you to say on the israel issue, how does
this problem with over confidence in the u.s. government's ability, how does that play into our relations with israel and how we dictate our policy with them? guest: two questions there. on the question of government failing, i would say the critical question is do you believe governments inevitably fail? i think the tea party would say the government will always fail, the bureaucracy is stupid and they can never respond to the complexity of the world. or do you believe our regulatory institutions worked pretty well for a large part of the middle of the 20th century until they were dismantled by a series of republican administrations that were hostile to government's role and the fox in the hen house in terms of putting people from industry into a regulatory body after regulatory body
whether it was all street or the oil industry in the case of offshore drilling? i think that government always makes mistakes, but the government has done a reasonable job of preventing some of the terrible disasters that we have seen today, whether they be on wall street or in the oilfield. only if you have people believing in independent oversight, which is not something we have had nearly enough of particularly in the bush era. on the israeli question, i would simply say i think one of the challenges for israel and the u.s. is how to maintain america's commitment to israeli security in a circumstance in which america's footprint in the middle east is likely to recede. america is withdrawing its troops from iraq. america and israel are making an effort to try to prevent iran from getting a luger weapon.
i hope that succeeds. -- a nuclear weapon. it may fail. america and israel would be forced to reckon with how do we have to change our commitment and may increase our military commitment to israeli security and order to create a sense of confidence in an environment where to some degree there has been a shift in power if in the middle east against us. host: tina is calling us from florida on the republican line. caller: good morning. since we are giving credit to ronald reagan for not wanting to start a war, let's give credit to president clinton also with the yemen thing. i also have a comment, we are wasting time in afghanistan. i grew up republican, believing that we protect israel at all cost. i still believe that. if that is true, why aren't we
in israel or closer to israel really doing something other than wasting time protecting poppies in afghanistan? guest: i have grown more skeptical of the afghanistan mission. i do think that there was a commitment we made to the people of afghanistan. several years ago when this government of hamid karzai had more popular support and was left overwhelmingly corrupt. the american presence in afghanistan was more popular. it might have been that the united states could've played a more constructive role there. i fear now we are in the situation in which we have committed to a counterinsurgency campaign. in that it has to be owned by the local government. unless there is commitment to
the people from that country, it is unlikely to work. the recent rolling stone article about stanley mcchrystal, doubt the afghan president does not know all the provinces where the u.s. military is fighting. that is very disturbing to me. we also have the strange situation in which most of the al qaeda presents we are were about is across the border in no-man's land. in land -pakistan. there's counterinsurgency fighting against the taliban. most people acknowledged the al qaeda presence today in afghanistan is very limited. you have to ask in a country that is now deeply in debt, where our economic that is potentially really eroding our power in the world, is this a good use of american resources
and expenditure of american lives? host: in 2003 he supported the iraq war, a position you later moved away from. your evolution on that position, was that what led to your thinking about this book? guest: yes, i write about that in the introduction. it was my own efforts to try to understand why i had believed and many people i respected believed the things we believe on the eve of the iraq war that led me to become interested in the question of hubris. my argument is that kuba arrest comes from success. people like myself who supported the iraq war or the products of the extraordinary successes we have seen inform stages of our lives, the gulf war in 91, bosnia in 95, kosovo in 1999, the big economic boom of the 1990's which led to democratization across the world. i think that led to an over-
estimation of american power. in some parallel ways to the ways in which the extraordinary success of the first couple decades of the cold war in the late 1940's through early 1950's led to the over-confidence that led america to vietnam. host: i have pulled a couple of reviews of your book. this is one paragraph from the new york times. generally favorable review. in his devotion to the inflammatory magic of hubris, the writer touches on the dual nature of the american character, society, and politics. guest: i did not understand that criticism. the whole point of the book is that america's can do spirit
is precious but at times goes out of control. icarus and his father are trapped on an island and his father builds wings. he says we can fly off of this island. it does not say settle and have no ambition. the guy believes that he can fly. but what he says is that the wings are frail. if you fly too high, they will meld by the sunlight. americans attitudes needs to be tempered by knowing that even though we live in the most powerful country on earth, we are still frail and fallible creatures and there's a lot about the world we don't understand. i don't think the author and i really disagree.
host: let's take our next telephone call from rockville, md.. jonathon on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. a lot of members of my family fought and died to defend the constitution of the united states. i have an issue with what is going on in the middle east. israel and the greater muslim world. the muslim world is not able to control their extremists. israeli's caught in the middle of it. even israel has had its own issues internally. i have a problem with american citizens having to fight in the israeli army under another country's flag. if israel decides to attack iran, should americans blood be shed? i truly believe that our unconditional support of israel,
it is our doomsday. a lot of people in the world's think, how is america supposed to be an unbiased source of mediator of peace? host: iran is a topic we have not yet discussed. this administration has carried on a policy of the last in trying to find a solution to their nuclear ambitions. how are we and our allies doing? guest: barack obama is doing a lot of things. frankly any president would try to do these things. he tried to have an effort at diploma initially, but that effort was pretty much destroyed by what happened by the iranian elections and the iraqi government moving into a hard line and radical position. now he has no choice but to move down the sanctions route. -- iranian government moving into a hard line and radical position. there are now sanctions from the
united nations, allowing america to have tougher bilateral sanctions. the rest of the sanctions historically are pretty spotty. it may be beyond america's capacity to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon unless we use military force. even then we would not know how successful that military campaign would be. it is unlikely america will take military action if, given the impact that would have on our military efforts in iraq and afghanistan. i desperately hope the sanctions work. i hope even more that for the green revolution over the iranian government tomorrow. that would be the best thing to happen for the middle east and the region. i think we have to be realistic enough to also think about what we do on that very dark day after iran gets a nuclear weapon and how we deal with a framework of containment to keep an iranian nuclear weapons from producing an arms race on the least. host: peter is a senior fellow
at the new american foundation. he teaches journalism and political science at the university of new york. he is a contributor to "time." guest: it is a lot of fun and i just finished my first year. taxes you're writing skills. i've had a group of talented journalists. >i will return to teach again next year. host: richard is on the independent line. caller: good morning. one thing that comes to mind in this discussion is the americans -- or the military has always been confident from its inception of being able to expand and to be able to mobilize itself. manifest destiny is what came to mind, the notion of confidence
in its vision of being able to move west. it is that confidence and that duality. hasn't it always been a part of the american values? and the conflict between the populists, whether the department can pay for it and be willing to fight for its and the confidence of being able to say we can do it and move forward with our military might? kennedy said these values we can expand anywhere. guest: that is exactly right. it is a very intelligent statement. on the one hand there is this urge for america to grow more powerful and prosperous, to have a world where we are free to have american trade and commerce so we can grow economically if and also to spread american values around the world. initially that was more of a
christian mission. it has become secularized in the 20th century. there have always been those in the united states -- mark twain, when he opposed the spanish-american war, abraham lincoln when he opposed to the mexican-american war, who said it will become an empire, then our democratic nature at home may suffer. there's a contradiction between a military that keeps growing bigger and the company then as more and more commitments around road, and the effort to preserve this part of liberty inside united states. if that leads to higher taxation or constriction of people or violations of our civil liberties. that is always a tension. the american urge to become more powerful of all the world, of an imperial power and our desire to remain a democratic republic
with liberty and home. host: now to tennessee. this is bill on the air. caller: good morning. thanks, c-span. i want to point out when you ask him to evaluate president obama's position on the palestinian-israeli conflict, he said that palestinian leadership was weak and divided, with the characterization. also, that the israeli leadership was led by a man whose entire career has been spent opposing the palestinian state. i want to point out that that is historically inaccurate. i have hours of benjamin netanyahu speeches within the last two or three years where he has advocated in his official position of prime minister as
well as prior to his assuming that position, where he not only entertained that but supported that idea. your guest ignored the elephant in this theater of debate being that the palestinians oppose israel's right to exist. again, it sounds like you have on your hands yet again another apologist for palestinian militants and general hatred of jews. it is tiresome. guest: i would certainly resent the suggestion that i am an apologist for hatred of jews. i am. jew -- i am a committed jew
myself. it does have a case fu hateful d against antisemitism and violence against israel. in palestine they have been far more explicit than any other previous palestinian leadership in rejecting hamas and accepting israel oppose the right to exist and being supportive of the kind of peace offers that were made in 2000 and 2001. in fact, prime minister s ayaad has moved toward non- violence. they've rejected partitions in 1940 and 1948.
when it comes to benjamin netanyahu, he opposed the palestinian state not just in the 1990's but as recently as when he ran for prime minister in 2009. he still opposed it when he created his coalition government. that is one of the reasons why does the livni would not go into collision with him. in a speech at the university said he would support a palestinian state while adding a caveat that had not been included by former prime ministers of israel. i thought it was striking that in his press conference with the president on tuesday while the president spoke about a palestinian state, benjamin netanyahu repeatedly refused to use the word "palestinian state. look at the transcript. that suggests that he and some in his government coalition are still basically quite hostile to
that idea. i wish that were not the case, but i am afraid i think host: it: weatherford, texas, re on the independent line. -- ray. caller: the influence of the united states has diminished over the years by said leaders in somalia and vietnam and soon also iraq. and afghanistan it is soon to. be another to it does not take 10 years to train an army and police. we train our people in eight weeks for combat. we are going to lose it and i'm so sorry, because most people of the world only see us as a big atm machine of which we have deep pockets and our pockets are empty. thanks for letting me speak. have a great day. host: thank you. guest: we are no longer seen so
much as they atm machine. we are now the people going to the atm machine. the problem is american private individuals don't save much money. we live on credit card debt and our government lives on the equivalent. that is because people in asia and governments in the gulf save a lot of money. they have a pool of money that we can then go to the atm and think we can keep drawing on that for every to live beyond our means. one of the greatest and sincerest issues facing us in the coming years and decades will have profound influence on our foreign policy. one of the reasons america got out of vietnam was because of the financial crisis vietnam produced by the early 1970's, increasing american debt and inflation that led to a run on american dollars. one of the things that will be an influence on american from
politics in the coming years impossibility the world mei lan dir -- make no longer keep stocking the atm for us to withdraw as much as we want to pay full wars that have no end and a series of things at home as well. i think we will have to reckon with that. host: wilmington,w north,. ill on the democrats' line-- will on the democrats' line. caller: the state of north carolina --[unintelligible] the person sitting as the secretary of veterans affairs was on the general staff early in the iraq war. early in the endeavor he was suggesting that iraq would need a very large investment to
succeed. the administration under bush disagreed. hw was -- he was essentially washed out. host: general's shinseki. caller: i believe that is his name. for a while the iraq war was not going very well. then the bush administration put out this idea for troop surge and then things started going well again. host: what is the question? caller: what i would say is that success is not only possible, but part of the humility they're talking about is acknowledging that they have
to put in the time. guest: the story in iraq is not over. we don't know how able iraq will be to sustain itself as a stable, functioning, democratic system bringing together the religious groups and ethnic groups as america withdraws its troops. there has been a decrease in violence in iraq that is owed partly to the fact americans sent more troops and under the leadership of people like david petraeus we changed the way the troops were being used. credit should go to those military leaders and to the bush administration for coming up with that. it is still important to remember the very large part of that story was also the fact that sunni's even before the surge started to shift in a radical direction because they felt they would need the united states or they would be wiped out by a powerful shiia
community. they lost the battle for baghdad, which allowed the sunni awakening that essentially led to the drop in violence against american troops. a series of different things happened in iraq. often people say because we sent more troops to iraq, that diminish the violence. so then the same thing would happen in afghanistan. they don't realize a series of other things happened in iraq that are not necessarily replicable in afghanistan host:. host: 43 people killed, others wounded in attacks across the capital city, hundreds of thousands of shiite muslims lost at a shrine. opposed by militants to destabilize the nation at a time of political uncertainty. we have a little time left. from silver spring, maryland's next with bob on the republican line.
caller: i look forward to reading your book. can you tell us how many foreign countries the u.s. has troops in? and how much this is costing every year? guest: good question. i don't have the numbers off the top of my head. i actually think trying to get a firm number is very difficult. some people have tried. the number of countries where the u.s. has military presence is large. the cost of that is quite remarkably high. i am not suggesting the u.s. should withdraw from all those commitments. there are lots of places in the world where the expense is relatively low given the degree of stability that we maintain. it might not be a good idea for the u.s. to withdraw troops from japan and have japan go nuclear and then have a more destabilizing arms race in asia. but i think there are -- i don't think -- we should be willing to have a hard look at all of these commitments and not
simply allow the inner chef of past commitments to basically continue on forever, because i think we are going to have to grapple with the fact we are facing economic pressures at a time we have not seen in a long time. host: independent line from oklahoma. caller caller: i used to follow you until you came out in support of the iraq war. you are too intelligent to support that. anyone could see those people were liars from the beginning. i saw them. second, this ronald reagan thing. the man sold weapons to terrorists behind the backs of the american people. did you emphasize that in? your in there were 138 reagan officials indicted or forced to resign.
the man was a complete fraud. but americans did? he make did -- what americans did he make feel good? white americans? guest: i salute you for being more pressed about iraq. i was leaving iraq had a nuclear program. i was inclined to believe saddam hussein had a nuclear program because he had one for the gulf war. we had not inspected there since 1998. given that there was not much of a mechanism on the ground to inspect what he was doing, i figured that he would go back to his old ways. he had a long history of wanting to be the greatest power in the middle east. on ronald reagan, i tried to on ronald reagan, i tried to make
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on