tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 6, 2012 7:00am-10:00am EST
center talking about the administration pass a decision that requires church affiliated employers to provide birth control. and later, samantha artiga from the kaiser family foundation has details on a federal program that offers health insurance for children in low income families. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: good morning this monday, february 6. looks like another busy week shaping up in the nation's capital. in the middle of all of the super bowl blog, you may have seen an interview president obama did with nbc in which he said out right -- "i deserve a second term." we want to get your reaction to the president's remarks yesterday to matt lauer.
this is what the president said yesterday. [video clip] >> i deserve a second term, but we are not done. when you and i sat down we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. we found that just a few days before we sat down that we lost that much. now we are creating 250,000. we created 3.7 million jobs over the past 23 months. we created the most jobs since 2005, the most manufacturing jobs since 1990 but we are not finished. we have to not only boost up american manufacturing so not
just the auto industry but american manufacturing is building and selling overseas. we've got to make sure we are pushing american energy, and it includes not just oil and gas, but clean energy. we have to make sure the skills of american workers are the best in the world. and we have to return to old- fashioned american values -- everybody getting a fair shot, everybody doing their fair share and lighting by the same rules. that means, for example, regulations that make sure wall street is following the same rules as a main street. the key right now is to make sure we don't start turning in a new direction that could throw the progress off. host: the president yesterday leading up to superbowl coverage. the money section of "usa today" reminds us the job gains announced friday are feeling stocks. if you look at the opinion pages of "the new york times," paul krugman writes that things are not ok.
we will hear from the head of the rnc in a couple of minutes but let's get some of your calls first, with the president's saying "i deserve a second term." harry from pittsburgh. caller: i am 5 foot 5 inches, -- i could be a center for the boston celtics. the unemployment numbers -- the first time in my life i think we've got a president determined to destroy this country. host: why do you say that? caller: everything he is doing. going against the catholic church, going against jerusalem. these people -- with the election, are not prosecuting them. the guy on the border killed, one of our guards, and nothing is being done about it. host: that was harry from pittsburgh this morning. we have lines for republicans, democrats, and independents this morning. we have larry from orlando,
mississippi. good morning to you. caller: the president deserves a second chance. here is why. the republican party, two wars, and their medicare deficits that they gave over to the president. why in the world would you want to put these people back in office when they destroyed the deficit -- destroyed the economy, i mean, and puts it on to obama like it was his problem. anybody with any sense of it -- should know to put these people back in office with the same policies because you end up with the same thing again. it is ludicrous. thank you and have a great day. host: thank you, larry, as we dig deeper into this segment. of the president's saying he deserves a second term but a little bit more from the poll from "the washington post" today. the point out of that americans are divided evenly as to whether
the president's performance warrants a second term. but when you go down as little bit further, they do talk in deeper terms about the president's ratings. i'm so, you see the overall performance is a little higher, but as you start digging deeper, it goes down a little bit. we have an independentd online anan, good morning -- on the line. dan, good morning. caller: i did not want to read on anybody. the first time -- one, come on. no one is trying to destroy the country. attacking the catholic church in jerusalem? no. the guy is trying.
i was democrat -- i am 46 years old, most of my adult life i and democrat and now i do not trust any of them. but, you know, the approval -- yes, and economy, things are growing. it is going to take time. we knew when he was elected it would not elected -- was not be resolved in four years. nobody deserves anything. if he wins it, great. and he will probably be my vote. who else do we vote for? is there anybody else that you would really trust taking this country over in the dire straits we are in, still in? i would have to go with obama right now. if somebody gives me something better, gives us a little better outlook, i will think. but, no. i could not vote for anybody but barack obama. host: ok, independent voice from illinois. in addition to the phone calls
you can email us a journal@c- span.org and also by twitter -- here is the chairman of the currency reince priebus talking about the president -- chairman of the rnc. but we do want to get another call in. larose, a democrat from tennessee. caller: good morning. thank you. i am so proud of president obama. he is the first president in a long time that has done everything he could for this country. he was left a mess, a total mess, and he has done a lot to make things better. joe biden says, gm is alive and
osama is dead, but he's got no cooperation. what we need to do is get a democratic house in there that will work with him and give him four more years to go ahead and get this mess straightened out. host: do you think it democratic congress is realistic this year? what do you think will happen? caller: i don't know. i am hoping. and if we would have had -- the first two years, if we would of had -- nancy pelosi put through about 400 bills that died in the senate because the filibuster was threatened. if we can get somebody to work with this president -- he is the smartest thing to hit washington in a long time, at least in 13 years. host: appreciate your thoughts. another democrat here. emma from dallas, texas. good morning.
caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: good morning. and i on? host: what would you like to say? caller: yes, he deserves a second chance because when he come into office it was a mess and everybody knew it was going to take time for him to be able to do what he needs to do, and besides, republicans have spent all of the money that was in there and talking about he is running a debt. he has to run up the debt and order to -- and you know what? i think republicans will cheat in this election like they did back in 2010. host: based on the, the president made "i deserve a second turn," would have this twitter messageh from twitterero who we heard from before -- a twitter message from americanhero. back to the poll, they go back
three tenths of a percent, to take the leap that our country is on the right track, that spending is down and the deficits are cut in half, as the president promised, that the debt will not bury our kids and grand jury -- grandkids, and we offer felling the american dream for middle-class americans? i do not think it is the case. look, i think we are hurting in this country as far as the economy. people are not better off than three or four years ago and we have an economic disaster is in america on unfunded liability and debts and deficits coming out of our years. we do not have enough time to go through each of these things, but clearly we are not on the right track. americans do not feel like we are on the right track. and i think what republicans want to make sure in the messages, if you work hard and play by the rules, we want to make sure you get to live the american dream. that is the message. host: as we continue to take calls, here is "the hill" version.
scott, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe the cancellation of the keystone pipeline alone, that one decision is enough -- should be a enough to inform people or convince people he does not deserve a second term. gasoline and diesel are at least $1 a gallon more than they should be and would be if we had a realistic pro-american, pro- enterprise energy policy. the central planners and all of this garbage that fails at every move, the central planners trying to tell was what sort of energy we are going to use instead of letting the free market determined that, is costing the american people billions -- just and energy
prices alone. he is a complete failure when it comes to economics. he is a socialist ideologue and will never change. host: to that caller, scott and others, interested in the price of gas, one of the lead items in "usa today" talk about a caveat -- a chaotic spring predicted for gas. we have a little bit more on policy as a callers way in on the present. "the new york times," one of the off-and the pieces says a deal is closer for plan on mortgages.
and if you look at a laundry list of achievements he has done, it becomes obvious. he banned lobbyists' gifts to executive employees, it created a new financial regulations, he repealed don't ask a fashion don't tell, increased funding to national parks -- repeal don't ask-don't tell, increased funding to national parks, canceled the doughnut hole for medicare and expanded eligibility for medicaid. a all of these things -- now i think something like 15 million children now have access to health insurance. just really monumental, tangible evidence that shows that he is a capable president. and he has my vote. host: ok. bobbie. let's hear from jean, independent voice from corpus christi, texas. caller: i must say the gentleman
just prior to may articulated everything very well. what i might add to that is that i think as i observe all of the -- what is being referred to as class warfare, i think there is just frankly it disagreement among a whole bronx -- bunch of folks to the fact that we need to get together as a group behind the change agent. and unfortunately, i do not see congress participating as helping the change agents for the betterment of the american people. for that reason, i hold mr. obama in very high esteem. ibm -- i am an unqualified support of him and his ability to deal with what has been a
totally overwhelming mass for any president to inherits. and i do not think that the will be sending our troops into brushfires as we did with the previous administration. i think it is time to focus on our young people, on our people who are living in tents because they are homeless, and it is time to take care of the home folks. i don't think that anyone who is president can please all of the people. i think we have to go with the best candidate. and i think this man is brilliant and i think he is doing is absolute very best. host: let's move on to an e- mail. --
let's hear from georgia. john, republican. caller: everything that president obama has done that everybody thinks saying he has done this, he has done that, he has done it on borrowed money from china. when he came into office, the deficit was at $9 trillion and he said, look what bush did. then he got in and brought up to $16 trillion. and all those people out there that are raving for obama, wait until little hits you. gas will be near $5 near the election. i doubt very seriously if anybody is going to want more obama when gasoline hits over $4
a gallon. host: appreciate your thoughts. another e-mail -- a voice from seattle, washington. if you look at the front page of "the hill" this week -- the president, and paul ryan, budget committee chairman. the budget was supposed to be put out this week but it will be delayed by a week. but the point of the story is paul ryan must write a new plan that will draw sharper contrasts with the present. they are calling it "the budget rematch." we will see what happens in the weeks and months ahead. illinois. lou, a democrat. the president, he says he deserves another term.
what do you think? caller: i believe he does deserve another term. host: how come? caller: think of the indian tribes who used to have a chief. the chief was the chief for many, many years. and he took care of his tribe. one thing that obama did for the american people, the big tribe that we are, he is trying to get health care for every single american, whether they are democrat or republican. now, when the republicans call on your phone, i wish they would just say how are they going to get health care if they get fired from their jobs? this is one thing that is really left out. health care is extremely important to every single american. and there is another reason i think he should be reelected. look at the tax cuts, bush tax
cut. they started in 2001. originally it was a 10-year program, extended for two more years. if those tax cuts were so great and provided so much money for americans to spend, how did we get in the mess we are in? the tax cuts -- if anybody wants to research them, over half of them benefit the upper 1% of the taxpayers, the old truck, ultra wealthy. for those two reasons i am ready to vote again for president obama. host: all right, independent caller on the line from west salem, wisconsin. caller: good morning. i believe since i have been voting or shortly after i have been voting i have been voting for the lesser of two or three
evils. but i think obama is not only the lesser of two evils, i say a present that he is actually deed that is actually accomplishing something in spite of the fact, cuestas not seem to be doing anything other than playing politics. -- actually accomplishing something in spite of the fact that congress does not seem to be doing anything other than playing politics. i have to say that from watching, these people seem to be racist. and what they are doing is nothing less than a hate crime and they are taking it out on the country for it and i think they should be investigated. if it is not a crime, i have been watching some shows on
history channel and the national geographic about the rise of hitler and his early years and i was surprised to find out that he receive the money from capitalists, industrialists from our country because they believed that what hitler was the win was the right way to go with the government before he started taking rights away from people and such. host: all right. we will move on to some other comments this morning. we will do this for about 24 minutes -- 20 more minutes. a twitter message -- here is a republican on the line fromj lineudah -- here is a republican on the line. caller: the previous caller, i have to state, when hitler comes
up, please hang up on them. there is no comparison. and i would just simply leave that point there. but regarding president obama, from a rational point of view, if ronald reagan were to run for office tomorrow, he would be considered a moderate, which is why i as a republican and a republican for obama. i put country before party. we always have games in d.c. well educated, but nonetheless, games. we have to get past this. if mr. romney winds, he will receive my support. -- if mr. romney wins, you will receive my support. only one person on the rise and i could never support would be newt gingrich. in my opinion, newt is a
political social pact. he plays toward the elements in our country that we hope to disperse, such as his phrases regarding a welfare president. despite the fact the majority of people on welfare are of european descent. the heart warming notion to bigots is that the face of welfare is one of color. now, racism in america is not based solely upon physical confinement. both a racist and the person who the vitriol is directed at our hurt. does anyone gets self-esteem
from the degradation of others? that is it. and it seems to be what is at play in my party. i want c-span to actually step up to the plate and offer lines for moderates. the republicans and not just fall under one blanket. this is the problem we got into with the tea party. a small minority of loud people who like to dress in costumes basically took over the political conversation in a parting. but he asks some of the same people -- how about giving up some of your social security. host: you had a lot of time -- but thank you for the idea of talking to so-called moderates. several stories this morning. "the wall street journal" lead items as romney builds momentum. the front page of "the washington times" this morning.
second term. a delaware. harold, democrat. caller: i want to pledge my support for the president because i think he deserves another four years. because of newt gingrich, the american people for gets what he did as speaker of the house. and then he is trying again for the presidency. so i think, go obama. you got my vote. host: andy, albuquerque, new mexico. caller: the reason why i think he does not deserve another one to get reelected -- sorry, i am coughing. the reason he does not deserve to get reelected is because, number one, he lost our aaa rating, printing more money,
timothy geithner, the tax cheat, eric holder -- he bows to foreign leaders and apologizes for the way the united states is and that drives me crazy. host: all that being said, who do you like? caller: i would like to vote for newt gingrich but i do not know if the public will go for him or not. host: you are going to go for him? caller: i would. if he were nominated, i would vote for him. host: sorry to cut you off. but you were done. bobby on the republican line from new orleans. you there? i think we lost bob. larry is in memphis, tennessee. caller: good morning. how're you doing? i think the president deserves a second chance because he tries to help the whole country and -- country, the rich and poor. he wants everybody to have health care. he is trying to bring all the jobs back.
the republicans paid corporation to leave here and president obama will pay corporations to bring the jobs back. he helps everybody, not just rich people. newt gingrich, he keeps on telling people he balance the budget along with president clinton. no republican ever balanced the budget. the balanced budget act of 1993 was passed without one republican vote. newt gingrich took over in 1994 and the balanced budget act was passed in 1993 so he is lying. host: in an interview with matt lauer is today the subject of iran also came up. this is what the president had to say. [video clip] >> we do not see evidence they have those intentions and capabilities right now. again, our goal is to resolve this issue diplomatically. we are not going to take any options off the table, though. obviously, any kind of additional military activity inside the gulf is disruptive
and has a big effect on us. it can have a big effect on oil prices. we still have troops in afghanistan, which borders iran, our preferred solution is diplomatic and we will keep pushing on that front but we will not take any options offer this table. host: by the way, more about iran. if you go back to "ville" today they have a story -- if you go back to "the hill" they have a story -- that was in "the hill" this
money -- this monday morning. the egypt story making news in recent weeks. egyptian dress saying that the americans being held mayor art to be tried. -- egypt is saying the americans being held there will be tried. these americans are gone to be tried, including sam lahood, son of the transportation secretary. new castle, pennsylvania. shirley, republican. caller: good morning.
i turn this on late so i have not heard a lot of the comments. but what i would like to say is that four years of mr. obama has certainly been enough. there has been so much going on under his leadership. all of the sneaky business with the health care, behind closed doors. they did not know what they were voting on. they just knew they needed to listen to nancy pelosi and get it done and then after it was done, let's go now and read what is in it. there have been some anythings that has gone on with that man that i simply do not trust him. and if he was given another four years, god only knows what would happen in this country. so, i hope people across this united states wakes up. and the thing about it is, when you are out talking to people -- he has to go, we are not voting for him. nobody is voting for an but they
keep saying he has 40%. i want to know where they are getting the polls. the way i am hearing it, he is done. that is my comments and i thank you for taking my call. host: here is an e-mail -- michigan. alice, democrats. caller: how are you today? host: doing well. how are you? caller: i am fine. i just want to let everybody know about that pipeline did we have a canadian pipeline that goes through michigan. when i was a child i lived down in kalamazoo. the kalamazoo river was full of sludge. they finally got it cleaned up
from the paper mills and now they have a canadian pipeline that goes through there. a few months ago they had a big break and barrels of oil went into the river. they had made a deal with canada that they did not have to pay for any cleanup or anything, so michigan was stuck with the cleanup. and the pipeline is broke and 14 times already. -- broken 14 times already now they are after mr. obama about the other pipeline. he wants to make sure it is safe enough and not one the waters of our state of art -- or our country. and from the day he swore he man, the republicans have been on his hind end like a bulldog and he has not been able to do anything, just like they did clinton.
obama is very intelligent and he is smart and he is working for our country and those republicans are a bunch of idiots. thank you very much. host: more to overseas policies. particularly the end of the iraq war. a piece here in "usa today" saying obama opting for a low- key event. a little bit more on the presidential campaign this morning. there is a lull before super tuesday in early march. now a race to keep up momentum.
juanita, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span again. i have been -- i voted for president obama. and i wish there had been more progress, especially with the employment part of it. but the republicans have not put up any candidate that i could support. newt gingrich, as a long time christian, i do not think he is morally fit to lead our country. as far as mitt romney goes -- here again, it is one set of rules for us, the rich, and another set of rules for the rest of the country. i love this country, he says, but my voice will not go out and put their lives on the line for this country so none of his five healthy sons served in the military. i am kind of surprised at the reaction to him in south carolina. we have lost a lot of young
people in iraq and afghanistan conflicts. i just see so much hypocrisy there. i do not think they have the interest of the country as a whole at heart. at least president obama, whatever mistakes he may have made, he did care something about the many who are not insured. host: doris, a democrat from chicago. what would you like to say? cahello, doors? i do not think we have doors. maybe we will try again. here is a twitter message -- back to facebook.
one more chance -- doors, are you there? caller: hello? i have two points. the first one is, yes, i think president obama deserves a second chance. not only for his supremacy in foreign policy matters but also his advocacy for the middle- class. and with his health care bills. the person who called about the gas prices -- they need to research that. for the first time since the 1940's, our number one export -- i know people know what exports are -- it is fuel. these are multinational corporations. they are not keeping the gas here. they are selling it overseas
because they can get a higher price. why do people think of that pipeline is going to the gulf? so that that could be shipped out because -- so they can get a higher price. they cannot get higher prices in america so they shifted overseas. and every time republicans are in charge, they attack the social safety net. under reagan, they started making us pay for social security. we never did that before. they increase the age from 65 t o 67. host: one other article before we start to wrap up here. of the federal page of "the washington post" points out that if the president is reelected, his appointment could alter the balance of power. talking about the courts. it would allow him to expand his
replacement of the republican majorities. some of the justices getting up in age. new orleans. last call. bobbie, republican. glad you made it and give caller: appreciated. i think president obama does not deserve another term. he did not deserve a first one. tragically he is probably going to get it because we have another rich boy put forward by the republicans in the form of mitt romney who is not going to be elected, so obama will get it, foregone conclusion. why he does not deserve it? he is a corporate wacky, a corporate shell.
walking around smirking in this condescending patronizing way. and he has also tried to steal the valor of really courageous band -- men with these seals the last year. we have seen this been a guy trying to steal and set himself up as some sort of tough, brave seal team member, which he is not. he is a sellout, too good look at ge, his buddy jeffrey immelt, helped him off shore jobs to china while pretending to help the middle class. no, he does not deserve a second term. host: thank you for all of your calls. we will continue to talk about the economy coming up next. as specifically u.s. manufacturing and how it is bearing these days. we will continue to take calls and will have about a 40-minute segment coming up right after this break. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
>> for resources on the presidential race, used c-span's campaign 2012 website. see what the candidates have said on issues important to you and read the latest from candidates, political reporters, and people like you from social media sites at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> this past week, house and senate lawmakers continue negotiations to extend the payroll tax cut for workers. they will continue their work on tuesday but the fourth public meeting. the cuts expire the end of the month and all sides agree it should be extended. the talks are focused on how to pay for it. >> i do not see fundamental --
fundamental does when the with the loss of a that the people get a ged it enhances their lives and the ability for them to get a job down the road. i did not hear a disagreement with that. i hear an excuse as to why not to do with or rather the fundamental philosophy of trying to rearm and people with an education so that when they go into the work force they have an additional tool. >> to link a social insurance -- program designed and 470-plus years functioning to provide financial support when you lose your job to a requirement that you have to be in this training, i think, first of all, will not work for some of the practical considerations. but second, i do not think it contradict the notion that the more education you have today but better off you will be in this economy. >> wants the rest of the meeting or the two others they held on the c-span library.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: at the table is gone paul, executive director for the american alliance for manufacturing. we see this headline in "usa today" that says manufacturing is a start of the of the jobs report that came out friday. and i are talking about 243,000 overall jobs. but give us a status report on u.s. manufacturing. guest: manufacturing has been a bright spot the last couple of years. in january, we created 50,000 manufacturing jobs. it is actually the highest number of manufacturing jobs we created any month since august of 1998. 13 years, unprecedented rate. overall in the last two years we created about 300,000 manufacturing jobs which stands in stark contrast to the last decade and the shedding of jobs we saw, millions of jobs.
the: let's break down 50,000. 50,000 added in january, as the guest just said. fabricated metal products, 11,000. machinery, another 11,000. motor vehicles and parts, another 8000. give us more detail on the types of jobs being created in manufacturing. guest: two things are going on. one is the automotive sector is very strong. we have seen strong indications from profits from ford, gm, chrysler -- you have seen hiring, more demands, increase market share. that means more jobs in the transportation sector. in tms of fabricated metals, consumers have more confidence now so they are going out and buying durable goods like washing machines and refrigerators, and that creates demand for things like fabricated metals. the weakness you still see is in construction-related
manufacturing. we know that has been lagging, and the construction industry in the titular, it shows up in the type of manufacturing products that goes into the construction industry. otherwise we have seen relatively good strength over the past two years. host: moving into the sex not -- next several months or years, where are we headed? guest: a couple of things working in our favor. one of the things is it does look like employment is picking up. but people will be more likely to buy things. it certainly helps the manufacturing sector. the center for automotive research forecast it will be about 150,000 or 160,000 created in manufacturing over the next three years. very positive. however, a couple of things we do not know. we did not know where it -- what the congress or president will do on tax breaks that will particularly benefit manufacturing. there was a plants and equipment deduction that was very useful and industry.
we do not know what will happen in china and how much growth there will be in china or how much china will try to export out of some kind of challenge. third, we do not know what will happen in europe and whether there will be some sort of resolution of the debt crisis in greece or something that approaches calamity like we saw in this country a couple of years ago. host: our guest is the executive director for the alliance for manufacturing. tellus about the alliance, and what do you represent? guest: it is pretty unique. a labor-management partnership. the united steelworkers union, which represents not only steel workers but also workers in the rubber, auto parts, glass, paper, even neutral -- nutrigrain bars that are in the greenroom. and also those the that have a collective bargaining arrangement with the steelworkers in the steel and rubber industries in particular.
host: the numbers are on the bottom of the screen. we will hear from the president in a minute on manufacturing. but we look forward to hear your calls on stock fall. papers, goes along with a big dramatic ad in the super bowl featuring clint eastwood. here he is, u.s.a. -- "usa today's" version. guest: the obama folks interpreted it as a campaign ad in a lot of ways, but obviously a lot of nuances to it. i think chrysler last year did this eminem ad, imported from detroit, about reviving the industry, and this is an extension. we are back on our feet, have taken a punch, and we can move forward. you have seen a lot of this from madison avenue. a focus on blue-collar work and manufacturing. because i think the politicians
understand and these companies understand that americans have a soft spot in their heart for manufacturing. it has been an important part of our past. they know we have suffered and kind of an underdog now and it wants to see us get back on our feet. host: before we get to the calls, here is the president from friday. [video clip] >> beyond preventing -- presenting a tax -- preventing a tax hike we need to do more to build an economy built to last. we need to stop giving tax breaks to companies to ship jobs overseas. give those tax breaks to companies who are investing in plants and equipment and hiring workers right here in the united states of america. in a lot of sense. to make sure our business is do not have to move overseas to find skilled workers, we need to invest in education. to make sure colleges affordable for every hardworking american. host: just a bit of the present. but scott paul, i want to pick up on the tax part. what you looking forward from the president and the hill on
taxes? guest: mccubbin of things would be very helpful if extended. one is an up-front deduction for plant and equipment purchases. that has really spurred a lot of innovation, upgrading, and purchasing in the manufacturing sector to make industry more competitive. it has been widely successful and it should be extended in some way. second, there is a deduction in the tax code for manufacturing activity in the united states. the president has proposed expanding dramatically. that would be incredibly useful to the manufacturing sector and in some ways, more useful than a corporate tax cut. a corporate tax cut, if you expend it out, a lot of the benefits would go to the financial services sector and not manufacturing. if you have a specific tax deduction for manufacturing activity and you are going to target that, it will be and in sharing incentive. and the president has talked about it for a few years, but it is also eliminating features in
the tax code that might cause joh shoring. it it would be particularly useful for the sector. host: we will hear from mitt romney in a couple of minutes but first bacall's. ron, democrat from hastings, new york. caller: thank you for your time. i heard the president of singapore over the weekend being interviewed and singapore is ranked as the number one place in the world to do business. i was struck by the fact that -- he was asked what he exhibited their success to, and his number one factor was the fact that they educate all of their children based on merit for free. his number two factor was infrastructure. now, the republicans have voted against improving the infrastructure and actually proposed cutting education. the president of singapore never mentioned corporate income taxes
or the tax -- capital gains rate was not on his lips. i would like to know your feelings. how would you read those two factors -- infrastructure and education versus corporate tax rates, which one is more important for bringing jobs back to america. host: thank you. guest: i think it is a good point. i would rank them right up there with tax changes. i would not underestimate the value of reforming education and also doing some serious infrastructure investment. let's talk about education first. we have an education system in this country built toward giving children a four-year college degree, and the testing regime is around that. for kids that want to get into vocational education and want to work in a manufacturing career, the system is being decimated. it is actually a shame. it puts us way behind where other industrialized countries are, like germany and japan, and
you hear employers talk about the challenges of finding kids with the right skills. i think the larger problem is our system is simply not built to provide a pool of talented workers, skilled machinists and welders, and factory technicians, especially for this 21st century manufacturing careers. the president has talked about that. he talked about it in a skills for the future program. but it needs more resources and it certainly has a lot of private sector cooperation. but it is something we need to dramatically alter. of infrastructure -- absolutely. we have a second or third-rate infrastructure. and if we rebuild our infrastructure -- that means at our ports, roads, railways -- not only are there substantial benefits to obviously construction workers but also to commuters for review -- reduce congestion and shorter drive times. but also for the mac -- manufacturing sectors.
it makes the manufacturing companies and logistics' much more globally competitive. in the american society of civil engineers gives civil engineersa d infrastructure and we need to be an a. host: minnesota. lyle, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the best example of what happened to american industry is if you study the boeing aircraft situation and the fiasco in trying to manufacture the 787 dream lineup, which they outsourced 7% -- 70% of work on the aircraft. the real crime is the person who has gotten so many accolades for ford, when he was ceo, he gave away the composite technology that the rest of the world had not -- either stolen
or had been given and japan got the majority of that. they were supposed to produce 35% of the aircraft. the first wing they build was faulty. the fuselage section, what they sent to the united states, over half of the fasteners were temporary and boeing had to tear them all down and rebuilding them. not only that, the japanese had been farming out the composite work to china and about three years ago china announced in the composite manufacturing magazine that by 2020 they would be building composite jetliners of 190 passenger capacity or larger for the world. mullaly signed the death warrant for our aircraft industry and you can witness all of this.
cnbc has a special one-hour program, i think they ever did three-time is, and if you are computer savvy you could probably go on line and bring it up either through cnbc or through boeing 787 dream liner, and it is just enough to make you cry. host: let us hear from your guest. guest: lyle has some good points. one is on it is one of the reasons why companies have looked at in sourcing, which is bringing production closer to home, notwithstanding your criticism of the gentleman, but ford has announced it is bringing production of the four diffusion from mexico to the united states. that's an example of insourcing.
president had an event recently to highlight companies that have been doing this in the united states. regarding technology transfer, your comment was true. you see multinational companies like boeing and general electric willingness to give away some of this technology to get potential market share and in larger markets like china. the challenge with that is ultimately if that means production jobs overseas and innovation jobs will go overseas and we will be competing against that technology that we have been transferring to japan or china. companies that stand up to would find themselves locked out of the market. one example, general motors refused to make its chevy volt battery in china. and so, the chinese authorities excluded the chevrolet volt for a list of cars that was
eligible for a tax credit consumers could get if they bought the vehicle. that penalized general motors. china is not supposed to do this. we are supposed to stand up to china, but the fact of the matter is of many companies the problems are too great. host: our guest is the founder of the alliance for american manufacturing, launched in april of 2007. our guest has been a lobbyist for the industrial union council, a lobbyist for the afl- cio, and served on several staffs over the years. scott paul continues to take calls after this clip featuring mitt romney. he will talk about china. let's hear what the candidate says. >> i must admit i took some
pleasure in the fact he's talking about cracking down on time that even as he has not done so. he has had occasion to label time as a currency manipulator, which will allow him to apply tariffs to chinese products where they have manipulated currencies. still american jobs or back into our computers or stolen our intellectual property, patents, designs. even as he talked about cracking down on china, he has left the door wide open for them to what across our country and steal our jobs and kill our businesses. host: what does cracking down on china mean to you and what is realistic in washington? guest: it's a good question. many people complain about china's unfair trade practices. when it comes to getting them to stop, that is where the rubber meets the road. mitt romney on this is right. we have not been nearly tough enough in dealing with china on currency.
a 30-second primer for your viewers, currency manipulation is where one country intervenes in a way to reduce the value of its currency in order to gain market share or some sort of unfair advantage. it is a free-market that determines the level of the exchange rate in china, then it would be much tighter. it would be 25% or 40% higher than it is now. that serves as a defect of export subsidy costs for products coming from china to the u.s.. it serves as a tax on our goods going to china. it makes them far less competitive. mitt romney is right to complain. the president has had six opportunities to name china as a currency manipulator, which would trigger negotiations aimed at ending the practice. the president has refused to do that. the senate has passed a bill in zero bombing bipartisan margin, one of the few times democrats
and republicans came together last year to pass something. it would happen in the house of representatives that speaker, john boehner would let the bill, up. what it would mean practically its china would face penalties if it didn't end manipulating its currency and. but they kept dumping products on to our market. what usually happens is defending country would end the practice because they also calls ultimately want access to america's consumers. even though we are 5% of america's population, we have an outside consumer role to play. we buy a lot of stuff. if we are afraid to use that based on some sort of philosophy rather than looking at the facts on the ground. as a result, we have a $272 billion trade step assist with china. that means we've lost market share and wealth and our gdp is lower than it should be. -- we have a $272 billion trade
deficit with china. host: next call, southern pines, north carolina, a republican, norman. caller: good morning. thanks for letting me talk. our biggest reason for the national debt is free trade. our manufacturers have to pay 35% of the profits to the government. one country gets away with nothing. this gives the other countries of 35% advantage over u.s. companies. makos foreign country products cost the same as the ones built in the united states -- make the foreign country products cost the same. this would create jobs and income from these workers. guest: free-trade is a double- edged sword. we certainly want access to markets overseas to sell our products. it is important to grow our
exports. i am in favor of initiatives that allow us to open markets overseas. that is important for our growth. but i think our trade policy has definitely not looked enough at imports coming in and the impact they have all workers and on industry. and the challenge -- and i think norman touches on this a little, is that if you lose a job in manufacturing, and has a ripple effect throughout the entire community. it is fair to say that if you attract an automobile assembly plant to your home town, you will get a hospital, is cool, and a walmart. but if you attract a walmart to your home town, it does not necessarily follow that a factory will come behind. that is the importance of manufacturing to our economy. our trade policy? does not been focused on that. it needs to be much more results oriented. it needs to look can how we are performing against other
countries. we need to be much more aggressive about trade enforcement. the president has talked about this and has adjudicated cases very fairly that have been brought from the private sector. but this is like putting fingers in the dam. what we need is comrades a policy to lower the trade deficit and restore american greatness and that's through production. that is what a manufacturing policy has to be about. host: in the interview the president did leading up to the super bowl yesterday, if we pulled out a small section where the president talked about that part of the economy. >> recreated the most jobs since 2005, the most manufacturing jobs since 1990. but we are not finished. we not only have to boost american manufacturing so that not just the automobile industry but all american manufacturing is building again and selling overseas. host: "usa today breaks down a bit further. 50,000 jobs created in
manufacturing in january. they say it's the area of durable goods like cars and metals and car parts, 7.4 million. 44,000 was the change in january. non-durable goods, that is 6000. makes me want to ask more about the auto industry. here's a headline in the wall street journal. guest: it was emergency room care. you never want to go to the emergency room. i would not say more vicious happen, because it was in response to a crisis. the way in which it was managed, it was not perfect.
i'm not sure if the president did a perfect job on the rescue plan, but they constructed it in such a way to allow it to succeed. there are a lot of myths about what the risk you did and did not do. the autoworkers, the unionized workers, took a tremendous cut. did they get a stake in the company's? they did, but it will make the company's more profitable. that is important for callers to understand. but they also took a big hair cut in terms of the wages and they took on more responsibility for administering the benefits to retirees. those were major concessions the automakers made -- although workers made. there were also plant closures in return. so there was a downsizing of the industry. there was a dramatic downsizing in terms of the car dealerships and retail outlets. all this was very controversial. but at the end of the day when
you look at chrysler, ford, and gm and look at the fact that consumers have better choices for automobiles across the board, the industry agreeing to a 54.5 mpg standard together with the auto workers and with the administration, which is an achievement in and of itself, and uc profitable companies and the government will be able to sell its stake in gm down the road at perhaps a washed to taxpayers, and you have to say if it's going to grow jobs in the future, it is absolutely worth it. unlike financial institutions, car companies are making real things and employer real people and things that people buy around the world. that adds to the economy. host: a viewer on twitter is a little confused about this. here's what the viewer says --
guest: i think it's important to understand that i don't want to see the government running a factory. the u.s. government should not be running factories. that is not the right kind of industrial policy. but every successful industrial economy has public policy that supports it. when you look at germany, germany has over 20% of its economy in manufacturing today. it has been able to kind of withstand a lot of the global recessionary thing because it makes a lot of things. the percentage of our economy in manufacturing is under 12%. it is stable now, but it had been drinking a long time. germany is not a low-cost place. german manufacturing workers $45 an hour or so.
germany has a national health- care plan and very strong unions. in germany the difference is all the political parties say that we value manufacturing and want to keep manufacturing jobs and have an education and training program to prepare young people for these careers and make our capital more patience so we are only worried about long-term growth. there are government policies that produced an ecology like that, which allows manufacturing enterprise. what we have experienced the last two decades has been abject failure. that is free trade, tax cuts, and allows a fair attitude. laissez fair ay attitude. host: you are on the line with
scott paul. me littlelease give bealet time because i have a lot to say, because i listened to c- span. 93% corporate tax rate after the war because we had to pay for the bouwars. when j.f.k. came in, there was a big a people from the republicans especially that tax rates had to come down and they did somewhat. but they have been on this crazy thing about tax cuts. when you consider that in 1959 the united steelworkers strike, i was a steelworker not then, and i follow all this stuff, there was clamor for 3.5% wage increase over the contract. i don't think that is too much. we need unions to represent
people because people are the ones that create wealth. companies do not create wealth. they move wealth around. what we've seen in the recent past is special in the last 12 years is that wealth has been moved to a stock. over 2 billion people. with that is good for them in the long run and very bad for us in the long run. in the media, people suffer here. let's make another comparison. when this economy was going down to hell, interest rates here for credit cards especially was getting up to 27%. what that proves is people are not paying their debts and also that people manipulate money, they are getting greedier and greedier. host: let's hear from our guest. guest: we have seen long-term
trends that made it very difficult for manufacturing to be competitive. taxes are a piece of it, but i come at it from a different approach. i don't think it is necessarily the corporate tax rate. there have been well-publicized cases of companies that are paying a very low effective corporate tax rate. a larger issue if it is the fact that our manufacturers have to compete against 154 other company that have a value added tax system and one that gets the rebates for their exports. you have no tax advantage in the u.s. if you are exporting products. that's what you want to do if you are successful economy. it helps generate income in the u.s. and helps balance your trade account and all sorts of positive things. but we have a tax system that has no benefit for exports expand has a lot of incentives for offshoring. until we figure out how to reconstruct that -- and that's
much simpler than giving a tax incentive, then we have to make it another way. host: cape coral, florida, frank, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call, good morning. i look at this in a simple way. i go back to the day when ross perot was debating bill clinton and george bush for the presidential nomination. ross perot at that time, i'm guessing that was 20 years ago or so, at that time -- i come from an engineering background -- we were very rich country, all of our shelves and stores across america filled with american goods which no longer are. people able to maintain their homes and so on. the point is ross perot said that if we demolish or destroy their trade agreements, we will
have all of our jobs leaving the country. then clinton came in and for the next eight years free trade. obama is here now and the republicans and democrats disagree on something. pre more free trade agreements. -- three more. we cannot expect to compete with people that make 50 cents an hour or $2 an hour. we have a great -- and i'm insulted when president obama gets up and says we have to educate our people better to take on more advanced jobs. we had educated people. we were there. we had a rich country. we had research and development. host: thank you. guest: first, you brought up a good point about nafta.
i was a critic of that when it was passed in 1993. the challenge is you look at what it promised and what it produced. it promised to reduce illegal immigration. it promised to create more jobs on both sides of the border and to raise the wages of mexican workers so they could buy more american products. it promised more political stability. and if you look at the reality in mexico, it is clear and of that has happened. in fact, not only in the united states seeing a lot of production shifting to china now, as mexico. the race to the bottom has a long way to go. even insanity or seeing jobs moved from the coast up to farther inland in china and other low-cost countries like vietnam. a smarter way to do it is not to have trade agreements that are based on a philosophy in free- trade but to have been based on results.
trade is about to be about an even trade and leveling the playing field and allowing both sides to compete fairly. that really has not been the case. if congress and the president wanted to spend time to do something productive, they would focus much more time than they have on-site repair that's where our biggest trade deficit is. it's about 80% of our overall trade deficit in manufactured goods. instead of posing on smaller free trade agreements, we have to really fundamentally unjust this equation. ultimately, it's also a strategic competitive. do we want to know so much money and having so much of our technology transferred to this country where we don't know their intentions into north and 15 years -- in ten or 15 years? host: the web site is
americanmanufacturing.org. guest: at the website they will find a host of information. numerous reports. the most recent is auto parts trade with china, which is a key sector. there's also an information about manufacturing statistics on every state in the country and it also breaks down to a congressional district level for trade with china and jobs that have been impacted by trade with china. again, we don't come at this from a partisan perspective. we have industry voices, labor voices, democrats and republicans able to or with us. we definitely have a point of view, which is pro- manufacturing. it's hard to label us as either conservative or progressive, because we don't look at manufacturing as a partisan issue. host: there is a tweet -- guest: the organization is pretty unique in washington. we are funded through a
collective bargaining arrangement between the steelworkers union and some of its participating employers. united states steel, which has been around more than a hundred years, shod be a familiar name. arcellor mettal, which is a large company that has worked in places like cleveland. those are just two of them. we are not a dues-seeking organization. we do a lot of town hall meetings with small and midsize manufacturers at no cost to them. we have done over 35 of these meetings around the country. we have been able to meet literally hundreds and thousands of workers at small and mid- sized manufacturers to hear their points of view about what needs to be done to strengthen america. host: next call from texas,
stephen, a republican, welcome. caller: the morning, gentlemen. i appreciate your usa approach, something we have needed a long time. my question and a statement, i guess, in 1999 the cia director under clinton was interviewed ganz had six lawyers on stage with him and taking everything he said apart. -- interviewed him. he said we can make a car 60 miles at gas eiks told himhe sh don't do that because we will lose out on money.
if congress people lost their paychecks over this, we would not have these desks. guest: in terms of the automotive piece of this, i think many people probably find it ironic that a decade ago the major car companies try to kill the electric car. there was even a documentary about it. today they are rushing to embrace it. you seen a lot of investments in all-electric vehicles, renewable fuel vehicles, and different kinds of fuel cells. i would quickly add that this is a great example of a public- private partnership where both administrations, starting with the bush administration, continued by the obama administration, have invested in advanced batteries, research, and other sorts of of loans and grants for companies to explore advanced technologies. it would make a very
competitive in this very important market for years to come. regarding made in america, i think a lot of people are waking up and saying they wants to see a country that makes things again, they want to see those things stopped on the shelves. you seen abc news running a series of more than a year now on how americans can buy american. you saw that even in president clinton's book about how to grow jobs. there were five or six suggestions on buy america, which was shocking to me because he had very neo-liberal policies in his administration. it was terrific to see. you seen a lot of companies embracing this. chrysler in detroit and general electric talking about jobs in kentucky. there's been a new-found interest in made in america. we have seen a political response to that and we've seen it on the campaign trail and in the super bowl. now we need to do something.
host: we have buffalo, new york. that is a big manufacturing town in store. herb is a democrat. caller: >> good morning. let's go back to your comment that china manipulates their currencies and therefore makes their exports cheaper. can wessume that's true are interested in the united states in increasing our exports and helping our economy. therefore, my question is, why don't we in the united states manipulate our currency as you have charged china does? there must be a downside because we don't do that. what is the downside? guest: answer the question. without getting deep into the monetary policy, let me explain it this way. every day the chinese central bank intervenes to buy dollars and sell its own currency in order to maintain a certain
level or within a certain band ofa value of the yuan to the dollar. you cannot go out and binduy yuan. it's hard as a private american citizen to do that. it's not really a globally traded currency right now. it's the classic definition of currency manipulation because it byalmost solely consocontrolled what the central bank in china does. every country is entitled to its own monetary policy. the u.s. has had what we call a strong dollar policy since the clinton administration, where we have -- that boosts the power of consumers in the u.s. and makes it better for you when you are trying to get a hotel room in paris or something like that, because there's a favorable exchange rates.
but it hurts our manufacturers. unless we have a dollar that is valued in a real way, we will get a slight competitive disadvantage. we have seen the dollar declined against a basket of currencies slightly. that obviously improves the fortunes of the united states. we have seen administrations going back to the nixon administration and the gold standard and getting the u.s. off the gold standard and the rig in innovation with the accords to make our dollar more competitive, intervening debate and done it in a way where the dollar if pin still be traded on the open market. -- in a way that the dollar can still be traded on the open market. we have not held the chinatown yet. host: richard, independent caller. caller: thanks for taking my
call. i have an anecdote and also -- the antidote is this. i was having chinese food the other day. at the end of the meal and you get the fortune cookie. i looked down on the package and said made in the usa. i said, what irony. anyway, the subject i want to get the gentlemen's opinion on, i was in business from 1960 to 1990, 30 years. if ever i was able to get a job, contract a job big enough that i needed 100 people to do this job and i was able to get that hundred people, about eight of
them did not show up. that would be a%. -- 8%. that is what the unemployment rate is about now. my question is, i was always able to get the job done. that little bit of difference was not enough to keep me from getting the job done, pretty much on schedule. what i'm wondering is, what in the world are we doing in this country with 8% unemployment and yet things -- and there's no anarchy? there's a lot of rumbling of that. but someone is doing something to keep this thing rolling. somebody's making money. where is it? host: your final thoughts from our guest. guest: >> talk about our economic challenges would probably take an hour. it's true that the basic unemployment rate is 8.3%, if you add on to that people that have given up looking for jobs,
working in jobs part-time but they want to be full time, the number is near 70% or 18%, which is pretty significant. and then you add to that a dampening effect on wages for the last generation, and you have a lot across wealth that is not an going to the american people. units in an uprising on the right with the tea party, very dissatisfied with the fiscal policy. you've seen it all left with occupy wall street and all those efforts around the country. there's an incredible amount of dissatisfaction that's been going on the last couple of elections, in 2008 and 2010. we will see it again this fall. until republicans and democrats both understand people want washington to focus on our economy and our jobs, we will continue to see this frustration and aggravation. i think it is something that smart political people should pay attention to, but more
important, they should do something about. host: scott paul, executive director of the american alliance for manufacturing. the americanmanufacturing.org is the web site. thanks for your time this morning and your insight. guest: thank you. host: we will take a short break. coming up, a discussion on the obama administration decision requiring church-affiliated employers to cover birth control. lots of talk about that. we will take your calls as well with our guest. we will get ready for that. and we will hear from c-span radio. >> is an international news this morning. susan rice, u.s. ambassador to the united nations in remarks earlier on cbs, is urging egypt release 90 americans now facing trial on criminal charges of encouraging unrest in the country. she added that the u.s. citizens have been working to help build
a more democratic society and have done an absolutely nothing wrong. her statement comes in the wake of secretary of state clinton's warning over the beacon that egypt could face a cutoff of u.s. financial aid because of the problem. one of the americans being held is the son of the transportation secretary ray lahood. more from u.s. ambassador rice on the unrest in syria, responding to a vetos by china and russia on the u.n. security council measure aimed at stopping the crisis, ambassador price says stein and russia are running the risk of suffering the same sort of international isolation as the syrian president's bashar al-assad. she thinks russia and its china will come to regret their votes. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> an america where freedom is made real for all, without regard to race or belief or economic condition. [applause]
i mean a new america which reflects the ancient idea that men can solve their differences by killing each other. [applause] >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our web site c-span.org/ thecontenders. >> the left offer is one solution to the problems which confront us. they tell us again and again that we should spend our way out of trouble and spend our way into a better tomorrow.
>> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> ed whelan is our guest. president of the ethics and policy center. guest: good morning. host: the health and human services department recently put out something that some are calling the contraception mandate. before we start, we have that done a synopsis of what the new rule is, based on some media reports. we will take a look get the screen. if this is they hhs final rule on private insurance plans and contraceptives. this would require private insurance plans to cover contraceptive services with contraceptive services--
our guest is ed whelan the ethics and policy center. give us your take on this. guest: it is not simply contraceptives. contraceptives -- one year to adopt a lot is a very narrow exemption and is not available to everyone. third, the categorical of faith institutions that would be exempt is likewise extremely narrow. diocese than as a
significant number of non- catholic employees would probably not be exempt under this. the $2,000 fine, the base line for the first year and later growing, for an institution like notre dame with 5000 employees, that's a $10 million annual fine. host: how did this come about? guest: >> this is about the obamacare health care legislation enacted in 2010. hhs is implementing an open- ended provision of that legislation and defining what preventive services has to be required generally by employers and it is determined that all contraceptives including those that have a secondary effect need to be provided at no cost to enrollees. host: the phone numbers on the screen for our guest, ed whelan of the ethics and public policy center, as we look at the
contraceptive mandate. republicans, democrats, and independents, we welcome your calls in a couple minutes after little more background. ed whelan is the president of his organization. if you want to read and learn more about their position on things, you can go to their web site. "usa today" has a couple of editorial pieces.
guest: i think that is dead on. imagine that you have a national school lunch program which all schools are required to participate even for example jewish schools. as part of the program the government says we will require all schools participating in the program to make pork available for free to their students and because we did it is a wonder meat. violation of religious freedom would be obvious there and the same principle applies. it is a clear-cut violation of the religious freedom restoration act, a law enacted in 1993. it is a deliberate and willful violation of that act by this administration. host: there's a little bit from the white house press secretary jay carney on all this. >> let's be clear.
in some of the commentary, misstatements about what it does. no individual people required to use or prescribe contraception. this rule does not force anyone with a religious objections such as a catholic doctor to prescribe or provide contraception. merely requires insurance companies provide coverage for contraceptives to patients who want them, which is a recommendation of the nonpartisan institute of medicine. doctors prescribe contraception for medical and health reasons, including helping to reduce the risk of some cancers. it is also a important to note, because this has not been clear in some of the commentary, the policy maintains the religious employee exemption. tickets are not required. they are exempt. other houses of worship are not required. they are exempt from covering contraception. host: this is the second part of
the editorial, written by kathleen sebelius. guest: that is an extremely narrow exemption. there's been wordplay on the part of the administration. hospitals, universities, social service agencies, clearly not covered. what's important to understand is there is no reason after conscripts employers who have religious objections into this government program to provide contraception. there are all sorts of means the
government provides contraception. it has chosen the means that are among the most restrictive of religious liberty and cannot possibly justified it. the white house spokesman says no individual is required to use contraceptives. my example occurred pork and jewish students, they're not required to take it. you are using and abusing the religious institutions in a way that undercuts its police and the transmission of its police. host: barbara, independence from philadelphia, on with ed whelan good morning. . caller: good morning. with all due respect, i think this attitude is so 16th century. my goodness, the policies that the republicans, especially that
want to reduce all kinds of aid for children that are born into a world where a woman cannot afford it and they don't want to help in that regard, and then here we are trying to help on the other end, ok, let's try and prevent unwanted births. so i just don't agree with your attitude. it is so sad. guest: the attitude that is more typical of the 16th century is the one that is so hostile to religious liberty and is unwilling to accommodate the role that religious believers and religious institutions are entitled to have. second, there are plenty of ways the government can pursue its contraceptive goals. the question is whether you can construct objecting religious
believers to be used as part of that. there's no reason to have to do that. i think is the question oppose the attitude that the 16th century-- the questioner's attitude that is 16th century. caller: many pro-choice advocates are using arguments having to do with the fact that it is a women's health issues. in my opinion, is not. it is just a question of who is going to pay for it. k think that it's wrong to as church-affiliated institutions to pay for it. there's no question about the fact that people who worked for religious-affiliated institutions can see these services. it's just a question of whether or not the church will be mandated to pay for it. i think that there are obviously going to be other options. there could be assistance for
people who want these services and they could receive them for free or have some type of subsidy. but it is a gross infringement. the other argument that people give is there's a huge percentage of catholic families, catholic women who practice birth control. but that is choice. people on the left championed choice. the catholic church is entitled to a choice as well. that sums it up. i do agree with peggy this morning when she says "i believe the administration has awakened a sleeping giant and they will hear the voice of the catholic church." thanks for taking my call. guest: i agree with the caller. i think this action is so aggressive that it has awakened a sleeping giant. the caller is right to say that this is in large part a question of forcing catholic institutions
to pay and to be the means. also is forcing them to carry a certain message and that is additionally offensive. i largely agree with the caller's comments. host: this up was in reference to an article published this past saturday in the wall street journal. "a battle the president can't win." you can read more that on the web. the next call from waldorf, maryland, leon, a democrat. good morning. caller: the c-span would even talkingeone on there opposite of what the statement was from the white house. he keeps running off at the mouth about the pork and the jewish people. that is nothing. what was read has nothing to do with that. it's appalling that you would
have him on the show. guest: i was trying to abstract principle from the particular circumstance. of course i'm not saying that this hhs mandate has anything to do with pork. i was illustrating something that would show the principle for those not able to recognize it here. to be clear, the mandate does not compel jewish schools to provide pork. host: does congress have a role in this from this point forward? guest: sure. congress can say this is clearly an unlawful action. there's already been a bill introduced by senator rubio could do that. congress can require explanations by the administration, can work to defund hhs and find other ways of penalizing the administration. once again, traveling religious
liberties. this is a pattern with this administration. we saw it in their supreme court cases term where the administration and even justice elena kagan called an amazing argument against religious liberty. we have seen this in the in eligibility of a catholic institution to engage -- to apply for funding for anti- trafficking because of that institution posing positions. we have seen its in the administration's failure to defendant defense of marriage act. host: rubio bush is back on the health mandate.
christ, the gregorian calendar established by pope gregory, how is it that we don't have religious freedom in america now? understandnot sure i the caller's point. if he wants to use his own calendar, no one is stopping him. it may be difficult for him to communicate with that. we have all sorts of place names named after religious figures. that's part and parcel of our religious heritage. that does not involve requiring anyone to act against his religious faith. the caller has a religious objection to referring to the year we are in as 2012. he can call it whatever he wants. there's no compariso to the contraceptive issue.
laura is on a line. caller: my first point is when obama was running, the archbishops did not step up and tell catholics then to not vote this pro-choice person in. 55% of catholics voted for this man knowing his agenda is aligned with planned parenthood. so that is the first point. second, kathleen sebelius, the person who is helping obama enact this is catholic. so these bishops and others need to have enough courage to excommunicates any politician, any person in authority that makes policies against their faith to stop calling themselves catholics. they are not catholics. they are basically just saying
we don't care about your faith. the free exercise of religion is part of our constitution. this man, mr. obama, is opposed being a constitutional historian. he is telling people to go against their faith. host: some strong words. guest: yes, and i want to go to how the catholic church are to conduct itself. that is something individuals can have views on. it's not a matter of public policy and government ought to stay out of those questions. i think the caller's comments reflect the frustration that many catholics have. again, difficult issues on which i will not opine on how catholic bishops and other figures did with prominent dissenters in public life who don't follow their fate. hhs secretary kathleen sebelius had a long-running battle with
claimed that struck the right balance. the first amendment strikes a very different balance. the religious freedom rest teresa act strikes unbalance. secretary kathleen sebelius is engaged in a process of diversion where she is calling attention to what is not being done. -- the religious freedom act strikes a different balance. the administration is compelling objecting religious employers to provide contraception and abortive . abortive it shows that the administration is not respecting one of the existing constitutional protections. florida on ate's line, a democrat. caller: thank you, c-span. i have a couple of quick points.
catholic organizations should stop getting federal money, in that case would be able to make their own decisions and then they would not back to worry about federal money and could make their own decisions, give the money back. that would be one way. and i hear a lot of republicans say women cannot make their own choices, for some reason. i don't know how less government antiquate choice goes together. can you explain that to me? last, i am glad the catholic church is still a viable organization that reaches into the community and they can get together. i wish they would get together on some of their own in-house abuses. and how come we have not seen the catholic church have a push like that to maybe stop some of the abuses that have happened insider on?
-- their own? guest: the first point about the federal money, this mandates applies to all employers whether or not they receive federal money. there's nothing about the receipt of federal money that affects this. more important, when you talk about catholic hospitals and other social-service agencies, in many cases the federal government has found they are the most effective providers of service, often serving neglected and rural communities. it's not as though catholic communities exist in order to be in the federal coffers. the federal government has recognized they are the best providers of these services. in terms of less government, the broader issue is this mandate is part of a broader health care plan, obamacare, corsica. -- coersive.
will see it in the coming years with all sorts of rationing decisions. what congress and the president did not do was to pursue a sensible alternative method of health care reform that would empower consumers and tap the market, with genuine alternatives. the catholic church has made extraordinary measures to address some of the incredibly ugly things that occurred in the past decades. for the caller not to acknowledge that is unfortunate. host: 7 from north carolina, an independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. there's 28 states that already have this mandate. sec and, this is part of romneycare. he mandated exact same pink. the republicans are really typical on this. host: a twitter message points
out that number 28 as well. this caller points out that 28 states already have that. is that true? guest: i have not been able to research that myself. at the white house talking point. these states are not subject to religious freedom restoration act. the fact that some states might have violated religious liberty, that's no excuse for the federal government to do so. beyond that, there are all sorts of ways that employers have religious objections could avoid being subject to an the state mandates. a good self-insure -- they could self-insure. host: there's a second party that tweet --
guest: i am pleased to take support from any callers out there. we have a broad base of support, all sorts of generous donors who recognize the important work we have been doing over the years. host: farmington, new hampshire. cathy, a republican. good morning. -- hacky. caller: i am a self-employed and a catholic. how does this affect me in my business? will i be able to get an exemption? or the fact that i am not a religious institution? i appreciate you saying how this is trampling upon the constitution and is it not trampling on me in deciding what type of insurance on to provide for my employees? guest: the that is a great question.
employers with less than 30 employees are not subject to the mandate. employers have objections whether or not they are part of religious institutions. it can be expensive to litigate. there are institutions out there challenging the mandate that will help employers and other individuals who face violations of their religious liberties. we need to recognize religious liberty is something believers have apart from church institutions. host: angola, indiana, john is a democrat. caller: can employers opt out if they pay a penalty?
he spoke of the market solutions to obamacare. i do not see the market caring about the 50 million people who do not have insurance in this country. guest: 1 cannot opt out by paying the penalty. one can anchor -- incur a penalty per employee. for notre dame, that would be $10 million a year. you can look at the great religious freedom cases of this country, it has never been held that you can void defining of religious violation that way. in terms of market solution,
there are uninsured and ways that more of market-based reforms can handle it. there is literature out there that explore these. a centralized solution presents all sorts of problems. there are much better ways to insure adequate health care for all americans. host: the report in 2008, about half of all pregnancies in the united states were unplanned. the report when the use of birth control went up, the rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion fell. guest: i think that is irrelevant to the discussion.
there are all sorts of ways to provide contraceptive services without forcing employers to do it. the title tim program provides services to the poor. there is no reason to violate the religious liberty of individuals who do not want to be part of this hoss. host: william is in pennsylvania. caller: why does no one speaks of personal responsibility? you have people who make choices, whether it be to go to school or get a job or slack off for the government to give them welfare. is the same thing with abortion. people need to think of that prior to the act, self-
responsibility. if you are going to engage in that activity, there is a chance you will get pregnant. people need to take responsibility before the act and then a lot of the problem would go away. guest: 0 i agree that more responsibility would be a solution to a lot of problems, including one the caller identified. host: are you against the health care affordability act? guest: i gather that as part of the formal name of obamacare. i believe it is terrible legislation. there are some folks who supported that act to are outraged by the mandate. as someone who opposed the act, unless -- i am less surprised than they are. even those who support the act
see this as an unjustifiable incursion on religious liberty. host: here is one of the other headlines this morning. "catholics and other faiths to push back." don is a republican. caller: a couple questions or comments. the first one is, they are going under the guise of religion. i would like to know where in the bible it tells the we're supposed to use contraceptives or not to use contraceptives. the other thing i would say and need a comment on is the fact that once they are conceived and
kill them kids, that is the one they should be looking at, not whether they are trying to prevent them or not. guest: i missed the beginning of his first question. in terms of where the bible is on contraception, that is not something i am competent to answer nor is it something the government should be asking themselves. people have all sorts of religious beliefs. it is not the government's job to decide if there bruited in the bible or some other literature. there is a tradition within christianity there was universal until 1930 recognizing that contraception was incompatible with norms of sexual morality. that tradition has splintered in recent decades. the point is that under our
constitution and under the religious freedom restoration act, sincere believers are entitled to their own views and practices. host: let's go to new jersey, connie is a democrat. caller: i think he has an agenda. i am a catholic myself. many states have the law against sharia law. what is the difference between sharia law and the catholic doctrine? i think it is really very bad.
guest: i think she is objecting to something the previous caller said. i am not sure what that is. the catholic church is not trying to impose its own views on anyone else. it is trying to preserve the ability of its adherents to live out their beliefs. sharia law is worlds apart from what we have here. what the administration is doing by imposing its own secular view has much more in common with what i think the caller means by sharia law.
er isafraid the comment not familiar with the freedom of religion restoration act. the tradition is implemented in the restoration act. the courts have long recognized the ability to participate or abstain is protected by religious liberty. there is the ability by individual employers and institutions run by people trying to live out their lives of faith, it is the ability of those people to be faithful to the air -- their religious beliefs. host: arlington, virginia, sean on the independents' line.
guest: you say you do not want to impose your beliefs on someone. people may work for a catholic institution. you are denying those people. it is not about forcing birth control. it is about keeping the option open to those who want it. you are putting this emphasis on abortion and birth control, but where are these people when the children are born? how many children have catholics that you know adopted and taken off the streets? if the catholic church is still up in arms about this issue, where was all of the outrage when the priests were diddling
little boys? employee of a catholic institution that wants contraceptive services, the government has all sorts of ways making sure they get those directly. it is a simple matter. you do not need to constrict the objecting religious employer to get it done. there are catholic adoption agencies that have done an extraordinary job of matching kids with parents. unfortunately in recent years in the name of diversity, many have been forced to violate their consciences in the way they operate so they have not been as effective in placing babies with adoptive parents. the third point, i addressed before.
when it happens in public schools, no one objects to public schools. it is horrible some of the things that happened. i am grateful the church in recent years has taken strong measures to correct that. that has nothing to do with this issue. host: john is in florida. caller: the government is laying the groundwork for more intense persecution of christianity. we have a very pro-muslim administration. host: what makes you say that? caller: christianity is being attacked on all fronts nowadays. they have obviously taken a very pro-muslim stance if you listen to some of the things that obama
says. guest: i think the caller is right that there is a broader pattern of hostility to traditional religious beliefs, traditional christian and jewish beliefs. you do see a heightened sensitivity to make sure one does not offend muslims, but i do not agree women. -muslim administration -- but i do not agree that we have a pro- muslim administration. caller: let me make this statement. host: what is your name. caller: christa. i think he is reaching too far like the komen institute.
it is going to backfire if you keep pushing the far-right agenda. we all know it. if they do not want to offer contraceptives, that is fine. do not take the federal government subsidies. the federal government is giving you money to help you support offering contraceptives. guest: the caller misunderstands the nature of the mandate. it has nothing to do with receiving federal subsidies. whether or not receive subsidies, the employer is subject to the mandate. this applies to a full range of religious institutions. the exemption is extremely narrow. it would cover very few.
this is a clear-cut violation of the religious freedom restoration act. i have consulted with experts on the question. no one has called into question at all. it is a shameful action by the administration. it should be rescinded. it should be supported by all americans who care about religious liberty whether or not they agree with the substance of the particular issue because everyone's religious liberty is at stake. host: our guest has been ed whelan, the president of the ethics and public policy center. we're going to take a short time out and then round out this monday edition of the "washington journal" with a look at children's health insurance and where the s-chip program
might be going. >> cnn is reporting the united states is closing the embassy in syria and pulling out all the diplomats. the story went on to say that 17 staff members have already been removed from the country. the report says the move does not mean that washington is breaking diplomatic relations with syria but does signal serious concerns over violence in the country. president obama says the u.s. has a very good estimate of when iran could complete work on a nuclear weapon but that there are still many unanswered questions, including who in the country is making the decisions. he went on to say the u.s. has preparationing and for combating the nuclear program. the president's 91-year-old
step-grandmother suffered bruises and shock when she was in an automobile accident. he referred to her as "granny" in his memoirs. >> tonight, from the consumer electronics show on developments in communications, consumer technology. they will discuss voice commands, internet integration, and increase in car safety. >> for more resources in the presidential race, use the website to watch videos on the campaign trail, see what the
candidates have said on issues important to you, and read the latest from social media websites. >> "washington journal" continues. host: every monday, we do a feature segment to put a spotlight on the federal program with a special focus on its mission, participants, and how much it costs. today's segment will focus on children's health insurance at the state level. our guest to talk about the s- chip program is samantha artiga with the kaiser family foundation. how long has this program been around? guest: the program was enacted in 1997. it was designed as a bipartisan
piece of legislation to fill the growing gap for children whose families earn too much to qualify for medicaid but their parents did not have access to or cannot afford private coverage for them. all states expanded coverage after chip was enacted. many children gained coverage through chip and medicaid. there has been a striking decrease in the number and rates of uninsured children since the program began. the coverage is key for providing children access to check ups and care they need for healthy growth and development
and providing peace of mind to their parents. host: in 2001, the numbers were about 4.6 million kids that were enrolled. in 2005, it went up to 6.9 million. do you see the need growing around the country? guest: as the country has been going through economic decline, families have been losing jobs and experiencing decreases in income. we see an increased need for programs like chip and medicaid because more families have low income. the other thing we have seen is states have engaged in significant efforts to get children enrolled in the programs. chip has ushered in a lot of innovation of the state level to
reach out to families and make the processes for getting coverage as family-friendly as possible. host: samantha artiga is the associate director of the kaiser family foundation on medicaid and the uninsured. we will put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for this test. -- for this guest. let's talk about dollars. the five-year funding program is about $44 billion. how is it being spent? is it enough? guest: it is a state and federal partnership. they share costs for the program. states administer the program within a broad set of federal guidelines. the program has been very appealing for states because the
federal government shares a greater portion of the cost relative to medicaid. those dollars are going towards funding health care for children. there has also been finding directed at helping states reach out and find the eligible kids as well as an increasing focus on quality in the program. host: what age range are we talking about? guest: in general, kids 0 through 19. there is variation across the country in terms of which children will be eligible for the program. most states cover children up to at least two times the federal poverty level. that means about $37,000 for a family of three.
host: this is planned activity as of september last year. the map is separated into three different colors. blue shows separate health care plans in 17 states. give us more insight. guest: one of the key aspects of the program is that it provides states a lot of control over design and operation choices. one of the key choices is how they structure the program. the state can implement the program as an expansion of their medicaid program in which case the program follows all the rules of medicaid, or they can create an entirely separate program and have more flexibility over the benefits they provide to children as well as the costs charged to families.
the third option is a combination of both. states might control region provide coverage through medicaid expansion -- the states might control -- the states might provide coverage through medicaid expansion and then additional coverage through another program. we've seen increased participation for all types of structures. host: the green states are the combination states. there are 26 of them. san antonio, texas, martha, a democrat, you are on with samantha artiga. caller: when the children get insured, do the parents have a job or not?
at the end, sometimes they have to pay penalties. why is it that the government charges a penalty for the grown- ups because they have insurance when they have applied for medicare b? i think that is not the right thing. now they are going to charge for those of you do not have insurance for grown-ups and their children. now they have to pay for penalties. i do not see the logic. we send the government money for so many years by paying our own way even when my husband had no job. we made sure we had insurance for our children, health
insurance and life insurance. insightt's get some from our guest. guest: i am not sure which penalty she is referring to. she could be referring to the fact that when the house reformed some key provisions for 2014, individuals will be required to have health insurance. if they do not meet certain criteria, they will need to pay a certain amount of penalties. the situation facing children in these families who are receiving coverage through chip, often the parents are employed but maybe in a job that does not offer health coverage as a benefit. the coverage may only be available to the worker and not to the spouse or children. even when the coverage is available, the premium cost may
be unaffordable for that family given that they are generally in lower wage positions. we are seeing the average full family premium cost is just over $15,000 per year. usually employers pay a larger share of that with the employee paying the remainder. that share will vary across employers and industries. we do tend to see lower wage positions that the dependent coverage is not as available and the workers may need to pay a higher share of the cost. host: what services are covered under chip and what is not covered? guest: states have a lot of discretion over how they operate the programs. each make their own decisions about what the benefit package will look like within broad federal guidelines.
there are some services the states are required to cover including well-child visits and immunizations, the basic primary and dental care that children need. states have flexibility to make their own decisions beyond the federal guidelines. host: wes is a republican from louisiana. caller: the kaiser foundation, is that part of the kaiser medical facilities? guest: we are an independent operating foundation. we are named after the same person but have no affiliation with the kaiser health plans or industries. we're not affiliated or connected with them in any way. caller: and retired military. -- i am retired military.
kaiser will not accept medicare. i was wondering why they will not. there are many retired military. host: i am not sure that is relevant to our guest. we're talking about the children's health insurance program. anything about that? caller: my children are about as old as i am. host: let's hear from barbara in kalamazoo. caller: i am in favor of taking care of children. my concern is what can be done to stop people on medicaid from using the e.r. as the primary doctor referral.
why can there not be a phrase in there that you have to have a doctor and take them to the doctor? an emergency room is an emergency room and not a health doctor. can you respond to that in any way? going to a doctor's appointment is cheaper for medicaid and going to an e.r. i can cite many people using the e.r. as the doctor. guest: there is an overwhelming amount of research showing that women children gain coverage that their access to care improves. they are less likely to go without needed care. they are more likely to receive preventive care and have the
usual doctor to go to. those are similar to the rates we see for children with private insurance. there's a clear connection that the coverage improves the care of the children are receiving. there is a lot of effort in states today to focus on quality improvement in the programs. there is a lot of focus on connecting individuals to a medical home and making sure that there is a specific doctor or provider they feel they can call when they need care. some challenges families face in terms of obtaining care today is that often the resources for primary care during after hours are limited. often these parents do not have time available to takeoff to
take their child to the doctor. there are a number of challenges that low and moderate income families face. as the overall health care system continues to evolve and provide more opportunities for individuals to receive primary care after business hours, we will see some changes in patterns as well. host: do all doctors take children under the chip program? guest: doctors do take children at high rates. there are some concerns about access for certain specialties like dental care, but overall access to providers is good for children. host: this viewer wants some perspective on why adults are
allowed to participate. guest: there was a time when some states received special permission to extend coverage to low income parents and other low-income adults. since then, legislation has passed to prevent the continued use of the funds in that way with a focus on insuring that the funds are directed to the low and moderate income children the program was designed to serve. that was the case years ago. it was put in place because there was recognition that extending coverage to the parents had important benefits for the children. today, many of the dollars have flipped over to medicaid and are no longer funded for chip. host: let's go back to the
phones. caller: my question and concern is that president obama's program penalizes christian organizations for not wanting to kill babies. this program is supposed to help children. it helps children from the age of 0 to 19 years of age. guest: i am not certain i understand the question you are asking. the reason this program was created was to provide health coverage to children and low and moderate income families who did not have access to other coverage options. it is designed to insure the
children can get access to the care they need for healthy growth and development and greater success in life. host: let's go to connecticut. betty is on the line for democrats. caller: when i first heard they were changing the initial plan, i thought they were kidding me. we need to reform children's health care right now. last saturday, i went to a meeting on the importance of children's health care. i wondered about your opinion on what they're doing now compared to what they were doing previously. guest: can you clarify what you are referring to previously? caller: 2005 to now, what would
be the difference? guest: for children specifically? caller: what has changed from 2005 to right now? guest: their ho -- there has been increasing in moment as families have had declining incomes in the recent recession. the program has grown. it is remarkable to see the uninsured rate for children has declined in recent years, reaching record lows even in a difficult fiscal climate. at the same time, we see adults uninsured rates increasing because they do not have access to the same protections the children do. we're seeing states focus on getting eligible children into their programs. we're seeing an increasing focus on using technology to make the
programs more efficient, saving on administrative costs, and to make them as family-friendly as possible. i think we will continue to see how technology can change how the programs work for families. host: technology is a big part of the health care discussion and debate. what is happening? what might the overall benefits be? guest: we did a survey of states looking at how technology is changing how they operate the chip and medicaid programs. the majority of states are embracing the use of technology even when they face budget pressures. more than half made improvements in their programs. they're often utilizing technology. we're seeing them make more
services available online. in 2/3 of states, families can apply on-line without having to submit a paper application. we are also seeing states trying to use electronic data in better ways instead of asking families to provide paper. one great example of how a state can use technology to impact the state and family is in south carolina. they were experiencing a problem where 40% of the kids were losing coverage and coming back the next month. that was suggesting there were losing coverage not because they were not eligible because they were having problems completing the renewal process. that state has moved to using
data it had available from other programs to renew coverage. it stayed -- saved the state a significant amount of money and has helped to facilitate continued coverage for thousands of children still eligible for the program. host: the next call is from james in arkansas, a democrat. caller: in arkansas when we had a republican governor mike huckabee, the program is now known as ar kids first. -- is like hitting the pitting the poor against the poor. it is better than the coverage for adults.
guest: states are innovating as part of implementing the chip programs. as states started the programs, the ones who created separate programs began to design innovative strategies to get eligible kids into coverage and make the processes for getting and keeping coverage as family- friendly as possible. one strategy we saw states take up was using new names for the chip programs. in some cases, those included medicaid coverage for kids. there is that program in arkansas. there is help the families in california. -- there is healthy families in california. we're learning about what works
for families and states. we did see changes to the medicaid programs as well. a lot of the lessons learned will be informing our efforts moving forward as coverage is expanded in 2014 to millions of new individuals. host: the next call is on the republican line. caller: i am still reeling from your previous guest. i am in florida. i am registered republican but did not vote in the primary. i am in my 50's.
my daughter has insurance. under the affordable and health care art, the premiums have skyrocketed for my husband's plan. she was still eligible so we had her on their walls she was looking for a job. some of the kids still living at home at 27 or 28 or moving in with their parents, there needs to be some overlap between the chip and what i mentioned. my daughter is not a teacher -- now a teacher working for little salary. she has over 80% of the students getting free lunch. if we could get the chip program
in our state to work within the school system, what would that do to help the affordability care act? host: she first mentioned someone who might be 27. guest: let's talk about the age first then i will touch on engagement was schools. the chip eligibility is limited to children under 19. some states have worked to extend coverage to slightly higher ages through medicaid programs. generally, is under age 19 and not extended to the age range she is discussing. there was a provision that allowed parents to cover children as dependents on their private policy up to age 26. that has provided important
coverage protections for young adults who often face significant challenges obtaining coverage when they are entering the job market. on the question related to engagement with schools, this goes to the point about how states have been developing new strategies. one lesson learned is the effectiveness of partnering with schools and conducting a reached through schools to find eligible children as well as using information about children who may be receiving help from other programs to identify. we're seeing states using data from those programs to control -- enroll children into health care coverage. host: this tweet wants more
perspective. are some parents refusing to apply? guest: the programs are close to connected but have different roles and purposes. medicaid has been an instance -- in existence since 1965. it was designed to serve the lowest income individuals. it has changed over the years. there are some groups of low income individuals who remained ineligible. the chip program was designed to fill the coverage gap for children in low and moderate income working families who were not eligible for medicaid but were still having difficulty with private insurance. it is targeting a different need and population. there are requirements in the chip program that as children
apply, they are screened to determine if they're eligible for medicaid. if they are, they are transitioned to medicaid. if they're eligible for chip, they will be involved in chip. host: samantha artiga is currently uses the director of the kaiser family foundation commission on medicaid and the uninsured. we go to more calls. port charlotte, fla., tom is on the line. caller: i am recently unemployed, like a lot of us across the united states.
i am a single father with a daughter. i have gotten involved in this medicate thing. i am taking my daughter to one place where everyone goes. i am seeing a lot of fraud. they have been taking care of my daughter's teeth. they referred me to a place in sarasota to get braces. i drove up there. there are 22 seats with 60 people. the dentist is running us through likehe is basically deng everybody but taking money for each cattle he runs through. i wonder if there is a watchdog watching over what is going on with these medical people in charge of our money.
guest: the medicaid and chip programs have requirements for program integrity and to insure the dollars are being spent wisely. there have been changes to increase those efforts. the other point i think we touched on earlier, the access to dental care. that is one area where it has remained challenging to assure children can access the dental care they need. overall, there is a shortage of dentists nationwide. it is not specific to the medicaid and chip programs. access to certain providers like pediatric dentists is challenging. there are a lot of efforts looking at how to increase provider supply in areas where
there are shortages. host: we have indian on the line, sue is an independent. caller: i had a child-only policy for my daughter. i was put on medicare. when i got on social security, they changed my pay date and i lost my daughter's insurance. when i tried to reply, they told me they do not take child policies any more. i applied to the chip program in indiana. i was told i make $108 too much to qualify. i cannot get insurance for my daughter because i am on medicare. they say they will not insure me because i am on
medicare. what am i supposed to do for my daughter? guest: the design of the chip program was to fulfill a specific need for children and families above the threshold but having difficulty affording private coverage. each state sets their own eligibility limits. it varies from state to state. there will be families just above the threshold that will have difficulty finding coverage options. the program was not designed to fill all gaps. under the health reform law, provisions are designed to more comprehensively addressed these gaps and make more options available.
host: here is a look at the kaiser website. here are the annual findings of the survey. what else might folks find? guest: analysis of key policy issues as well as basic facts about the programs. there are a lot of state resources. you can find data about your state and see how it compares to other states. host: thomas is a democrat. caller: i have several comments i would like to matke. i want to see my tax money spent on taking care of children and the old -- elderly.
i do live in florida. we have a lot of people who come from canada and spend half a year. they tell us they have a much better deal than we have in the united states. i would like c-span to have some of these people on. let us get some different perspectives other than the insurance companies. that would be a great help to make up our minds as to where we need to go with our health care. i am not a very religious person, but i do understand the first and greatest socialist person was jesus christ. for these republicans and people who want to talk out of both sides of the mouth, they need to read the bible and see that taking care of your neighbor is
part of being a christian. guest: i think the caller touches on a point that we see strong support for the program. i think there is general agreement across party lines and at the state and federal level about the importance of providing coverage to children. the broad political and public support has been key to the program's success. host: this $44 billion is a five-year figure. it goes until 2013. what is the future of funding for the program? guest: the figure you are referring to is part of the reauthorization act that occurred in 2009 that extended
funding for the program, increased funding levels, and provided new options to states to expand the children they cover a as well as new tools to get children involved. funding was further extended until 2015. states are required to maintain coverage for children until 2019. in 2015, there will be a decision about funding for the program. host: jim is an independent. caller: i am a pediatrician and on the eastern shore. where are you going to get the doctors?
you do not pay the pediatricians' anything. they do better to go in and be a finance person with the national bank. how do you encourage doctors to enter the profession that will get them by but not compensate them for the amount of work and energy they have to put in? guest: this goes to a point we did touch on earlier. it is a larger problem facing the nation. that is the shortage of physicians, particularly for certain types of services. he also raises the point about the payment of providers through the medicaid and chip programs. i think there is a broad recognition of the need for efforts to increase the capacity of providers. there are a number of options being looked out, including training programs and expanding
the scope and role of other medical professionals so that they can take on a broader scope of work and provide more care. there is a provision in the health reform law that will increase medicaid rates for primary care services for a number of years. states are actively looking at ways to improve the delivery systems and provide payment arrangements. host: one last call is from alabama, joey is a republican. caller: i have a question. i am a single parent, recently divorced, a 13-year-old girl. i had her own family coverage through my employer before i got divorced. when i tried to go through the state of obama to get a major medical policy on my girl, i was
informed that because of the health care act you cannot buy an individual policy for any child under the age of 19. to add her to my company policy would cost over $600 a month. i cannot afford to pay that. the program available to low income families in alabama, i make about $3,000 to much to go through that program. what is a parent to do for their children if they cannot afford to go on a family rate plan for their and lawyer -- on a family rate plan through their employer when no one will sell an individual plan for children under 19 any more?
guest: the chip program was not designed to fill all the gaps. it is clear there are some gaps that remain today. when the coverage expansions go into place in 2014, the goal is to have many more affordable options available for individuals. host: our guest has been samantha artiga, associate director of the kaiser family foundation on medicaid and the uninsured. we will be back tomorrow, as we are every morning, for more "washington journal." we hope you enjoy the day. we will see you tomorrow. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> the u.s. house gavels in at noon for general speeches. members will begin work on a bill creating a commission that will make recommendations on federal, non-military properties that can be sold, redeveloped, or exchanged to reduce costs for taxpayers. the senate is back at 2:00 with debate on the compromise on the federal aviation administration programs. they will hold a final passage vote this afternoon. the agreement was passed in the house on friday. house on friday.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on