Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  February 23, 2012 7:00am-10:00am EST

7:00 am
host: no clear frontrunner has pulled ahead at this point in the nominating process. so for this first segment of the "washington journal" this morning, we want to hear from republicans whether or not you would support a brokered nominating convention in tampa. 202 is our area codes republicans only for this segment. (202) 737-0002 if you support it. (202) 737-0001 if you oppose it. you can also leave message on twitter at or we're on facebook, too, here's michael article from the "l.a. times" yesterday. he writes --
7:01 am
host: a loss by romney in michigan would only increase such speculation. why? a poll shows voters are dissatisfied. a recent po the number that were satisfied or not satisfied at all jumped in an nbc news wall street journal poll. 34 rated them as weak.
7:02 am
republican-leaning independent voters wish someone else were running but the same poll found those voters would rather have a nominee to secure before the august convention than to have the nomination decided in contaminate pennsylvania so again republicans only this morning for this segment, we want to hear whether or not you would support a brokered convention or the g.o.p. nominating contest. this is from the washington times february 16, cary picket writes --
7:03 am
host: that's what he writes. in the washington times, the last brokered convention of either party was in 1952, the steven son contest in chicago. he was the top candidate and ended up getting the nomination, but it took three rounds of voting. first call up on whether or not a brokered convention is a good idea comes from cal in cookeville, tennessee. you are opposed to it. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. no. i don't think a brokered convention is the way to go. we've only had seven or eight states. i think the media is a little bit wrong with that. i saw the debates and thought for sure mitt romney hit a home run last night. and he's a guy we really need.
7:04 am
he is a businessman building staples and a few others. so i don't think we'll have to worry too much about that. there will be talk about other candidates but in the long run i betemit romney will end up with the nomination. host: here's "usa today's" take on the debate last night. santorum gets smacked around in arizona, and in this article they talk about when they were asked to define themselves. the candidates were asked so define themselves by one word. here were the answers in case you didn't see the debate. ron paul said consistent. rick santorum said courage. mitt romney said resolute and newt gingrich said cheerful. in westchester, pennsylvania, carol, you, too, are opposed to
7:05 am
it, why? caller: thank you for taking my call. i watch c-span a lot. especially when commercials are on. i was kind of surprised when they said only 42 -- we still have 42 -- eight states to go. i am following mitt romney. i read his book and listened to it again on tape last summer. admittedly his points like 63 or 59. it's complicated. anyway, i am from pennsylvania. i would love to see a mitt romney-santorum ticket. thank you. and thank you for taking my call. host: carol thank you for watching c-span. republicans only, do you support or oppose or are you opposed to a brokered convention? (202) 737-0002 if you oppose a
7:06 am
brokered convention. if you support, (202) 737-0001 from last night's debate here's mitt romney attacking rick santorum. >> the reason we have this is because arlen specter, [video clip] >> you endorsed in a race, he voted for obama care. if you had not supported him, we would not have obama care. so don't look at me. take a look in the mirror. >> i supported arlen specter number one because he was the senator of the judiciary committee at a time when there were two to three supreme court nominees and one pore two or maybe all three were going to
7:07 am
be out of the conservative block and arlen specter, we had a conversation and he asked me to support him. i said will you support the president's nominees? he said i'll support every nominee arlen specter he supported from the time he took on and saved justice to mas. every nominee he supported passed. host: and here's an color ter's column. what's their problem with romney? he did something even ronald reagan didn't do, he balanced the budget without raising taxes. he became deeply pro life and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill meanwhile gingrich lobbied president george bush for a stem cell research issue.
7:08 am
romney pushed the conservative -- it would have killed obama care in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level and goes on to write i'm not sure what establishment supports romney? amity face of the establishment? if so, the scun going to be just fine, she writes. i would think the pristine example of the establishment is editor and fox news contributor bill crystal. but he wants anyone but romney. in 2000 romney was supported by shawn -- michael savage and many others who now seem to view romney as a closet
7:09 am
liberal. this is especially baffling because there's no liberal in the republican primary this year. that's ann coulter's column. what do you think? caller: i think that would be great. host: why? caller: well, there's a lot of things that is going on here that i can't understand. number one, i haven't heard one of them candidates talk about the inflation we have in this country today. definitely caused by the government itself. the inflation we have in the fuel. nobody's talking about the fuel. bringing the fuel down to where it belongs, which caused other inflation. i went to the market the other day and they want $29.99 for a pound of fillet minute-on- --
7:10 am
filet mignon. host: who would you like to see at the g.o.p. nominee? caller: romney. host: mark? caller: good morning. scott, right? host: sure. caller: yes. ok. romney is going to crush. he's going to win. it's over. you know the right-wingers, they are going to cry and try to get everybody to get upset, but it's over. santorum needs to stand down. host: that was mark in germantown, and here's the hill. senator jim from south carolina said there's a possibility that the g.o.p. presidential race could lead to a brokered convention. speaking thursday on cnn -- this is from a few weeks ago.
7:11 am
a brokered convention isn't out of the question. his comments came a few days after rick santorum dominated in colorado, minnesota and misratah. -- and my secure they. alex papa writes about the call to kill the presidential debates. there's the headline there. a little bit of this article. if i can turn to the right page, that would help a lot i think. there should be no more debates with george stephanopoulos or others in the main stream media picking the questions. not again, the editors wrote in a piece posted online wednesday morning. that's the same media that
7:12 am
daily cary water for the obama administration, approach the tea parties as curiosities and persistently skew the public discourse left ward in ways large and small. instead, they argue, debates should be modeled on last year's foreign policy debate cofounded by the american enterprise institute. let the r.n.c. set the number and dates and locations of the debates. that's in the daily caller this morning. willy is on the line. what do you think about a brokered convention? caller: i am for a brokered convention. i would really like to see jeb bush get in there. and i don't think either romney or santorum or paul or gingrich can really make a good candidate against barack obama.
7:13 am
the economy is slowly turning around there, and i don't see where they can have a good argument about him doing such a bad job there. on this foreign policy, he's done pretty good over there keeping us safe, so i would really like to see old jeb bush -- i think he would do a better job than his father and his brother. i think if we get him in there, the g.o.p. would be fine. host: haley barbour recently talked about a brokered convention. [video clip] >> of course odds are enormously against it. but the fact that it's even in our conversation is unusual. i was at the last contested republican convention in 19t 96.
7:14 am
but it was a convention where there were really only two in the race. this would be different. if we had a contested convention -- and i think probably us -- we republicans would rather it be called a contested convention rather than a brokered convention. no offense. [laughter] >> but if we have that, it won't be a -- just two people. it will be three or four possibly. and depending on what happens, it could even be five if there continues to be no apparent winner, you have the possibility of a late entrant. host: and the new "usa today" gallup poll on a brokered convention. republicans, better if a candidate wins before that?
7:15 am
66% said yes. 29% of republicans agreed no. in california, hi, rick. caller: hi. before i answer your question, i don't really understand the question. are you saying that we have a choice whether to have a brokered convention? or -- host: that's up to republicans and how they vote. but if it comes down to a case where not enough delegates have been won by any of the candidates, what do you think about a brokered convention. caller: just seems like the result of voting. i'm a ron paul supporter, and i really can't understand how people have been complaining in the republican party for 30 or 40 years about government is getting bigger and more intrusive. now we finally have a candidate that's willing to slash all
7:16 am
this that we have acquired in the last 30 years and they just pass right over him, and i think it's sad that the only hope mr. paul has of making a dent in this problem instead of a brokered convention and be able to make a speech. it would be a wonderful thing if somebody made him his vice presidential nominee. host: let me show you an article and get your response to this. this is a big headline in the daily caller this morning. graham paul said it would be an honor to be considered as romney's beat. and chuck todd of explains no one knows if some sort of barlingen has been made but it's interesting that ron paul has never attacked romney but
7:17 am
attacked more conservative candidates at just the moment they were beginning to pose a athlete romney. the timing is noticeable. now f.c.l. news is offering us a clue. the junior senator says it would be an honor to be considered a running mate for romney. what do you think of that as a ron paul supporter? caller: well, i don't really make he wants the -- i value him being 76 years old and i don't really care about how close he is to death. but the fact that i haven't really been able to see negative commercials out here in california to know what the back and forth has been on the candidate's negative ads. it just seems like ron paul's big positives are reversing all
7:18 am
this trouble we have had with government and everybody just forgetting that we have a problem. host: thank you for calling in. from this column, mitt romney released a new tax plan that called for a 20% across the board cut to individual tax rates and romney would also reduce the corporate tax rates and put an end to the capital gains tax for most taxpayers and a new proposal expands and seemed intended to big foot the corporate tax reform proposal unveiled by the obama administration and romney slammed the obama proposal after the g.o.p. candidate released his own ideas. here's mitt romney last night talking about his tax plan. >> number one, i said today that we're going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20% including the top 1%. that's number one. number two, i said yes, we
7:19 am
should increase the debt ceiling but only if we have a cut, cap and balance provision put in place so i do do not agree with the deal done in washington. finally, senator, during your years in congress, since you've been there the government has doubled in size and voted to raise -- in my view we should not trays debt ceiling again until we see a cut, cap and balance approach. it must be taken. host: and mark is a republican in ohio. you support a brokered convention. why is that? caller: i was listening to the fellow from california. i'm also a ron paul supporter. and i think that's the only way ron really gets to be heard. and also the other issue is that the party really is splintered. i'm looking at the tea party faction, certainly.
7:20 am
and the more liberal sections of republican party. somebody has to unify this party before we go to the general election or it's just all over. and i think ron paul could do that, possibly romney could do that as well. but i think they have to have a meeting where they all come and get in a group hug and all that and i think a brokered convention is the only way you spend the time being restored to one another before we go into the election. host: if not ron paul, who would you like to see as the nominee? caller: i'm kind of wishy washy on that. that's the problem. ron paul supporters are very rabid and motivated, and i'm having a hard time thinking would i go out there and canvas and work for another candor zphat and i really would have a hard time. i don't hate any of the other candidates, except i'm not a
7:21 am
big newt fan. he's had his shot, and i'm kind of done with him. but romney, i could vote for romney. host: mark, where is mcdermott, ohio? and what do you do there? >> i work on software projects out of my house. it's by the southern most portion of the states. i am about nine miles north of the ohio river. i'm on a big creek here. south of us -- there's a little part of ohio that's south of us. we're inside of the county. host: that was mark in mcdermott, ohio. facebook/ if you would like to send -- you can see here exactly tied it looks like here. brooklyn, new york.
7:22 am
al, you're opposed. why? al, you've got to turn down volume on your tv. ready? caller: yes. host: ok al, we're going to put you on hold and let our producer talk to you and remind you turn down your tv. shirl >>i caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think it would be a good idea because as soon as someone is in the lead the rest of them gang up on them because they are upset they are not in the lead and mitt romney has so much money that he can spend all kinds of money going after whoever is in the lead. he cannot face the fact that he's not going to make it. so i think it would be a very good idea. plus i know mitt romney is not going to be good as president. he's got so much money that he just doesn't relate to any of
7:23 am
us that have to live on a budget. ron paul is a good man, but not presidential material. newt gingrich has way too much baggage, and the people in this country are not going to vote for him, and most of us know that we have to have a change in washington. so the way i see it, the only one this i think is good and we should get behind and support is mr. santorum. so that's pretty much how i feel about it. host: what about a candidate that's not currently in the debate circuit or running? caller: well who do you think that might be? sara pail season? host: what do you think? caller: well sarah palin attracts big crowds and people like her and she's a very smart woman, but is this country ready for a woman is the next question? host: shirley, have you ever been to a convention? caller: no, i haven't.
7:24 am
host: thank you for calling in. former senator alan simpson had some harsh words for rick santorum. the co-author said santorum's focus on social issues is a mistake. quote i'm convinced if you get into the social issues and just stay in there somehow they are going to take us all out to aalaska and float us down the bearing see, he said we won't have a prayer. that's in "the hill" newspaper and alan simpson's former chief of staff just wrote a book "shoot from the lip" about senator simpson. book tv attended a book party for form simpson. former vice president cheney was there and elizabeth dole. that will be on c-span this
7:25 am
week you can find out more information at book this column, the article about the gap between mitt romney and the rivals, look no foote than his campaign's financial report. at first glance the numbers may seem like good news for romney given he is the largest fundraiser in the field. he had raised $62.7 million more than twice as much as the next most successful candidate, which was ron paul. but look more deeply at the numbers and a trend emerges. romney is getting considerably less support, those who give less than $200 at a time. these small donors don't give because they have been
7:26 am
invarietied to a fundraise tore meet the candidate. they are the type of supporters who will help by volunteering their time and talking to their friends and neighbors about the race. gingrich and santorum have raised more than half of their money from the smaller donors giving less than $200 at a time. in florida, terrence, what do you think about a brokered convention? you've got to turn down the volume on your tv. we're going to put you on hold and move to al in brooklyn. ready? caller: yes. i think a brokered convention is a terrible thing. you know what you have. you don't know what you're going to get. host: and what do you have as a republican? caller: right now i would support rick santorum. but i think that we should get
7:27 am
behind it and get any possibility of having a brokered convention out of our mentality. that's the worst thing we could do. host: ok. thank you for calling in. from the washington times, gingrich warned second time on reimbursement. the campaign has received a second warning for wide sfread financial irregularities saying the campaign must disclose why nearly $1 million was paid in cash for questionable reimbursements. but hours after the letter on its 2011 finances became public they t campaign filed a report that indicated the problems have become far worse and the campaign transferred mr. gingrich $88,000 last month for unspecified travel expenses, a pace far higher than he paid
7:28 am
himself over the course of 2011, a file showed it was part of $22,000 in mystery money that went to people close to mr. gingrich close to their salaries raising the potential of self-dealing. terrence in bradenton, florida? caller: i'm thinking somebody that hasn't been mentioned as a possible dark horse or candidate. but i like jeffrey sessions, the senator from alabama. i think people, you know, you should know essentially from their past, their world view, and he seems pretty articulate. that's all i've got to say. host: but the senator sessions doesn't run, who do you like? >> caller: who do i like? host: yep. caller: i -- i don't know.
7:29 am
you know christy might be the best, but that's -- since mitch daniels from indiana says he's not running, so that's all i can say. host: one more question, what do you think about the convention coming to your area? caller: well, it's interesting, you know. i don't think i'll show up even though it's only a short distance away. if it's a congested -- a contested election, it will be more interesting than most in my lifetime or adult lifetime. host: thank you for calling in. joe in sarasota, what do you think about a brokered g.o.p. convention, joe? caller: good morning, peter. host: hi. caller: i would suggest everybody who wants a brokered convention, which i do not want, goes out and finds movie
7:30 am
"lost horizons." i think it was made in the late 1930's and had a wonderful british actor anded that most beautiful voice that you ever would have heard. it was a group of people that were climbers and they climbed up this mountain found a utopia. and once they got there, they and now there was no utopia. and that's all i'm going to say. you know, this morning, everybody think about that. everybody wants a perfect world. with a perfect answer to everybody's perfect problems. it doesn't exist. you've got work for it. that's the only way that we get to the point where we can help other people. so think about that. i don't care whether you're for , against, or where you come from. host: right. who are you currently supporting? caller: i'm not supporting anyone at the moment.
7:31 am
i really am not. host: did you vote in the florida primary? caller: i am definitely not going to vote for a party that believes in everybody looking the same, acting the same, wearing the same, doing the same and being the same. i believe in a future for all of our people in this country. host: so are you -- caller: therefore, let me go back to what i was saying. host: are you a republican? caller: i am a registered republican. host: did you vote in the florida primary? caller: i absolutely will and i did. host: who'd you vote for? caller: that's my business. i'm not going to tell you that. but -- host: we've got to leave it there. we appreciate your call. tom is calling from australia. is that correct, tom? caller: yes. it's quite a long distance call. host: how are you watching c-span? caller: huh?
7:32 am
i'm watching c-span on fox tails. so it's quite exciting to watch the republican primaries from all the way over near australia. it's quite thrilling, actually. so i just called in to say i completely oppose a brokered convention as it would make the party seem weak to the thruth self-decreasing the republicans' votes. the only way that they can be successfully picked is through the intensive vetting process of the primaries and the caucuses that they are having now. a brokered convention would only bolster obama's chances in november. host: how close do you follow
7:33 am
the news? caller: it's quite late at night. i try to watch it intensely, but i'm at school and 16 years of age and homework and study get in the way a lot. it's hard, but every time that i do, it's really exciting. and thrilling to watch. host: how does it compare to australian politics? caller: australian politics is less intense. i find in the u.s. there are a lot more heated events which oppose to australian politics that are quite calm and in australia you don't have to vote -- you have to vote. it's a compulsory voting, which
7:34 am
is in clear contrast to the u.s. system where you don't have have to vote and the parties have to work harder to try to get people to vote. host: do you support compulsory voting? caller: i do in a way. i see it increases the mandates. so they each give out equal voting. so about 96% of the australian electorate has voted for the prime minister and executives which are close -- opposed to the u.s. system as far as how many vote in an election. host: 55%-60%. caller: and it also increases the australian's knowledge and
7:35 am
-- host: and what's the penalty if you don't vote? caller: i think it's that they hit you with a fine. so it's not great for us, but yes. definitely people will get out there and vote. because that's the australian way. host: and finally, where in australia do you live? caller: ok. i live in perk which is in western australia. i believe it's the most deserted capital city in the world. i think hawaii might come second. so we're pretty lonely out here, aren't we? host: well, we very much appreciate your watching and your time this morning. caller: that's fine. host: ed emails in i think it would be a good idea to have a brokered convention. it would trays level of excitement and parms.
7:36 am
he is from texas. our next call from matt in hickory, north carolina. matt, as a republican what do you think about a brokered convention in tampa in august? >> well, i hadn't heard much about i have the until i seen y'all's coverage about it. let me make sure i understand it correctly. if not enough delegates were won by each candidate, what would have to be done? host: a -- well, you know, if it goes to tampa, and there isn't a clear winner with enough delegates going into the convention then there would have to be a brokered done vengeance or a couple of votes taking. >> so then it would come down to a four-way? >> well, anybody could jump in at the moment. >> i'm 22. in the younger generation. i was in the manufacturing business and i've been
7:37 am
affected, and i got laid off from my job that i had been on for six years. i had been a romney supporter. but there have been several things, his comments about the poor and the -- a few things that made me think he couldn't beat o'bam save. but i think -- like the other caller said, it could add some excitement, you know? maybe get some more support behind the republican candidates. i just hope somebody gets in there and gets manufacturing part of this country going again. host: matt from hickory, north carolina. bill gates from microsoft has an op-ed in "the new york times." he says shame is not the solution, last week the new york state court of appeals ruled teachers assessment could
7:38 am
be made public. as a harbinger of education policy in the u.s., it is a big mistake. i am a strong proponent of measuring teachers effective neps and my company works to improve the overall quality of teaching but singling them out will not help them improve learning at microsoft we created a rigorous personnel system but would never have thought to use employee evaluations to embarrass people much less publish them in a newspaper. next call, whether or not the g.o.p. should have a brokered convention in tampa comes from illinois. greg on our opposed line. greg? caller: yes. i am opposed to it. i think the only thing we would come up with is an obama lite
7:39 am
candidate, which i believe romney is. everybody talks about bringing outsiders into washington. we tried that before, and by the time the outsiders wake up in washington, their term is over. we need somebody who knows washington and somebody who is not afried call both parties out, because both parties are a problem. host: who are you supporting right now? >> newt gingrich. host: he's not doing very well in michigan, is me? >> well, caller: well no, but i believe the south is going to ride again. republicans know they get newt, they are going to get -- they are not going to have the same good ole boy networks they have had for the last decades. host: and the most recent g.o.p. primary poll nbc.
7:40 am
mitt romney 36%. rick santorum 35% and newt gingrich at 8%. in michigan, joyce, good morning. what do you think? caller: good morning. well, i favor a brokered convention. i think it would be good for the country. i think it would be good for the republican party. that the point i will vote for any republican that runs, but i do have my preferences. host: that is? caller: i think newt gingrich is probably one of the most intelligent people i have heard speak in a long time. i think he understands the issues. he is maybe a little brash in his presentation and ruffles some feathers, but i think he's kind of standing back for the moment and letting romney and santorum battle it out between
7:41 am
the two of them and muddy each other instead of muddying him for a while, and i think he just might have a better chance in a brokered convention, because he can talk to people more effectively that way and get more support. host: thank you. the debate was held in arizona. here's the most recent arizona primary poll. mitt romney 43%, rick santorum then now we go to fort lauderdale. what do you think about the g.o.p. having a brokered convention? caller: good morning, and i shutter hearing brokered convention. i think of what they did to our economy. anything with brokered into our politics, it's going to have the same negative effect. i very much enjoyed the caller
7:42 am
from australia and would venture to say if he could vote, he would probably vote ron paul. i am an independent but leaning strongly to supporting ron paul. i just wish he was -- he is charismatic and tells it how it is and not aphrase of the opposition. let's say it's good for all of us here in the country and one more comment. get rid of the electoral college. one u.s. citizen, one vote. host: thank you for calling in. i also want to thank tom from australia for 16 years old calling in this morning, chatting with us. tom, we encourage you to call us again in 30 days. you know we have a 30-day rule here at c-span. so call in, in another 30 days and give us your opinion. this is a new "usa today" gallup poll and quickly. one, which candidate has the
7:43 am
personality and leadership qualities a president should have? 50% say president obama, 53 romney, 53% say rick santorum. agree with him on the issues that matter most to me? 47% and mitt romney 42% and 42% for rick santorum. and his political views are -- too liberal 51% said for obama. about right 36% for mitt romney and 38%, too conservative for rick santorum at 38%. john in knoxville, tennessee, what do you think about a brokered convention for the g.o.p.? caller: i think it would be real bad. i think the problem is ron paul is starting to two so good that the republican party, not the
7:44 am
people. the republican party, the elite don't want him in there, because he will destroy the status quo. every candidate up there besides ron paul, if you look at their past, is the status quo. they voted for everything that's destroyed this country, and i think the media is doing their best to discourage anybody for voting for ron paul, and the fact is the fact that he's in second place, and nobody's talking about it. host: you say you're opposed to a brokered convention. wouldn't that help ron tall -- wouldn't that help ron paul? caller: it would be rigged like everything else. because ron paul is in second place. the media is saying he is not. he is. and he's not getting any air time whatsoever. they are scared to keith he is
7:45 am
going to get voted in. and every time he gets up in the polls they throw somebody else in the mix or something along those lines to knock him back down. host: that was john in knoxville. by the way on book tv in primetime wednesday night we ran four books by the four candidates. nute newt, ron paul, mitt romney and you can watch any of those candidates talk about their books at book from the center of strategic international studies, a c-span for egypt is an article they have in their newsletter. unprecedented lies telecast the egyptian parliamentary sessions are bringing citizens closer to the political process than ever but also magnifying partisan tensions.
7:46 am
arabic for voice of the people began broadcasting the 23rd and the director of that channel will feature interviews with many in addition to parliamentary procedures, it sounds like a simple concept. but partisan disorder was on display almost from the outset. if you want to read more about c-span and egypt, and it's not affiliated with us at all. just their own version of a c-span-type center, center for strategic and international studies. there's a cover of the "new york post" this morning. and here's a picture of marie colvin who was killed, the cnn producer who was killed in syria. syrians marked her death "war crime" is what "the new york post" is calling that. one final call on the brokered
7:47 am
convention topic. greg from raleigh, north carolina. what do you think? caller: thank you. thank goodness for c-span. hello to our friends in australia. and thank you for your work. and that poor lady who was murdered, or killed in the war. the best to her family. it's a terrible loss. i think that all four candidates have strong points. after watching the debates and listening very carefully. i still find it difficult to make up my mind. the -- all four have such good -- i like something in all of them. you know, there's enough difference between them that there's a tradeoff. but it's the idea of fearing a brokered convention. it's just talk. i don't think we should fear it. it's a democratic way. and i think we should embrace
7:48 am
it. host: grerks what do you think about an -- greg, what do you think about an unannounced candidate getting in? caller: no. i think it would probably weaken the field. why would these guys leave their families for a year and work their fingers to the bone, blood, sweat and tears and then have somebody step in from the sidelines and say, hey, let me do it. at this point i wouldn't consider it at all. host: coming up next tucker carlson from the "daily caller" will be out here. after that we will have a segment on president obama's new tax plan proposal. up next, tucker carlson. we'll be right back.
7:49 am
>> tonight on c-span, from this year's world economic forum in davos, switzerland, see global leaders as they talk about the future of the world economy. >> no one is immune in the current situation. it's not just the euro zone crisis. it's a crisis that could have collateral effects still around the world. and we'll hear from others, but what i have seen and what we are seing in numbers in the forecast is no one is immune and everybody has an interest in making sure this crisis is solved adequately. >> i have been in public
7:50 am
service for over four decades. let me share with you i've never been as scared as now about the world. what is happening in europe. looking back at our experience. the crisis we had and in the 1990's. this is a very big issue. first of all, i agree entirely with christine that nobody is immune. we are all connected with each other. >> and you can see this whole discussion tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and we'll have more from the world economic forum tomorrow including a panel on the future of africa. plus, the c.e.o.'s of several major corporations talk about the role their companies are playing in the global economic recovery. >> at the 1968 olympic games john carlos and tommy smyth raised their fist in the black
7:51 am
power solute. >> this is the black power. they intimidated zombie using the phrase "black power." because when they used that word or phrase it made people think it meant destruction, blowing up the statue of liberty or ground zero. destroying america. it wasn't anything about destroying america. it was about rebuilding america and having america to have a new paradigm in terms of how we could truly be with each and every one of us with the pledge going to elementary and high school about the land of the free and the home of the brave. we all want to be great americans, but as young athletes we found something was wrong and broke, and we wanted to take our time to evaluate and then take the initiative to fix it. >> to discover more about black history during black history
7:52 am
month on book tv, search and share from over 25 years of c-span programming at library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: tucker carlson, we were talking with our viewers a little earlier this morning about a brokered g.o.p. convention. what do you think about that? guest: i think it might be a good thing. it might be a chance for the party to make a decision about what he believes. might be a chance to pick a more effective candidate. might be a great thing to cover. it's just not who republicans are. it's so against the basic temperment. republicans are instinctively locked in to discuss their problems in public. so democrats have a problem, they convene a meeting and have an intervention, and people cry and talk about their childhoods, and someone goes to rehab. when republicans have a
7:53 am
problem, they just sort of take the drunk person and put them in the closet and let them sleep it off and don't mention it again. it's the sweep-it-under-the-rug party. host: do you have a horse in the race? guest: no. do you mean am i supporting anyone? no. the president, though, has earned a loss. but as far as who replaces him? no. covering it, i don't really know what i think. host: 19 debates and maybe one more to go. has this process been helpful to the g.o.p.? no. probably -- guest: is no. probably shot? . as sarah palin said, probably not. it's probably exposed the weakness of these candidates in a way that's scary to a lot of republicans. that's why we're talking about a brokered convention. because there's a great
7:54 am
dissatisfaction with the offerings. it's been helpful for me, just as an observer, someone interested in who these people are. but it's diminished them for sure. host: on the "daily caller" this morning a great headline this morning. guest: we specialize in great, big headlines. we believe and yes there's a ran paul story. ran paul said that he would be open to being picked as a vice presidential candidate for a presidential candidate other than his father. maybe that wouldn't be a bad choice. there's a stubborn core of libertarian support within the republican party for ron paul and i think some of those will go to gary johnson, the
7:55 am
libertarian candidate in the general election, so republicans ought to pay attention to that. i don't know if picking ran paul is the answer. i don't know. but they ought to pay attention to the libertarians. because a lot of republicans hate libertarians. but the fact is they need them to win. host: i just noticed you're not wearing a bow tie. guest: i joined the main stream now. host: how long have you not been wearing a bow tie? guest: probably five or six years. i wore it from high school to my late 30's when i decided people hate you so much when you wear a bow tie that it's probably not worth the conflict, having people scream obscenities to you when you walk through train stations and stuff. host: we're going to begin taking your calls for tucker carlson in a minute. but from think, tucker carlson, a ron deserves
7:56 am
to be annihilated. guest: yes. i did his show tuesday night with some friends of mine. a fun show. and i was actually trying to make the opposite point but i was doing it in a very inarticulate way. and i said something like -- of course von evil and deserves to be annihilated. but actually we ought to pause before supporting any such action and think about what the effect on our economy would be among other things. i mean, what would that mean for our energy prices and the american economy. i was actually urging caution. i'm not particularly hawkish to be honest with you. i'm actually not hawkish. so that was a matter of me being entirely inarticulate. i was a pretty aggressive opponent of the iraq war for most of it. and i guess i'm all for war under certain circumstances. it just seemed to me that a,
7:57 am
we're not very good at foreseing the consequences of things like this, and b, our economic strength is the key to our military strength. and so we should be very careful before we undermine it. so no, there's all these pieces about how i'm a blood thirsty neocon warmonger which is a little hilarious if you knew my view. i'm not necessarily for bombing people indiscriminately at all. host: clinton handed bush a surplus and 22 million new jobs, bush handed obama a deficit and loss in jobs. return to that policy? guest: it's a little long for a bumper sticker, but it's probably -- look, this stuff is conference indicated. the question if it's did busch spend snooch there's no question. i mean, there's really no
7:58 am
defending the medicare part b thing, it's passed by a republican president and i would never defend something like that. it was appalling and an entirely political move. is barack obama an effective steward of the economy? of course not. he has no idea how the market works, and our debt has grown more quickly under him than under any president except during world war ii. truly he has no idea what he's doing. but that's no defense for bush at all. they have a lot of deserving blame but obama deserves more. it's a math question. host: one tweets -- guest: media matters. it's a self-described media watchdog group whose aim it is to make press coverage more friendly to democrats as if --
7:59 am
as if it's not already. so we know that the head of media matters, david brock met at the white house with valerie jarrett, arguably the president's top advisor and the white house communications director and we know they conduct a weekly conference call with the white house, which is a little odd for a non-profit organization to be in effect part of the obama political machine, and we know that -- so yes, there's coordination. the precise nature of it? we know the outlines. we know when media matters went after fox, a political organization, the white house parrotted that line almost word for word within a week, etc., etc. so look, there's a lot of coordination going on in the white house. this is certainly an example, i would say, of like minded folks getting together.
8:00 am
this is from february 12 by tucker carlson and other reporters at "the daily caller" -- guest: yes, all that is true and uncontested. media matters' spends all this time rebutting what it believes is in corrupt news articles has not reported that in any way
8:01 am
because it is factually true. we have the sources all round the david brock so there is no denying we got the story in this case. he has struggled with mental illness. this is a matter of public knowledge. we revealed his executive assistant, his secretary kerri de glock to events around -- carried and a glock a rounded d.c.. he did so in order to protect david from threats from right wing spot -- sniper teams and assassins. apparently d.c. is crawling with conservative saboteurs and assassins trying to murder the heads of effective nonprofit protected groups, that was his view. brock is having a cigarette on the roof of his building in
8:02 am
chinatown and we have more law enforcement per-capita than anywhere in the world in washington. i have lived here my whole adult life and it is very safe. his two bodyguards and are assistant appear and bundled him up and bring him downstairs because they are afraid of snipers. mean butrying to be clearly, let me diagnosed that even though i am not a shrink. host: the goal of this series is to tell our readers something they did not know about something of national importance. media matters has a great effect on news coverage. a left-wing donor wanted to affect the news cycle, giving money to media matters would be effective. there is a lot that people that
8:03 am
did not know. we document in another story their effect on specific reporters. we documented case where they sent a reporter from "political" a 90-page memo how they were going to attack fox. it was interesting and they did not print the bulk of it for a year. we think that is an example of a reporter doing the bidding of his group in think that is newsworthy. >host: tucker carlson is our guest -- caller: if you said earlier it would be a good idea to have a convention and choose someone who was not running. i'm a strong ron paul supporter and i disagree that it would be
8:04 am
a good idea to put rand paul with mitt romney. i think he has done a good job in the senate and i think he would be a stronger candidate coming up in 2016 on his town. own. vice president joe biden is just sit there and wait for someone's heart to fail. wtie and iour bo like your work. >> what do i know? i'm not sure a brokered convention would be better for the republican party. it would be interesting. i have a built-in bias in favor of drama because i'm in the news business. i am an editor so i want the more dramatic thing. i am not always thinking about what is best for the republican party because that is not my
8:05 am
job. as for rand paul, i don't know. that is interesting. the bulk of vice-president don't have an effect on history but some do. if you are a small government person or a sincere conservative during the last administration, you are probably a dick cheney fan. he had a great implode on the bush administration. the rand paul basic philosophy is far enough from the romney basic philosophy is they probably would not be compatible as a ticket. stranger things have happened to. caller: harrisburg pa., a democrat, go ahead. since obama became president, you jump on the bashing wagon. you are telling me that everybody that voted for obama is wrong.
8:06 am
guest: no, i would say not everyone that -- i was said not everyone had voted for a bomb is wrong, obama is wrong. i live in washington, d.c. which is a city that voted 94% for obama, the highest in the nation and i know a lot of obama voters who live on my street. i think a lot of them regret it. there is a lot of dissatisfaction among independents and moderate democrats. as for jumping on the obama bashing wagon, i am a little hurt. i hope to be leading that wagon and head of the wagon train. you consider me another follow er. --t: here is a tweete
8:07 am
guest: i don't think there's anybody in the republican party that wants to campaign on contraception. i doubt think anybody is suggesting that contraception be bent banned. there is a debate about contraception. cause of the obama administration's administrative actions and regulation around obamacare, it has become a question of policy whether the government should force people to purchase a product that violates their core beliefs. that is not a question about contraception. it is a question about liberty and freedom of conscience and how powerful a government should be. those are completely valid issues.
8:08 am
the press is rooting for obama against republicans and they have made a big issue about it and many republicans are really inarticulate and not very good at politics and in some cases dumb so they're not good at managing these issues. to be totally clear, i don't think there is really a debate about whether people should be allowed to use contraceptives. i hope there isn't. host: an independent from houston, texas. caller: all want to give you a brief characterization of a conservative voters. republicans are constantly sacrificing their conservative principles when they are elected in office. bush and santorum are the same story. that is the main reason
8:09 am
white conservatives are so wish you washy. if this trend continues among conservatives, and we go toward a brokered convention, do you think it's possible for a washington outsider to enter the race? it could be someone like herman cain or it could be david petraeus, how would that work? >> i think you're absolutely right that it is actually hard to govern conservatives. i am not making excuses for dishonest politicians who believe one thing and don't. there are plenty of those. the truth is, it is difficult to govern as a conservative because conservative economic policies mean denying people things they want republic wants more spending and that's why we have it.
8:10 am
entitlements, specifically medicare and social security, are popular. people like free stuff. fiscal conservatism requires telling them they can't have that. who wants to do that? it is really tough. are the candidates running for the republican nomination, only ron paul who will not get the nomination has a plan that would actually reduce the size of the debt. as for a total outsider being chosen as a nominee at the convention in september, highly on likely because you have to have a candidate that is thoroughly vetted. their risk of finding out something devastating about any of us at the last minute is too high grading need someone who has been through before and has been through intense scrutiny and to not all the sudden reveal some embarrassing thing.
8:11 am
i don't think they would ever pick an outsider like that. david petraeus might be a great candidate. i wish he would run. host: did you know the reporter that was killed in syria? guest: i did not. host: president obama has apologized for the burning of the koran in afghanistan. guest: why was present obama burning the koran? was that the story? host: that's not quite historic. guest: my impression was that it was an accidental burning i don't know. host: here is a tweedt -- guest: i guess they should be upset about it.
8:12 am
my office is across the street from the occupy d.c. people. i am trying to remember the slogans. one of them is 'corporations are not people.' i guess they should be met by running to democrats all the time to think obama is a sellout and is to right wing. it is like an interplanetary conversation. host: williamsburg, virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. i'm a small-business owner in virginia and i own a business called virginia is for education. i operate mobile fitness centers that goes to elementary schools and we have stationary bike programs inside those trailers. i go to schools and public housing and i take on faith crack generals on the corner. i change the environment for the children there.
8:13 am
i find there is large racketeering among the virginia schools. it is hard for me to break through one transient educrats move from one division to the next. when pe instruction is $70 an hour and i can show for $100 an hour and have they held out, and change the morale of the students and their health and engage them in ways no one else seems to accept with a video screen. host: very quickly, what would you like tucker carlson to respond to? caller: there are many things you can look into in education in virginia. these transient educrats come benigno after that federal money and interest themselves -- host: i think we have enough to
8:14 am
work on. we will look on it as an education issue. guest: i would be against transient educrats and i guess for trucks with stationary bikes and from a schools -- look -- it is pretty upsetting as a father of four lives in the district of columbia. i have to pay for private school because the high schools and middle schools especially are so bad. it is a complete outrage. i am not sure what the answer is. clearly, a teacher tenure is an outrage and indefensible. i have been fired a bunch of times and is hard for me to say my tax dollars are allowing a person to which he or she can't be fired does not compute. is that the single biggest problem? no, of course not. my schools -- my kids to school is a good school because the
8:15 am
moms are involved. they don't put up with any nonsense. it seems that parents are the basic problem. if parents don't care, the school will be bad. there are a lot of really bad parents out there. they are negligent. and they don't care about their kids' education. we know that because the schools are bad. why don't they march on the schools and chained themselves to the front doors on? a lot of single parent families had up to a disaster. i know you are not supposed to say that but i don't care. it is terrible for kids to grow up with, on the average, overall, it is terrible for kids to have communities where everyone is a single parent. that is the problem. host: chesapeake city, maryland, democrats line -- caller: good morning, i want to
8:16 am
make a comment and ask you a couple of questions. i would like to point out that many people have to pay taxes and their tax dollars are used for things which are against their beliefs but we have to go on paying taxes anyway. some u.n. and some you lose. -- some you win and some you lose. i have a question about the bowtie because you stopped wearing it to stop people from yelling obscenities at year. you. recognize you't without your bowtie. no one ever screams obscenities at you now? guest: of course people scream obscenities at me now.
8:17 am
i do yell obscenities back. i have limited self control but fewer people do and it may be that i am blending in. i may face in the crowd. that would be a great thing, personally. i had someone come up to me recently at an airport and say has anyone told you you look like tucker carlson but he is more handsome, no offense. >> and i said no offense taken. he is a handsome devil. i am fully integrated into american society. it feels good. host: have you ever had your kids with you when someone decides to take you on? guest: most people are really, really nice. america is a nice country compared to many other countries. no, i don't think -- yes, i
8:18 am
have. i almost got into a fistfight with a guy from peta going to the circus in d.c. a number of years ago. i was carrying one of my kids and my arm and this guy gets in my face with a picture of an elephant with an abscessed leg. it was a horrible picture and i love animals. this was too much and i said to get out of my face. he said he note -- who -- he said he knew who i was and 80 generated for -- from their but it is hard to get someone when you are holding a 5-year-old. he should not hassle someone when they have their kids. host: [inaudible] guest: it is doing great. we're taking our staff to charles town races.
8:19 am
is it a dog track for a horse track? host: both horses and a casino, i have been told guest: it is a zesty gambling establishment. we are going there because we're giving them gambling budgets because we met -- we far exceeded our target. it is the funnest thing i have ever done and with more than 50 people on staff and they are smart and i like them all. caller: good morning, thank you for cspan and taking my call. i would like to respond to a statement you made a while ago i guess he thinks he is cute or something and his heinous laugh when he says it we should just why i ran off the face of the area. i don't know the population of iran but you think the iranian
8:20 am
people should just be wiped off the face of the earth? you sound like hitler or stalin. i remember those people. i demand my late '70s and i remember what happened back then. guest: slow down before you compare me to mussolini as well. i understand you are upset. those are not my beliefs and that was not my suggestion. as i said at the beginning of the show, i misrepresented my own views as a result of being tongue tied and not thinking it through. i stated pretty consistently over the past 10 years, i am for restraint in the way we conduct our foreign policy. and the way we conduct our wars because i think there are unintended consequences and harm. the point i was making on that show on tuesday night was that
8:21 am
while iran paused government is evil and i would like to see their government crushed, i think there are probably consequences to bombing iran and going to war with them that might hurt us, specifically what would it do to the cost of energy and the cost of oil? it would rise dramatically and what would that do to our economy? it would be a real blow. that is not a small thing. i was making almost the opposite case from the one you are characterizing. it is not your fault. on the one who did not explain myself well. i am telling you before you compare me to another dictator that you have mistaken me for the wrong guy. host: a republican in hawaii -- caller: god bless you and god bless cspan are . in the debate last night -- i am a gingrich man -- he did not bring out the fact that our
8:22 am
government is failing and our system over the last 20 years has been completely -- we have a class warfare, we have that have and have-nots and people living in the streets in maui. thomas jefferson once or road to that every 15 years or so, we should have a constitutional convention. why not have the convention and vote in a real good functional parliamentary system? a party could come in and appoints all the offices and see if it works great of a dozen votes, "the matter and bring in another party otherwise we will have this anarchy. if by some chance -- host: i think we got the point and thanks for calling in from
8:23 am
guest: i agree with a lot of what the caller said gary government is to sponsor and our party on impressive people running it on both sides. it is distressing to see our country as weakened as it has become, for sure. is the answer rewriting the constitution? i am not confident that we would get something better than we have. i'm also not sure we need any more drama. there is a strain of the volatility in american life, not just political life but american cultural life. i think it is pretty obvious that there is a lot of stuff going on beneath the surface in american society. i see the goal as de-escalating. you don't want people on the street because chaos can break out much more easily than i
8:24 am
think most people understand. having covered news around the world, i value a state and sedate and boring political system. as a journalist i'm against it but as a citizen, i am for a boring deal. host: here is a to watweet -- what: i'm not exactly sure to be tweeter is referring to. i know washington pretty well and had done a bunch of stories -- i live in the district. i first came here in 1985 so i think i know the city pretty well. not all parts of washington are safe but i was talking about downtown. there is no way to argue that it
8:25 am
is not dangerous. it is really safe. as for attacking parents for bad "-- schools, sorry, they are responsible. there is no way that parents who really care about education would ever put up with the nonsense that takes place in some of our city schools. i know it is easy to blame the teachers union which i despise but i am trying to be as honest as i can and say the real fault lies with parents. why do they put up with this? the airport, ok, poor people don't have a voice? there is evidence that they can take to the streets and things can change when people get mad. i say a lot of upper-middle- class parents getting mad on their behalf by where are the marches? we have a school head, michelle rey, who was not perfect but i
8:26 am
think most people think she had the right idea which was all we care about is whether the kids benefit. she determined that there were many people in the school system in d.c. or not doing anything. she fired some bad teachers. voters from washington got so mad that they turned out the mayor in retaliation. many people including parents see the schools as a jobs program. it is their fault and until that changes, schools will not get better. you know that's true. host: milton, fla., go ahead. caller: are you talking to me? host: yes, sir. caller: i wonder if mr. carlson could shed any light on the blog entries lay lay about seven
8:27 am
iowans be a ceded -- seven islands be ceded to guest:: i feel like i'm on top of the news and on top of the administration-related scandals. that sounds like a great story. i plead ignorance. thank you. host: our last call comes from greensburg, pa., a democrat. caller: you have described president obama's spending record as more irresponsible than george w. bush but the look of the drivers of the dead, there is no increase in government spending which has only increased 2% faster under obama than president bush. that is in response to increased aid in the states and increased
8:28 am
unemployment, medicare, and disability payments. this is in response to the great recession. the true drivers of the debt, leaving aside the one time stimulus, have been the bush tax cuts which were sunset originally by republicans to hide the long term costs, medicare s, the two wars and a cradle of tax receipts in 2008 and 2009. that has been analyzed by of many economic groups. guest: a lot of what you say is absolutely right. you are wrong in that the drivers of the dead are entitlements. in order, the biggest expenditures are medicare, medicaid, social security, pentagon spending. there also related to the interest in deficit spending.
8:29 am
george bush spent a ton of money and i don't defend that. i am appalled and upset by it. however, it is undeniable that obama accelerated it produce say we are in the middle of a recession and you say we need that but i would disagree. the number that is more telling and you might want to look at is the portion of our economy represented by government spending. that has grown dramatically. is a complicated question. their reasons for that but it is still a stark indicator of the growth of government. it has gotten a lot bigger. it got bigger under bush and a lot bigger under obama. considering that you are literally more likely to die in the job as a federal employee than you are to be fired, it is a big deal because you hire these people and they are not going away.
8:30 am
they have lifetime employment. i think obama should be held responsible for that and he is the president. let's be honest about it. host: finally, if you would respond to this political article -- guest: "a politico"is a left- wing thing that the taxes all the time. i don't know what to say about it. foster friess was one of our early investors and he is a
8:31 am
great guy. i even said to them but i don't know if they printed it, he has never tried to influence our coverage on anything ever. he is the greatest -- someone asked me -- we run a small business that is doing well and what would be your business advice? my sum total of business advice to anyone is get foster friess as an investor. his own request has been to go head-to-head with them. i love foster. go look at our coverage of santorum if you think we are in his corner. show us how. we are not, actually. that was an absurd peace. host: maybe should invite him to the hollywood casino with you. guest: that is such a great idea but he lives in jackson, wyoming. host: we appreciate you coming
8:32 am
over here to talk about politics. we have an hour and a half ago and coming up, we will look at the new president obama tax proposal and look at u.s.-mexico oil agreements coming up after this news update from cspan radio. >> it is 8:32 eastern time. the mistaken burning of korans at a military base earlier this week is still having repercussions. afghan police have shot and killed five protesters during riots that broke out today and in a possibly related instance, made to assess two coalition troops have killed a man in an afghan army uniform. more on president obama's letter to hamid karzai apologizing for the burning -- the president expresses his deep regret for the reported incident and offered his sincere apology. the letter goes on to say that the error was inadvertence and i assure you we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any
8:33 am
recurrence to include holding accountable those responsible. u.s. ambassador delivered a letter to president hamid karzai earlier today. president obama travels to florida to talk about energy policy and he will attend campaign fund-raisers. one of his political advisers talked of a campaign earlier today. robert gibbs says republicans are damaging their chances of defeating president obama by engaging in nasty, negative debates. he said the gop continue to dwell on social conservative subjects when the emerging issue of this campaign is going to be strengthening the economy and putting people back to work. cspan is covering the president's remarks live today at 2:20 p.m. eastern today. those are some of the latest headlines. >> tonight, from this year's world economic forum in davos, switzerland, see the heads of
8:34 am
the world bank and international monetary fund along with other global leaders as they talk about the future of the world economy. >> no one is immune in the current situation. is not just a euros own crisis. it is a crisis that could have collateral the fact, spillover effects around the world. we will hear from others but what i have seen and what we see in number is and the forecast is that no country is immune and everybody has an interest in making sure this crisis is resolved adequately. >> i have been in public service for over four four decades. i have never been as scared as now about the world. what is happening in europe, looking at our experience in 1980, the crisis we had and the crisis we had in 1990. this is a very big issue.
8:35 am
first of all, i agree entirely with christine that nobody is immune. we are all connected with each other. >> you can see this whole discussion tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. we will have more from the world economic forum tomorrow including a panel on the political and economic future of africa plus, the ceo's of several major corporations talk about the role their companies are playing in the u.s. economic recovery. >> at the 1960 olympic games, john carlos and tommy smith raised their fists in the black power salute. >> they intimidated so many people, white people in particular, by using that phrase "black power," because when they use that phrase, many people think that man's destruction.
8:36 am
meant destruction. it was not about destroying america. it was about rebuilding america and having america have a new paradigm in terms of how we can truly be with each and everyone who took that pledged when we were going to elementary school about the land of the fray and the home of the brave. we all want to be great americans but as young athletes, we found that something was wrong. something is broken and we want to take our time to evaluate and take our initiative to fix it and discover more about african- american history during black history month on book-tv on cspan to an online at the cspan video library. search and share from over 25 years of cspan programming at c- library. "washington journal" continues -- to talk're joined now about the president's new tax cut plan.
8:37 am
take us through the new proposal that the president released yesterday. guest: the treasury department released a framework from the president. it does not have a lot of detail. they have sort of set the parameters of what they want cap -- corporate tax form -- reform to look like. they will change the corporate tax rate from 38% to 25%. they would do that by getting rid of what we call tax expenditures, special preferences and special design -- deductions and exemptions that typically benefit only one industry. they will get rid of a lot of those things to help bring the rate down. they have some pretty interesting new rules about taxing foreign profits that u.s. multinational corporations have and there are some
8:38 am
manufacturing incentives. host: a few details cannot yesterday. this plan would cut the corporate tax rate to 28% and lower tax on manufacturing to 25% or lower for advanced manufacturing activities and require companies a minimum tax production pragu why is this plan coming out now? guest: for quite some time, everyone has been talking about how much we need corporate tax
8:39 am
reform. it is popular on both sides of the aisle and many people think the tax code is way too complex and there are too many special breaks and we should reform the system. i would like to think that part of the reason is coming out now is about a report we did. the report was released in november and we looked at the fortune 500 companies and we pulled into the report those that were consistently profitable over the past three years. we found that the average tax rate that those multinational corporations were paying was only 18.5%. you hear that we have the highest tax rate in the world but the actual rate that corporations are paying is much much less than 38%. we found that 78 percent -- 78
8:40 am
of the companies had one year where they did not pay tax at all. 30 of the companies did not pay tax in any of those three years. host: howard our corporate tax rate under the obama plan work? we are currently at the highest in the world. where would 28 percent take us? guest: that would put us in the middle of the pack with our major trading partners. rebecca're talking with wilkins. if you want to join in the conversation about the president's remark that was released yesterday or mitt romney's proposal that it talks about in debates, give us a call, the numbers are on your screen
8:41 am
what is the citizens for tax policy's opinion about the plan released yesterday? it is a good plan? >> some of the basic pieces of the framework are good. we are concerned that it does not look like this plan will raise in revenue. the deficit is a concern. the long-term debt outlook is a concern. we think the administration is leaving a lot of money on the table and we think there is room to raise revenue from corporate tax reform. host: in " the new york times" editorial --
8:42 am
is there estimates now on how much money it will bring in by closing these loopholes? how much money we will be spending -- we will lose by lowering the tax rates? guest: tax breaks and a plan like reducing the rate to 28% and other incentives will cost about $1.20 trillion over the next 10 years. we can also identify and the plan about $300 billion of savings from eliminating some expenditures that they pointed out like ending the method of accounting for inventories. that leaves a 0.9 dollars
8:43 am
trillion gap. there is over one of the 50 tax expenditures that benefit businesses. there is lots of room for them to find the revenue. we hope they will and we hope they will find more than the shortfall. host: 1 secretary of the treasury tim geithner said this would be done without increasing the deficit, do you pack as possible? guest: it is definitely possible. host: let's go to the phones, the republican line from arkansas -- caller: good morning. taxes in general and raising revenue, i would like to see less government spending in general. why do we need to raise revenues
8:44 am
and have more government spending the money? if the government solve the problems, we would not have government any more. we're just left with bureaucrats. i don't get it. i think raising corporate tax rates will run more business and more money out of this country and taken away from people who are working and need it. guest: the issue with the budget is that the big things that really cost a lot of money are not the things we think of as spending. they are the things that people are entitled to like medicare, medicaid, social security and defense budget. even if you eliminated all the other government spending, you would still not make much of a
8:45 am
dent in the budget. you would have to reduce those programs substantially to be able to do a significant amount of cutting a size of government. on the other hand, there is things the government does that we cannot do ourselves. we cannot build a road or have a military. you and i can't provide for public schools. those are things we want government to do and we have to figure out how to raise the revenues to do those. compare the obama plan to a few others that are out there.
8:46 am
compare what you think is feasible among those different plans. guest: the president's plan is the only one that is feasible because joint tax committee a couple of months ago looked at the corporate tax system and said in order to raise -- to lower the rate below 28%, you have to get rid of every single special tax break in the business tax code and that is just not possible. andou look it romney's plan he lowers the corporate rate to 25% and the individual rate to 28%, the only way we can afford that is if we make huge cuts, not just in domestic discretionary spending by huge cuts in medicare, medicaid, and social security. host: here's a comment from twitter --
8:47 am
guest: that's exactly right. back in the 1950's, the corporate income tax contributed about 30% of total federal revenue. that is now less than 10%. corporations just are not paying very much tax. we have a really high statutory rate, 35%, but there are very few corporations that pay that. many corporations pay single- digit rates in a lot of them pay less than zero. they get some tax breaks that they get checks back from the government. host: the president's proposal, there is a chart in there about the effective tax rates for a few different industries. it talks about some of the ones that are closest to the current corporate tax rate light construction at 31%, some larger
8:48 am
ones that are out there 14% for utilities. the president is specifically ordering -- attacking oil and gas. what does the oil and gas industry currently pay in taxes? guest: they are close to single digits because they get so many tax breaks. there are quite a few industries whose effective rate is close to single digits. our tax code right now pits winners against loser is the idea that the tax code could not start economic decision so much as what he ran his last campaign on. you should not discourage business to go into our what form you should be in like a corporate partnership based on tax considerations. he should do basin the economics of the deal. >> who will be the winners and losers from the president's
8:49 am
plan? >> the oil and gas industry would probably be a loser if the president's plan is enacted. the financial industry may pay a higher tax rate. the retail industry pays a high tax right now. they should see their tax rate come down. >> some of the rigid horse of the companies that are paying the highest corporate tax rates now? a lot of resell companies are like nordstrom's and target, they are playing close to -- they applaud the president's plan? >> or write. >> will go to clearwater, fla., on the democrats' line. i'm calling to ask rebecca williams a -- well against a question about the supreme court saying that corporations are people so why are we discussing reducing income tax rates on corporations? one of my favorite signs i saw
8:50 am
recently in the political discussion -- if corporations are people, why has not texas executed one of them. that is a really good question. a lot of commentators and some of the members of congress yesterday brought up the issue that if we're going to reform tort -- corporate taxes, we need to reform individual taxes and i think that is a pretty good argument because a lot of businesses are not actually taxed as corporations. their tax on individual returns because they are on a path to a partnership or and s corporation. you cannot separate corporations from everything else. host: this is from twitter --
8:51 am
are we going to see these movements with this plan? guest: what when you cut taxes, you make up the difference by raising somebody else's taxes or by cutting spending or by increasing the deficit. tax cuts are not free. tax cuts to not pay for themselves. you have to figure out if you are are going to reduce taxes and make up that difference. the president's plan would reduce taxes for some corporations but overall, it is designed not to lose revenue. host: an independent from boston, mass., go ahead caller: i'm wondering about present obama just coming out with a plan that republicans have been talking about for months which is about the tax loopholes and growing the tax rate -- and lowering the tax rate and he is
8:52 am
trying to take credit which is ridiculous. wouldn't you think that a fia tax going across the board would be the easiest way? we've got the people on the right, left, and the people like me in the middle for just saying to work together for the country and get your party's. i say vote for the people, not the politicians. guest: the problem with a fair tax on the individual side is that several income taxes are in only one of the taxes we pay. there many other kinds of taxes like state and local and sales taxes and income taxes and property taxes. when you look at the federal income tax, that is a very progressive tax a mostly paid by higher income people. the other kinds of taxes are highly regressive meaning they
8:53 am
have low income people worse off. in oklahoma, taxpayers and the bottom 20% pay almost 10% of their income in state and local taxes. the top 20% pay less than four% of their income in local taxes. you cannot just look at the income tax. if you want a fair tax for everybody is paying similar amounts, you would have to look at all text and put it together. host: that was part of the reaction that was out there. since the plan has been released for its some democrats in the senate actually said the plant did not to look of a corporate reform rate but also the individual tax reform or eight. talk a little bit about the efforts and how we could do both of those at the same time and whether we should do one and then the other? >> we really liked the way they
8:54 am
went about it in 1986 which is the last time we had a major tax reform. in 1986, they reformed on the individual and corporate side. they brought the rates down and eliminated a lot of special deductions which is what the president's friend or proposes to do. they got rid of a lot of the games that people play by getting rid of special references -- preferences. there were able to do overall reform. that does not lose revenues. host: this is a statement from dave camp who is the house ways and means committee chairman --
8:55 am
we will go back to the funds to joseph from long island on the republican line. caller: how will these changes affect the individual as far as the a &t tax or the higher rates we pay as individuals? guest: the french art does not address individuals at all except for one provision that affects managers of investment funds like private equity funds. i think that is where some of the chatter can from yesterday. a lot of businesses don't operate in the corporate form are passed through entities and you have to reform that, too. the present plan tries to give those small businesses relief by ratcheting up the amount of equipment and capital
8:56 am
improvements they can deduct. right now, that has been limited to 400 thousand dollars and the present plan would take that to a million dollars. that big a relief for many small businesses. host: but the president has laid out plans before. can you talk about the ones he has already talked about in the state of the union address? >> he has in the one everybody knows about is the bgffett rule. it needs to be enacted because of the way we tax work at much higher rates than the tax income from wealth. the reason warren buffett has such a low rate is because he gets a preferential rate on capital gains and dividends. somebody else who might make this amount of money but makes it from wages or stock options would pay much higher rate.
8:57 am
most of us have to work for a living. we think they should not be paying a higher rate than people who have a lot of wealth and are living off the income from their wealth. host: more on the democratic line from new jersey. caller: good morning. the republican talking points about our taxes has always been that president kennedy cut the tax as needed and it was president johnson who did that and we have the highest corporate tax rate and a world. it is high at 35%. they never talk about the added value tax that the rest of the industrialized nations do pay. when the tax cut, the lbj tax
8:58 am
cut when from some 90% to 74% in corporate taxes and there were no loopholes. i am quite pleased with the tax proposals that president obama has proposed but i think that if there was a value added tax, thereby increasing our revenues and that makes a good deal more sense. i am close to 6 feet tall and the general electric tax return when printed out was taller than i was. they paid less than nothing. guest: that is exactly right. i don't feel too sorry for ge because they have created their own problems. each tax return is a function of how complicated their corporate structure is. and how many schedules they have to separately filed for their foreign subsidiaries and for all the things they are doing.
8:59 am
the fact that our major trading partners and many other countries in the world have a value added tax is pressure on our income taxes. they can lower their core rate or lower their individual rights because they have a value added tax. a couple problems with that is that it tends to be highly aggressive so it hurts people of the lower income level and it is very politically unpopular. i think it would be tough to get a host: a question from james on twitter -- guest: there would be a lot of tax attorneys out of work. tax tends to hurt poor people more. in the income tax, it more
9:00 am
progressive, but that's harder to do with the sales tax. it depends on your frame work about who should bear the cost of government. host: are talking with a belt the wilkens, senior counsel for the citizens for tax justice. tell us more and how you are funded. guest: >> it has been around more than a 30 years. we have as our mission to do what we can to make sure the tax system is fair and equitable and that it raises enough revenue to do the things we want government to do. so we do a lot of research. we do analysis of different plans and legislative proposals that are introduced. we try to figure out who will pay that tax and get that information out there so people can see. host: where does your funding
9:01 am
comes from? guest: are non-profit. we get a lot of contributions from individuals foundations, labor unions, across the board. we get a lot of support from many different places. host: harrisburg, pennsylvania, john on our republican line. when you tax a company, the company adds a higher price for their products, so you are taxing the consumer. i would like to speak about warren buffett. he is an investor and could just sit on his money. instead he puts it into banks so they can lend money to other people and help them grow business. we want to encourage investors to have a lower rate.
9:02 am
third, when you do put taxes -- cut taxes on businesses, they create job growth and that means more people working and more tax revenue collected. i will hang up and hear your comments. thank you. guest: warren buffett does not need the government's help. he has plenty of money and will invest it and put it to use where he thinks he can get a good return on it. income taxes don't make a profitable don'tunprofitable and vice versa. income-tax only taxes whatever is left after you divest all of your business expenses and pay your employees and pay for training and make capital investments and whatever else you do. on the issue of whether or not corporations past taxes on to consumers, i would say this. if that were true, corporations would not care what the tax rate
9:03 am
was. they would not fight to get the tax rate lowered, because they are just passing it on to their consumers. preserve to indicates that maybe some of the tax burden falls on consumers, maybe some of it falls on workers, but the majority is actually paid for by the shareholders. corporate stock in this country is owned almost all by the top 5%. host: now that the proposals are out there, how long until they will actually get done? guest: i don't think we will see anything this year. in an election year and with congress as divided as it is, i don't think anybody thinks this plan will be on the legislative agenda anytime soon. if you look back at 1986, tax reform did take three years or 40 more years and was a hot topic during president reagan's first term. and then after a couple years with a lot of negotiations and wrangling over the details it did finally get enacted.
9:04 am
we could see a couple years down the road. host: do you think this was a political move to put this out now? or a plan to start the process and get it done in the next couple years? guest: probably both of those things. i think everybody thinks tax reform needs to be done, so they wanted to get it going. all the republicans have a plan out there. the president wanted to draw distinctions between what their plans would do and what his would do. host: mike from northridgeville, ohio, on the line, a democrat. caller: my comment would be, restore taxes. we made no references to the earlier attacks systems used in the country. ryan now we are talking about systems from about 1982 the present. -- right now.
9:05 am
in 1952 the tax rate for individuals was 92%. almost nobody believes that until they research the facts. i think that the term loophole rather than the incentive is a misnomer. that is my comment. guest: you are right that tax rates have come down a lot and the tax obligation has fallen more to workers than to high- income people. something that we really work hard to make sure that the changes coming up will be more fair. host: kansas city, missouri, carlotta independent line. good morning. are you there?
9:06 am
i think we lost him. straight to riverview, michigan, bob on the republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to ask, is it not true that when we lower taxes will generate more revenue? guest: that is actually not true. it's a good talking line. sounds like a great idea, but if you lower taxes, there would be so much economic activity that the taxes lost would make up for the tax cut. historical data does not bear that out. we know that when tax rates are cut, we lose tax revenue. host: in the president's plan released yesterday, what were the loopholes or things you wanted to extend in their? guest: the president did want to continue special manufacturing
9:07 am
deduct an authority in the tax code and the wanted to make it bigger for manufacturers, but he wanted to narrow the scope of companies that would qualify. right now, engineers and architects, due date manufacture anything? does the oil and gas industry manufacture anything? they pulled oil and gas out of the ground. so he would narrow that a lot. a lot of companies that are now getting that would not get it in the future. the also keeps in place a lot of incentives for clean energy and renewable energy. and so, those will stay in his plan and some of those get to stay in as well. host: the wall street journal today has an editorial talking about the president's plan and some clean energy projects that he wants in there. if it says this is the president picking winners and losers again. what does citizens for tax
9:08 am
justice think that? guest: our tax code does pick winners and losers. the president's plan would ameliorate that somewhat, but it would still pick winners and losers. the wall street journal is right about that. unfortunately, the political system has degenerated such that the tax code is the only way to do things. it would be much more efficient and effective if the government actually found projects that it wanted to encourage through grants or loans in low interest or something like that. none of those things could get through congress, while a tax cut is something pretty easy. host: mobile, alabama, bill on our independent line. caller: grover norquist, a majority of republicans have signed his tax pledge. that is in advance of knowing
9:09 am
the condition of the country. this would be going to the american league in baseball and saying to every player, i know it is legitimate to punt but i will ask you to sign a pledge never to blunt the ball in a game condition, before the game even started. it is giving up a legitimate tool and not representing the people that you represent. and iink it's atrocious cannot understand how the government cannot allow such a tax pledge to continue. guest: we also think pledged has done a lot of damage, because some otherwise pretty reasonable people on both sides of the aisle would be wanting to talk about reforming the tax code, but they have the pledge hanging over their head and a promise by grover norquist propose them in an election if they violate the pledge.
9:10 am
a government that cannot ta x cannot do anything else. if it cannot raise the revenue needed, then it cannot do improvements that it wants and build roads and bridges and fund the military. the government has to be able to raise taxes when it needs to raise taxes. host: robert is on our independent line from marion, north carolina. good morning. are you there, robert? >> having trouble with the independent line today. host: we will go to the republican line, butler, new jersey. caller: yes, good morning, ma'am. i would like for you to expand on your statement that shareholders pay the corporate tax, and a little bit further on -- host: i think we lost him, but
9:11 am
we have the first part. guest: there's a lot of data out there analyzing where does the corporate tax actually get paid. and there is some evidence that some of it gets passed on to consumers and some of it gets passed on to workers. but the vast majority of it gets passed on to the shareholders in the form of reduced dividends. so the corporations who want a lower tax rate want a lower tax rates so they can pay higher dividends to their owners and make more money. and of course executives in those corporations are often very big shareholders. host: from twitter, we have a tweet from john. talk about the role of small businesses in the president's tax plan.
9:12 am
guest: i think he's right about that. part of the problem about the specific tax code, it is really hard to help those small business people and innovators. president's plan would increase and make permanent the research and experimentation credits. but that credit does not help you unless you actually owe taxes. unless you are far enough along in the cycle to have a product out there and to be making money on it, that credit does not do you any good. it would be a lot more effective if the government actually made grants to encourage research in particular areas, but that, politically, cannot get done. also, big u.s. multinational companies that are operating a in foreign countries have a lot of opportunities to treat a lot of their products as a earned offshore whether it was or not or whether they do that through an accounting gimmick, so they
9:13 am
are able to reduce their tax rates for by the use of foreign subsidiaries. most small businesses says don't have that opportunity. host: an e-mail comment -- guest: i think we probably should go back to the clinton rates. if you look at the argument that tax cuts boost the economy and create jobs and brings revenue to the government, you can see very clear examples where that has not been the case. if you compare the clinton years younger bush years, the tax rates under clinton were much higher and yet it was a time where the economy was growing really well. the bush tax cuts were a huge windfall especially into the top 5%. they should have brought about a long period of economic
9:14 am
prosperity and that did not happen. host: one more call for go to the break. altamont springs, democrat from florida. caller: good morning. an earlier caller mentioned and she was just mentioning also that the tax structure has changed significantly since 1980. if you look at the tax code from the 1940's through the 1970's, in our country -- our country actually grew and we had a fantastic growth period that i lived through. i am an older man. i realized in 1980 when reagan , 70%, ithe taxes thought this would change our way of life and it has. we have a polarized nation now. i don't understand why we tax the traders less than we intact the producers. the producers are the fo
9:15 am
farmers, small businessmen and women, professionals, and common workers like myself. my wife is a schoolteacher. i am a retired navy officer. we pay 25% last year when mitt romney paid 13.9%. host: let's give her a chance to respond. guest: that is one of our core issues, that we believe in come from wealth like capital gains and dividends and -- should be taxed at the same rates as income from workers. payroll taxes on top of everything. it is absolutely true that one of its's secretary pays a tax rates more than twice what is is. host: rebecca wilkins, we will leave it there. thanks for joining us. next, a discussion on the u.s.- mexico drilling deal that was reached this week. first, news update from c-span
9:16 am
radio. >> 9:16 a.m. eastern time. the employment numbers show applications dropped 4 1/6 weeks to its lowest in four years. the labor department says 351,000 people applied for jobless benefits last week. unchanged from the week before. when applications dropped consistently below 375,000, it usually signals hiring a strong enough to lower the unemployment rate. the white house releases a report today addressing online privacy issues. the plan takes a two-pronged approach calling on congress to pass a consumer privacy bill of rights while putting the onus on companies like google, facebook, and privacy watchdogs to develop new data handling rules for the digital age. the white house supports tough new laws that would spell out how consumers personal information can be collected, stored, used, and shared pipes web companies. we will air the discussion and the release of the report live at noon.
9:17 am
watch on c-span television or listen on c-span radio. the obama administration stepping up efforts to keep the asian carps out of the great lakes where it could endanger other fish. they plan to spend $50 million including increased trapping and netting and testing of an acoustic water gun in hopes of scaring them away. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> we got started because there were a lot of conservative thinking. there had been no single progressive think-tank that works on economic policy, domestic policy, national security. >> president and ceo of the center for american progress,, on the mission of the washington d.c.-. based-. >> dairy little facts behind them. part of our jobi estimate the
9:18 am
arguments and factual arguments and evidence-based argument behind our views. sometimes when the facts don't argue for our position, we examine those positions, because we fundamentally believe the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> a look at the center for american progress, if sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span "q&a" at the 1968 olympic games and john carlos and tommy smith raised their fists in the black power salute. >> week think black power intimidated so many people, white people in particular, by using that phrase "black power." when they used that phrase, it made many people depend black power meant destruction. like blowing up the statue of liberty or ground zero, destroying america.
9:19 am
it wasn't anything about destroying america. it was about rebuilding america and having an america with a new paradigm of in terms of how we could truly be when we did that the alleged in elementary school and junior high school about the land of the free, the home of the brave. we all wanted to be great americans. as young athletes we found something was wrong. something was broken and we wanted to take our time to evaluate and then take our initiative to fix it. >> discover more about african- american history during black history month on "book tv" on c- span 2 and online at the c-span video library. certification and share from over 25 years of c-span programming. -- search and share. >> "washington journal" continues. >> loren steffy of the houston chronicle joining last on the
9:20 am
deal between the u.s. and mexico about drilling below the maritime border. guest: the agreement does several things and has a significant impact especially for u.s. companies. for about 10 years or so, companies on the u.s. side of the border have been reluctant to drill in this area that gets within a close distance to the border, because if something happens there was not a clear definition puffed who was responsible if an accident drifted into the other country's territory, would be responsible? so this removed a lot of uncertainty from all bad and will really open up to produce significant area of at least on the u.s. side and it may pave the way for greater participation between the u.s. and mexico to jointly develop some of these reservoirs that straddle the border. host: the area that's opening up, but first can we talk about these two tracks of land in
9:21 am
mexico and some of the mystery behind why they have been shut down panned why they are opening up now? guest: on the u.s. side, the area about the size of the state of delaware, is how the interior department describe it, 107 million barrels of oil potential in the ground. the problem has been mexico really looks at oil wells and oil resources very differently than the united states does. they have a constitutional protection that says mexican companies or the mexican oil company has to own the oil, so the government gets a significant portion of its budget revenue from oil production. that has basically prevented foreign companies from drilling in mexico either on land or offshore, because foreign oil companies like to own a piece of the oil. they like to get a percentage of that production. constitutionally, mexico has not been able to do that. >host: if u.s. companies drill
9:22 am
in mexican waters now, do they have access to selling that oil or do they have to sell to mexico? guest: the interior department has worked out a formula that will benefit u.s. companies and still respect the mexican constitutional requirements. we don't know exactly what the details are yet. both governments have to vote on it. the u.s. senate and the mexican congress have to vote on it before it becomes final. this has always been a very contentious issue in mexico. i am sure that mexican lawmakers in particular will look at this carefully. host: the maritime border, a map so people can see the area of the gulf we are talking about. when the interior secretary announced the agreement, said it would clear up some legal grey areas. what are some other areas that the agreement clears? guest: the big issue was liability over any potential oil spill that might occur. again, when you get into the
9:23 am
cross border issues, if you have an accident on one side of the border and the oil drips into the waters of the other country, who is responsible for the cleanup, who pays for that? this creates a joint agreement where you would actually have inspectors from each country inspecting wells on both sides of the border, they agreed to a new set of safety standard that are basically the u.s. standards that have been adopted after the deep water rise and. so it relieves a lot of the uncertainty. in the past, u.s. companies have been afraid to go much closer to the maritime border because they did not know what their liabilities might be. host: were the u.s. standards the stricter standards of the two? guest: yes, well mexico has not had a lot of offshore drilling activity and not a lot of the productivity. they are drilling their first coltrane deep water well which is more than 5,000 feet of water. -- first ultra-deep water well.
9:24 am
host: do we have the capacity in the u.s. government to inspect all of our wells and oil rigs and there is as well? guest: this has been one of the biggest challenge is especially in the gulf where there are so many oil wells. the bureau of ocean energy management has beefed up its inspection staff and are continuing to add people. but it is an open question into how effective this regulation will be going forward and certainly the question of whether we will have enough people to get oil rigs inspected. by the government will make the very deep water wells the cutting edge technology projects a top priority especially given what happened two years ago. host: we are talking with a business columnist from the houston chronicle if you want to join in on the conversation. give us a call on your
9:25 am
respective lines. 202-628-0184, if you are outside the u.s. was there some outside pressure from other countries creeping into this area? guest: i think it had more to do with the fact that the obama administration has said that it wants to open up more domestic drilling, more areas to domestic drilling. if you are going to do that, this is a no-brainer. it is in an area where we already have a lot of drilling nearby. a huge operation that is the closest to this. you have in the structure in place. new wells can tie back into the perdido project that's
9:26 am
already there. then you don't have to go into an east coast discussions. host: let's open up the phones. steve is on the democratic line from illinois. caller: good morning. i do support the agreement. i think it will be good economic thing for both countries. i see it as a long-term positive impact on our nation's economy. host: steve from illinois. how has the agreement been received politically? you said that it has to be passed by congress. guest: it has to be passed by our congress and the mexican congress. the belief is there's a fair amount of support for it in congress. if there's not a lot of drawbacks. this is an area where we have had drilling activity nearby, so i don't think you'll see a lot of political opposition to it. it has more been an issue of dealing with liabilities across
9:27 am
the border and getting the two governments on the same page. host: i want to read a comment from the american petroleum institute praising the obama administration active agreement was announced. what is the status of some of these other areas they want (? job is to promote oil production as much as possible. they would love to see all these areas opened up for new drilling. we saw some movement on the east coast initiatives right before
9:28 am
the deepwater core rise in accident and then they kind of pulled back. -- deep water horizon accident. there's a lot more tourism in those areas. for example, in florida especially on the gulf coast there's been a lot of resistance to allowing. allowing there's a lot of other economic interests involved. those things could be a little tricky, those states, especially in an election year. part of the reason you can do this agreement now is it is safe, it is not really politically risky, and is also something that mexico would like to see happen, because mexico's production has been declining. to the extent it can increase offshore production, it will benefit mexico as well. host: jim on twitter writes oil t mexico's pillic exports. guest: there is still a major
9:29 am
source of oil for us. mexico is now about the no. 7 oil producer in the world. it has declined significantly and all the projections are -- includin theions from the mexican oil company -- are that that production will continue to decline. they don't have the technical expertise they need to develop these new resources. that is part of the reason they are hoping to get more offshore activity, because there's a lot of oil out there that really has not been tapped. host: independent line, andres from champlain, new york. caller: basically, clinton left office, one of the last things he did was deregulate oil. what impact is that having on what we are paying for gas today? and why do we need to drill in the gulf? guest: the reason is because i
9:30 am
have not noticed people driving a whole lot less. the recession has taken a bit of a bite out of demand, but that is largely temporary. the fact is more and more cars are on the road every day. as a nation we continue to consume more oil than any other country on earth. in the short term at least, to meet that demand we will need more production. the other thing that is happening in terms of the united states relative to the rest of the world is that other countries like india and china are starting to use a lot less -- more oil. in saudi arabia they are very concerned about the increase in demand. as more and more countries draw on this available oil that's being exported, that means there's less for countries like the u.s. the more we can do to promote production either in our territory or in this hemisphere
9:31 am
with friendly countries like mexico or canada, the more secure our supply will be in the future. host: let's go to annapolis, maryland, teresa on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know by we are dealing with mexico in this regard. when they came out, it was the oil companies, the united states of america would help them put it through, they just built the refineries, gave them every penny they needed, if because they did not have the know-how. when it was all over, they took away the 20% that the oil refineries were supposed to get from them and they nationalize everything. if the united states -- and i don't believe in using bad language, but s-c-r-e-w-e-d.
9:32 am
we should be dealing with canada. the keystone project. we have an abundance of oil in alaska's as well and we are doing this to people who have already done so much damage. host: let's give loren steffy a chance to respond. guest: you are talking about nationalizing the mexican oil industry which was in the 1930's. you are right. a lot of u.s. companies went into mexico and began drilling and set up a lot of infrastructure. mexico was the first country that led this sort of nationalization boom that we saw in latin america in the mid 20th century. if you talk to mexican nationals about it, they have a different view. they said the u.s. companies
9:33 am
the oilping ou zerot all and the benefits should have been shared with the mexican people and they were exporting them to the u.s. and elsewhere. i think that as far as the oil industry is concerned, those issues are very much in the past for the most part, certainly with regard to mexico. what they see now is a real opportunity especially offshore to develop some of these resources. he even if you leave the mexican part of the deal out of the equation, what we are really talking about, the most immediate benefits, will be to remove the cloud of uncertainty on the u.s. side of the border so that companies can drill in u.s. waters right up to the maritime border and not have to worry about potential liability if there's a problem or worry about mexico raising concerns that the industry with drilling once they have begun to invest in those projects. host: about 25 minutes left with
9:34 am
loren steffy, business columnist at the houston chronicle. another comment on twitter. guest: i'm not sure if mexico is actually planning any refineries. they have actually been buying more refined products from us in recent years. we have actually been exporting a little more gasoline and diesel fuel -- mostly diesel fuel, but gasoline as well, because the recession has crimped the u.s. demand for gasoline. all these things, there's an ebb and flow to them. as demand picks up in the u.s., mexico will have to make tough decisions about whether it needs additional refining capacity or whether it can find other places to buy refined products. host: surely from ottawa is up next on the democrat line -- iowa. caller: first i would like to answer the but gal that was on
9:35 am
their before asking about the pipeline coming down. i learned the other day from this fellow's houston chronicle that chiina has put in $16 billion of investments in the canadian oil sands. that pipeline will carry that oil for china down to his border and public on to china and i have nothing against china. but i would also like to ask him about the quality of this investment in mexican oil, because i have read that mexican difficult tor -- refine that it's mostly goes into -- fules -- stove fuels in the united states. guest: mexican crude is heavier than west texas crude.
9:36 am
but there are refineries in the u.s. that are perfectly capable of refining heavier crude. most of the new oil fields that are being discovered around a world are actually a heavier grade of crude. more and more refineries have been i adapted to havet. host: charleses on the independent line from blacksburg, virginia. good morning. caller: this morning, gentlemen. i have a question regarding the emergency equipment, the capping stack. will that be required in good deal with mexico? -- in the deal with mexico? i am the person who invented the capping stack according to the patent office. them and 185 other countries. you can asked massey.
9:37 am
host: what is it? caller: it is the valve that was used on the condo wel -- the to shutting down. i had a mutual agreement with a man named richard hahn in texas and the as a company called ed &m and that's where i lost control of the valve and we are soon to regain control. how these people are moving that valve as well. there's another houston company called wild well. host: let's see if this is part of the agreement that was signed this week. guest: what the agreement does is that it does require wells on both sides of the boundary to have a spill response plan in
9:38 am
place. in this case they have used the helix system. i don't know if the helix uses your device or something else, but it is the helix system that will be used under this agreement if there were to be some sort oil spill,. for, host: you wrote a book "drowning in oil, bp and the reckless pursuit of profits." did you study the capping stack that charles was talking about? guest: unfortunately, my book came out before lot of the analysis had been done on blowout preventers and things like that. if i rode briefly about the capping stack because they used that to finally cap the oil well. in terms of response plans that were developed around it and what was done after macondo, a lot of that was done after my book came out. the industry has learned some lessons on that and applied it to a broader oil spill response
9:39 am
plan. one of the things that the accident pointed out was that there was no coordinated response to an oil spill of this magnitude. and so, you have an industry consortium now than as one response program that has equipment in place and then you have the helix system which has also met federal standards for spill response. so you have two different systems companies can choose from. the idea is to basically have equipment and a plan in place so if something like this happens, you can respond more quickly and effectively. host: let's go to california, sal on our republican line. good morning. are you there? caller: ok. i know you are from texas. i was originally raised in west texas. my question deals with the refineries and glutton supposedly that they are
9:40 am
generating to use the oil in the united states and why the gas prices are going up and up, because refiners don't want to released a surplus and losing money. we have the state department involved and everything. everybody is trying to agree with everything. the bottom line, the dollar is being transferred. the gain is being transferred to the company's. it is a world economy. china and india need it and even mexico needs it. the problem i am seeing is we are getting the short end of the stick right now. looks like we will be for least another 10 years. can you be specific on the refineries and how they're making their money? guest: well, the refiners right now are exporting a little bit
9:41 am
more gasoline and diesel than they have in the past, because demand has not been quite what it has been domestically for the u.s. that is not necessarily a bad thing. anything that increases our exports benefits our economy. by keeping those refineries running at their peaks, they are keeping people employed. so i don't see the export of refined product as a bad thing at the moment. longer-term, you are absolutely right. this is a global market. the price of oil, which is still the overriding determining factor in the price of gasoline at the pumps, is basically controlled by opec, controlled by geopolitical events. the recent run-up in oil prices as much more to do with iran saber rattling in the straits of hormuz than it does anything that has happened domestically. it is possible that if u.s. demand were higher, we would be paying higher prices at the pumps right now. but i think we will see the
9:42 am
prices continue creeping up. we typically see an increase in the prices at the pumps heading towards the beginning of summer, because more people start driving. host: at what point will be opening of this new era in the gulf of mexico impact prices at the pumps? guest: it's going to be a little while before we start to see an impact, because first of all they have not even sold the lease is yet. they're hoping to get that sailed on later this year. it will probably take a couple years before everything gets through the pipeline. and then from there you will actually start drilling the wells and bringing them into production. it's likely to be several years down the road before we see any of that production starting to come into the market. host: an e-mail question from philadelphia -- guest: i don't know that we have any guarantees. we are talking about a fungible
9:43 am
commodity, so it tends to go where there is the most demanding and where it can get the highest price. to the extent of the u.s. is the biggest consumer of oil and oil products in the world, there's a very good chance that it will go here. certainly, economically, it makes more sense if you are producing in the gulf of mexico, the least amount of transportation after duke, the more economical is. obviously, the first choice would be to get that oil to refineries on the gulf coast. host: eugene on our independent line from augusta, georgia. caller: good morning. my question is, everybody says drill, baby, drill, it sounds good. i would like to know how much the u.s. government gets paid, because the drilling will be done by bp or shell, i assume.
9:44 am
opec determines the price. so how would benefit us? i will hang up and listen. thank you. guest: the government gets revenue. they get royalties, which is a tax on a production that comes out of any oil that is drilled on federal property. its onshore or offshore. the offshore leases in particular have a much higher royalty rates and represent a rather large revenue potential for the. in the gulf of mexico, they get billions and billions of dollars in royalty revenues. it is a significant source of revenue for the government, which, obviously, could use the money now. host: the u.s. government also gets money from selling those leases. guest: correct. host: explain that. guest: they have a lease sale. they divide the gulf of mexico into blocks, territories.
9:45 am
they lease out -- you are allowed to lease from the government specific blocks and the nop to submit a plan on how you plan to drill and what time frame and that sort of thing. there are various conditions that come along with it. they have an option which works like any other option -- auction, where companies bid on different blocks based on where they think they have the best chance of finding oil. host: in january after the december lease sale, a democrat from massachusetts, ed markey, talk about the december sale and was concerned about a lack of competition in the gulf lease sale. he pointed out that the lease sale in december attracted about 191 or rather 241 bids --
9:46 am
can you talk about the competition that's going on out there? guest: it's not just a question of saying now we're going to lease the federal land and everybody come on in and drill. there's a lot of economic analysis that goes into this and companies determine which ones will be the best prospects. we are talking about projects that could run into billions of dollars to develop. it's not a decision companies want to make lightly. they don't want to drill a dry hole, which means they don't find oil. not necessarily every piece of land available for lease will be one that companies will be willing to take the risk to drill. that is an issue with every federal lease sale. the initial competition in the gulf is something that has gotten a lot of attention since the deep water horizon accident.
9:47 am
since we have increase safety requirements, additional equipment, and that sort of thing, we are talking about very expensive projects. it is very difficult for smaller companies to compete on this. and so, it's one of the big concerns was how much of the new safety requirements were going to cost and how is that going to affect smaller company's ability to participate? so far we have seen only the very large companies that are willing to take a financial risk of going back in now that the new rules are in place. i think you will see competition increase to a greater extent as more these lease sales get done and people gain greater confidence in the process. host: eric from new jersey is next on the democratic line. you on with loren steffy. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. one of the talking points of the right is that a high price of gasoline is because the
9:48 am
environmentalists will not let us build new refineries and we have not build one in 30 years. i live in the northeast where there are several of idle refineries and concerns about more refineries being idled. if you could comment on that. guest: the issue of building new refineries got a lot of attention a few years ago. part of the reason that no new refineries have been billed is that it's very hard to get the permits to build a new one. the other part of the reason is that refineries are. incredibly are $5 billion, $10 billion in some cases. companies have to look 20 or 30 years out and say what kind of demand will ec? the fact is that most oil companies, including the big ones like exxon, whose study these things on an annual basis, have said they see u.s. gasoline demand declining when you get out 20 or 30 years because we will start using more alternative fuels. if you look at it from that standpoint, most companies don't want to invest billions and
9:49 am
billions in something that will be obsolete in a couple decades. so there has not really been the desire on the part of the companies to build new refineries. what they have done and what we are seeing certainly on the gulf coast is that existing refineries are being expanded so that they are increasing refining capacity without building new plants. the reason that this sort of a good compromise is for one thing it is cheaper, but the other thing it is easier to get the permits to expand a facility that's already there spent to build a completely new one. host: illinois, rob on our republican line. caller: hello to both of you. a comment and then a question. my comment is, i was watching the congressional hearing a few months ago about the keystone pipeline. one of the guys said that he would not even admit that the oil was going to be sold to the u.s. and basically the u.s. was going to be a middleman to sell
9:50 am
it to china so that china's ships would not have to drive by alaska to go pick it up. my question is, if we start going into war with iran, would that not raise gas prices and is unwise?on guest: war would not be wise and it would raise gas prices quickly. if something like that happened, if we see a big spike in the price, we are going to be worried about where the price goes and the impact that has on our economy. we will also be very worried about supply and, because if iran were to cut off the oil supply to eurocom all the european countries would be scrambling trying to buy additional oil somewhere else in the market. to the extent that we have
9:51 am
friendly countries with long- term agreements that are supplying oil to us like canada and mexico at the top of the list, it provides a real long- term benefits for the u.s. it could help prevent things like gas lines and things like that in the future if something were to really get out of whack. host: another question about gas prices, matt writes -- guest: it does have an impact on pricing.; there's no doubt about that. but it has an effect both ways. when prices are going up, if speculation can add to the increase for the speed of the increase, but it also works the other way? when prices are going down. speculators are then looking at the long-term trends and betting the prices will fall. so the overall effect of speculation in the market is that it adds liquidity and probably brings a more realistic pricing scenario to the markets.
9:52 am
it is easy to blame speculator is because nobody really understands what they do and they are the convenient bad guy. the bigger impact on oil prices is opec and specifically saudi arabia and what they are doing with production. host: another question on where we are dealing, on twitter -- guest: well, it would definitely have less impact on people and fished and we would not have to look oppose oil rigs when we go to the beach, but, unfortunately, drilling is only part of the problem. then you have to figure out how to get it from 50 or 60 miles offshore back to the refinery. in the gulf of mexico we have a lot of infrastructure, a lot of pipelines and things already there. in the case of the mexican agreement, they are going to be drilling near the shell perdido
9:53 am
project where other oil wells can link to this hub and the oil from the other wells will flow to that and it is piped out. that the infrastructure is incredibly beneficial. you don't have much of that in alaska. you have the trans alaska pipeline. offshorerms of oi drilling, it's part of the reason the gulf of mexico is so attractive. host: cincinnati, ohio, you are on the air. caller: yes, i wath c-span all the time and i appreciate the show. but i have a couple comments on the pipeline. your guess said earlier in the beginning of the broadcast there's not a lot of drawbacks' holding this back. becausea drawback
9:54 am
mainly everytime you see them speak of the map, it is constantly changing the line. i'm not sure where they're going to be. -- where they are going to be putting it. and the new energy resources president obama is trying to give us our own resources without having to resource from other countries, to be able to hold our own country. we have the strongest -- all the oil and minerals in our grounds that other countries need. andhave the strongest steel and what is the pipeline going to be made from? from u.s. steel?
9:55 am
and the cars today on the road is the same traffic. loren steffy host:. guest: i'm not sure where the steel for the keystone pipeline will be manufactured. if i think that project is a long way from actually happening. what we were dealing with, with keystone, was the company has to submit an application to the state department to across the u.s. border. that is where this whole political firestorm erupted a, was over the issue of granting a permit. if one of the things that gets lost in that is even if the permit is granted, that does not mean the pipeline will get built. if you talk to pipeline companies, a lot of people feel that will not actually happen. that once keystone gets the go- ahead, that you would see other existing pipelines that would
9:56 am
step up and reversed the flow. a lot of pipelines flow from the gulf into the midwest. what we need now is pipelines that go the other way. as the economic incentives increase for those companies to reverse the flow of the pipelines, we may see that happen and it could hardly take away the need for the keystone project they are talking about. host: can you talk about the jobs argument that the lady brought up? that was a big issue in the keystone debate. what's actual number of jobs the keystone pipeline would create? guest: i'm not sure the actual number of jobs is now. i've seen anywhere from zero jobs up to 200,000. it depends on how you calculate and the spin-off jobs and the ripple effects. obviously it would represent a lot of construction jobs while the pipeline was being built. those are not jobs that will last forever once the project is done. those would go away.
9:57 am
actually running and maintaining the pipeline is not terribly labor-intensive. what we don't know is how many jobs would be generated from the increased flow of oil and that sort of thing. i think it's really hard to say, but i think the extremes of those estimates are wrong. i don't think we will see near 200,000 jobs, but i don't think we will senior 0 either. it's hard to put an exact number on it. host: we have a couple minutes left with loren steffy before we head over to a house democrat steering policy committee on women's health, try to get a few calls in. tim is on our independent line from mayn't. good morning. caller: yes, i was wondering if the oil companies are lying to the american people about how much oil they are pumping out of the gulf of mexico. if you took one of thousand wells and had the same capacity looking at you're
9:58 am
50 million barrels a day. gao has already said the oil companies are underreporting to our congress. is there anybody in our government checking this out? guest: well, underreporting of oil production is probably as old as the oil industry itself. on and off over the years you have seen this become an issue and on land and offshore. it's very hard to know if on a day-to-day basis how much of an actual production is coming out of an oil well. the government basically relies on the companies themselves to report this data. there is some verification of that. the bureau of energy management, which used to be? minerals management service, does have a verification process. if that's how they find out. every now and then you'll see a case where a company gets sued over and underreporting revenue or production numbers. but it is an ongoing problem and
9:59 am
it's partially because a lot of the wells are in very remote areas, miles and miles offshore. we have to rely on the companies themselves to provide the data. they are supposed to provide it accurately, but sometimes they don't and sometimes there's factors that make it hard for even them to know what the production is. host: last question. the estimates that were given from the interior was there are 172 million barrels of oil in the new area that is being opened up. how did they come up with that figure? guest: they do that basin the geology and they hope that number is low. they think the actual number could be higher than that but oil companies tend to get excited about these things so they tend to overestimate. the government tends to underestimate it will but but that is a rough idea of what we are looking at. host:


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on