tv Washington Journal CSPAN April 13, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EDT
the agenda includes the rest of the year. and we will focus on federal spending with vicky hartzler. and a member of the budget committee. also joining us is joyce razer. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. congressional leaders heading to the white house later today where president obama will brief him on his budget blueprint. significant budget cuts as well as the recommendation for a tax increase for certain high-income americans. they will be covered on c-span3 later this afternoon.
the president will outline his spending agenda on the campus of george washington university. we will begin with a couple of stores related to the president's speech. one from the "washington post," is the president losing some of his political base? [unintelligible] -- the numbers are on the bottom of the screen. you can join the conversation by a sending us an e-mail. email@example.com. let's begin with some of the headlines. pressure on debt. from the chicago sun-times, why you will hardly feel those big cuts in spending. it is just 1% of what the
government will lay out this year. that is on what will take place tomorrow. first in the house of representatives, then the u.s. senate. congress eric cantor delaying it by one day to allow members to the 72-hour rule to review the legislation. the "of land a constitution- journal." then there's there is this front-page in the "washington post." obama is risking losing liberals, saying that he is facing a growing rebellion on the left.
rory montgomery joins us on the phone, a reporter for the "washington post." what will the president outlined in his speech? we are getting a heads up from the white house this morning. guest: his message will be that he has a plan to bring down the debt. the budget he put out in february would require an additional $9 trillion in additional borrowing. there are now to plans out there from his fiscal commission and from house republicans that would cut that additional debt to around $5 trillion. the president will have to do something similar.
he has said that he will take the recommendations of his fiscal commission, reported in december, as the foundation for the proposal he will talk about today. will we know is that he is going to include cuts to the entitlement programs that he is -- that he has avoided touching in the past, medicare and medicaid. it is not clear that he will discuss also security. we think it's pretty unlikely. it will also talk about more defense cuts. host: there is a story in the "washington post" talking about those votes about raising the debt ceiling in mid-may, has the government reaches that $14.2 trillion mark. how will they raise the debt ceiling? will be short term? could it be raised their 2012 and the presidential election? guest: the first question is are
they going to do it, since they have not figured out how to -- how much of the votes are to do it. you have republicans and many moderate democrats saying, we know the debt ceiling needs to be raised, but we cannot do it without an enforceable mechanism to ensure that we do not spend another $9 trillion that we do not have over the next decade. the conversation is just beginning. i imagine this morning at the white house, how do you shave something that will both satisfy republicans that spending will be cut and provide revenues that the democrats want to say, and the other big issue here is the republicans made clear yesterday that they are not expecting all bowed in mid-may. they will push this on out toward early july, which is when
treasury secretary tim geithner has said the real drop dead deadline is. host: let me show you this early read, embargoed until 6:00 eastern time on details of what the president will be saying. i want to show you this. the president will lay out four steps to it achieved this balanced approach -- the president will make clear that while we share the goal of reducing the deficit and putting our nation back on a fiscally responsible path, a division is one where we can live within our means without putting burdens on the middle class. we will hear a lot about the word balance, which we heard yesterday from jay carney. read between the lines. what is the president's message?
guest: pretty much that he will propose a lot of the things that the country needs. he is trying to draw a contrast between the paul ryan budget, the house republican budget chair, which would not raise taxes. as a result, that budget would whack everything the government spends money on. it would end that medicare is an open-ended benefit, it would cut programs to levels they have never been that, as a segment of the economy. the president will try to say there is a more measured responsible way to approach this problem. we do not have to get rid of the debt entirely. i have a plan that will gradually squeezed some of those savings out of health care programs like medicare and medicaid without cutting benefits to beneficiaries.
it is not a particularly radical departure from what he has already laid out. host: bring it back to what you wrote today in the "washington post." they will vote on the budget to keep the government running for the rest of the fiscal year. then they will deal with the debt ceiling and the impact will have on financial markets. guest: i am sorry. i think that the financial markets are already nervous about what is going on. people watch the brinksmanship over the 2011 budget last week. that really cannot happened over the debt limit. if we would -- if we miss even one auction at the treasury over our debt, it would be cataclysmic. nations depend on us to support
their dollars. if we prove that we cannot provide this service that the dollar is not capable of performing the role of being the world's reserve currency, of 1% rise in interest wrote rutger -- that is additional money that we have to say. and people will fill it in their pocketbooks. they will see their mortgage loans start to rise, they will seek car loans start to rise, and geithner has predicted that the impact on our economy would dwarf the recession we just went through. host: lori montgomery, her story can be read online at their website. we will let you get back to your morning routine. thank you for being with us on this wednesday morning. the front page of the
"washington post," the question that we want to pose -- focus on. there are liberals being critical of the president but we're not planning to vote republican. what you think? mark, orlando, republican line. caller: i think that people need to realize that the last presidential election -- we have and our hopes on obama. he has always been a centrist. he was never a radical. for us to hope that he would be transforming somehow makes the question, i think. i will not vote -- i voted for republicans in the past, but i do not see myself doing so this time around. what is happening is that people are becoming infuriated. there was an article by matt taibbi in "rolling stone" about
spending, and to read it makes you sick, the waste of money and the insider shenanigans that went on. you are between the rock and a hard place, a live at that. host: the speaker of the house, john boehner, at the white house later this smarting. he will be joined by house and senate colleagues, including senator kyl, and senator mcconnell, also harry reid and nancy pelosi. there will be a speech by the president this afternoon, live coverage including c-span3 and on c-span radio and as with all the programming, streamed on the web at c-span.org. the deficit speech will be a lightning rod. the midday speech in washington, he will propose a sweeping plan
that includes cuts to entitlement programs such as medicare, limits on military spending, and an overhaul the tax system designed to bring in more revenue. further into the story, alan simpson, the co-chair of the commission on the deficit, all former dot -- gop senator, saying that the speech would be a mistake if the president does not outline in detail. one of the points in the "wall street journal" peace, many house republicans say --
next is edwin from chicago. good morning. caller: president obama has really disappointed me. this is a city that sent him to washington. i was out there beating the bushes for him as a senator, and also to be president. but since he has been in that office, to meet i feel that he has allowed the republicans to set the agenda, and then he comes in afterwards. he is the president. he is supposed to take the lead and continue to lead with all the problems we are having, until they are settled, he
cannot come in afterwards and then start showing things. now he is planning to come back to the city here in april, but he has lost a lot of support here, and i'm really having some serious thought in reference to whether i will support him again. in his reelection, he seems to have forgotten the singers who are important to any candidate runs. they have not had an increase in the cost of living in the last three years, and yet the prices are still going up. i have not heard the president say anything about that. but we have to take in deal with this deficit. host: thank you for the call. the president will be in chicago on thursday for a series of events including for the democratic national committee. it is all part of our "road to the white house" coverage. good morning in what is your take on this? is the president losing his political base?
caller: i do not know about him losing his political base because i am not part of it. but when they talk about paul ryan's budget not raising taxes, he'd actually reduces the tax rate. but i think he raises revenue because there are so many loopholes, tax loopholes that are eliminated, that actually more revenue comes in. more people are paid in. people keep talking about general electric not paying any taxes. they fail to mention that everything ge did was legal. it was legal because those were laws that the congress passed. and some of those loopholes were eliminated, then g e and a lot of other companies that do not pay taxes now legally will be paying into -- raising revenue into this country. host: paul ryan in the "times"
peace, he will offer an alternative to this president's speech tomorrow, by the way. republicans say that they will not extend only a part of the bush tax cuts. they want them to remain in place across the board. john boehner also weighing in on the president's speech. he will be at the white house later this morning. because any tax increase, from a tweet sent out overnight -- next is jake joining us from providence, rhode island. on the democrats' line. caller: they are questioning about not reelecting him. let me remind them, a republican president will not be sympathetic to our cause. obama is pretty good because he is fighting against these idiot republicans who are trying to somehow say you want to balance
the deficit by simply cutting spending, without trying to raise taxes on the top 2%. regards, even if you go with the paul ryan. , he wants to slash health-care. that does not help the budget. obama is doing a great job. and at the end of the day, the democrats will vote for obama whether they like, not. fight the devil republicans. host: thank you for your calls and your comments. obamget no still open, torture prosecutions. the house and the senate will take up the budget for the current fiscal year which expires in september. the house of representatives will move on to paul ryan's budget plan unveiled last week before the house budget committee. there was a marked up last week available on as part of our c- span video library.
troy, on the independent online, thank you for joining the conversation. caller: thank you for c-span. i have watched as president since he has been in the office. my goodness, we have had a strong president and we are blessed to have such a strong country who is educated and knows what is happening. the same people that created this mess, boner, i do not know how they can get up and criticize the president the way that they did. all the president was in office there and the republicans, the president was asking the republicans for help, all they did was vote know. john boehner had that famous , but the president came into office and at health care reform by these guys, so they are angry about that. living here in detroit, i have seen him create jobs here with
general motors and chrysler's 4000 some people. -- chrysler, thousands of people. he seems to be like the one legged man in name butt kicking contest. another twitter -- the side bar from the "washington post," with a demonstration in which the mayor of washington, d.c. and six other members of council with over 40 are vested, their opposition to the budget deal that places new restrictions on how d.c. spends its money. adam barr was a die-hard barack
obama supporter. now barr has put the meeting on hold. pledging to do more to keep up the pressure. all this coming up at the briefing with white house press secretary jay carney. here is a portion. >> balance is essential. the burden has to be shared by everyone. and what is not acceptable in the president's view, and we
believe in the american people's view, is a plan that achieves serious deficit reduction only by asking sacrifice from the middle class, seniors, the disabled, and the poor. while providing substantial tax cuts to the very well-off. host: jay carney yesterday at the white house briefing. jack hollen says from baltimore. you are a republican and from your perspective, has or is the president losing his political base? caller: first of like to mention that i liked the guy this morning, but with respect to the primary question, i am not really a republican. i am conservative. i have no better means of indicating my preferences
except by calling the republican line. all like to identify myself with the goldwater side rather than the other side of the party. and probably only caller you get today they voted for barack obama in 2008. my primary sense of the trail is not actually over the fiscal issues. -- of betrayal is naturally over the fiscal issues, but for two reasons. obama of rice said said that he did not think the president had the authority to engage unilaterally and in this situation, you have what amounts to something of a
[unintelligible] which might qualify their in as an anti-neo-imperialists position that he is incarnadine with intervention in libya. host: 80 for the call. from baltimore, the republicans wary of the budget blueprint. americans overwhelmingly approved a deal that avoided the partial government shutdown, but the public is wary and divided about the tough steps --
we will cover the speech later on. one of the stories inside the "wise to impose," npr -- "washington post" -- tom joins us from hampton, virginia. democrats line, is a republic -- is the president losing a base? caller: no, sir. i want to start off saying that i am a proud democrat. i believe that mr. barack obama, my president, is going to outsmart the republicans by
putting them in a box, by saying there is no deal about the debt limit. the debt ceiling should be raised because the full faith of the american people, and he should not have to capitulate with the republicans over that period republicans need to come to the table with him to help keep america going. also about paul ryan plan, it is going to hurt poor people. poor people out there making sacrifices for years, four years. they know how to make sacrifices. so when they said that everybody needs to make sacrifices, they need to stop -- start with that stopped two% that had been basically snatching it from the babies of the poor. i want to thank you for allowing me to speak. host: another story from "usa today," more on its impact in washington, d.c. in advance of the final vote of
the budget agreement, they have attacked the obama administration and lawmakers for imposing a ban on the city using its own tax revenue to fund abortions for poor women. this comment from our twitter page. scott, good morning. what is on your mind? caller: is obama losing his base? it depends on how you look at it. some of the people that do not have jobs see that the job number went down last month. what we do not see is the
200,000 people every two or three months they are losing their unemployment and being counted out of the system and it is making it look like jobs are being created and there are less people. most are being thrown -- cut off unemployment, and they are not being counted anymore. that messes up the numbers. when you see the government's, that jobs out there are cheap- paying jobs, it seems to -- looking at the whole picture, it seems like that situation is not working for jobs. and fighting the war, and supporting the wars, i wish i had known that before i voted. he campaigned against the war, saying he would pull out of the war, and here he is in a third war.
i don't know if he is losing all of his base, but some of the things he says and ran for president for, he does the opposite when he talks now rather than when he did in the campaign. host: from dennis lane, anything coming out of the government lately is no more than a foreshadowing of the infomercials to come. the poor will pay more. a supporter of the president, and her piece in the "washington post," lake to the game again.
a second maddening example involves the long-term fiscal picture. back to the sports metaphor, can anyone here play this game? palled joining us from kansas city, democrats learned, is the republic and -- is the democrat -- is the president losing his base? caller: a couple of things to say. i do not think he will lose his base. the republicans are an awful alternative.
what i like to mention is that i am irritated that the monitors in the media, number one, this nation is not broke. number two, the chicken littles need to understand that -- no. 2, the tax surplus happened in 2001, i am not sure. greenspan said we pay off the deficit with the surplus. it would have unintended consequences. so they did not want to pay off the surplus. they gave away the money to the rich. that was the rationale. they had a surplus of give it back. now we do not have a surplus, so they are taxing the middle class to continue to give money to the rich. as for social security, it is not part of the deficit. and this is why i'm irritated at the pundits. social security, the very worst that can happen is that 25 years down the road, the checks would be cut by 25%.
all of this doomsday stuff about social security, take social security off of the deficit question. it by law cannot run a deficit. host: we're hearing from the white house that he will not address social security today. he will talk about medicare and medicaid. caller: ok, my messages to the media and to people who even know if you keep your opinions to yourself, there's something grossly wrong in the newspaper editor or someone has the right to correct something, they say this so many times that people are believing that. so security is not part of the deficit. i want to say one more thing. host: your job is to do what you're saying. we appreciate your comments. caller: splitting the people under 55 is a very cynical way
to divide people's loyalties and try to get support for an untenable situation. if a man is 54 and paying into social security for 34 years, and then it will take away and give it to the insurance companies, medicare is expensive because it covers our old people and that costs money. we need to figure out a way to pay for it. greenspan said that the deficit did not need to be paid, it needs to be paid down. host: another dealer, joseph, saying -- another view inside the "washington times became a scalpel will not do. he writes, the deal mr. boehner negotiator for fiscal 2011 --
next is jade joining us from columbia, missouri. good morning. caller: seeing as though he and his days slander the previous president with accusations of murder and war crimes and blowing up levees, i doubt that they would leave him for any reason. host: martin from pennsylvania, you're next on the republican line. caller: i like to save from the conservative point of view, not that i would associate myself as a republican, because i do not think the republican party now truly represents true conservatives. anyway, my point of view is that i think that if our government
was run like a company, and a company had to downsize due to pending economic strikes, i think any company in the united states would have to make cuts. you have to cut jobs if necessary. the thing with the government, though, is that it is run by a tax base. a lot of the trouble is with our tax system in general. i think that if we had a flat tax where all we needed was, instead of having one group being blamed for another group, pitting the poor against the rich, and both parties play the same game, what needs to be done is that we had a flat tax, i buy
peaches of gum for 25 cents, and later i made $5 an hour for $10 an hour or $1 million, it should be the same tax across the board. host: from one of our viewers. you can join the conversation online at twitter. ellen and norton always does not have a vote in the house of representatives or in any committee. she is speaking out on the potential is set down averted late friday evening. and also on the demonstration that took place on capitol hill. eleanor holmes norton speaking on the house floor yesterday. >> 2011 continuing resolution to on the floor this week contains the sinister trade that takes the self-governing right to spend its own local funds on
abortion services for poor women, as many jurisdictions have long done. the cr also funds the startup of a new private school voucher program, but only in d.c., about which no local elected official was consulted. it is the house republicans who had been on an undemocratic warpath against the district's own rule, but yesterday residents did not spare democrats or the president to accept of republican demands. host: on the house floor yesterday reacting to the demonstration and the rest of the d.c. mayor and members of the d.c. city council, 40 in all arrested as they protested outside the cartel office building in blocking traffic on
constitution avenue. for details on where the cuts for the current fiscal year are, at the two page a-3 -- go to a- 3. $8 billion in cuts including reductions in the economic supports funds. hhs getting less for family planning aid. the justice department getting $1 billion in budget cuts. across the board of where the $30 billion is coming from. caller: i am a first-time caller. host: do not be nervous. caller: i voted for president obama. no-go on that because john mccain justin not have it.
i ignored all the conspiracy theories and all the garbage about president obama, but i am telling you, i realize now how inadequate he is as a president. he just has no common sense. at the beginning, all he did was blamed bush, blame bush. every president in history when they came into office has inherited things from the past president. they never complain as much as this guy. and then with what just happened with trying to cut the budget and wading into the last minute, he was against it all the way. hemming and hawing about how bad it was in the republicans are bad. then all the sudden, they make the vote at the last minute one agreement at the last minute, and now he is coming out saying
like it was his idea and how wonderful it was. he did the same thing with obamacare. he came in saying he had a plan in this is how was going to go, and the next thing you know, he said you guys do it. and then this goes on and on and on and he has no input, and then he takes the credit for. i just do not understand the guy. he is carrying the hell out of me in a lot of people lined up. host: you're one of those important independent voters and new hampshire is role in the process, the first primary. in new hampshire and across the country, donald trump is tied with mike huckabee, you can see the peace in the "usa today." what is your take on his potential candidacy and others in new hampshire campaigning for the presidency? caller: truthfully, i think i would vote for trump. i would have to hear more ideas
of his ideas on foreign affairs. but he is a very educated man. he is a man of the world, well- traveled, and he knows what is going on out there. right now, th ebirther thing, he is doing that to throw obama off of his game. obama will fall for it. he does it all the time. every time anyone has chrysostom, he comes out like a little baby and has to have everyone, it is very embarrassing. trump knows the business world and we need someone in there that knows people in the business world and can get out there and get this country back on its feet. i have never seen this country like it has, if it is scaring me to hell. we have no respect in this country and i bowling -- believe donald trump can bring america back to the greatness that it
was, and bring respect to us again, that we can be the great country it used to be. host: thanks for your call. karen brown the whiting in politico, -- right thing in politico, seven things obama should say. a preview with what the president will be saying later today. live coverage at 1:45 p.m. eastern. saying that he has coasted on his personal charm. host: bill joins us from lakewood, new jersey. is the president losing his political base? caller: this is the first time that i have gotten through. host: we're glad to hear from you. caller: i do not believe he is losing his base. i do believe he is losing people that voted for him during the
last election. however, it is an important opportunity for people to remember that you need to vote in every election. you need to vote for your party and every vote counts. when it is a critical time, it is important to have all your representatives defending you. what is happening here now, i just cannot believe that. host: thank you for the call. representative vicky hartzler, also a member of the republican study committee, joining us and a couple of minutes to give her perspective on what the president will be saying today and the budget vote in suing tomorrow in the house of representatives. "financial times" with this upon in rigid opinion.
mr. obama must seize back the initiative, not with a speech or recycling his usual fiscal piety -- jim has this point of view from our twitter page. our last call is anthony from california, the republican line. caller: i do not think that there is anything that obama can say to anybody any more as to whether they will believe him. most people believe that he is just in campaign mode once again. i think that they were waiting for a long time to see this
campaign thing to start. they have been trying and trying to find out who is he going to be running against, because it really does not want any part of what is going on with the country right now, he just wants to be in campaign mode where he can blame this one and that one for all the problems. that is what he does, nothing else except for this campaign. host: anthony, thank you for the call, and for all of your calls and tweets. send us an e-mail. representative allyson schwartz and a democrat from pennsylvania will be joining us for later in the program. but next, vicky hartzler, republican from missouri, as "washington journal" continues. >> a few months ago i was able
to sign a tax cut for american families because both parties work through their differences and found common ground. now the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual cutting -- spending cut in history. >> watched the current spending debate in the debate about next year's budget as well from capitol hill and the house and senate floor to the white house and around washington online with the c-span video library. search, watch, click, and share with everything we've covered since 1987. it is what you want when you want. policies ban on twitter. it is the fastest way to get programming and schedule updates as well as events we have covered. you could join in the conversation directly to our washington journal gas. all those who are ready paul or twitter feed. -- who already follow our twitter feed.
>> this weekend, in the politically incorrect guide to socialism, kevin williamson the fine socialism and how it works in the u.s. today. he is interviewed by john p odhoretz. african american elites living in that new new york city. a look get first ladies, barbara bush, jacqueline kennedy, and eleanor roosevelt. you can find the complete schedule online and sign up our schedule alerts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from capitol hill is represented in vicky hartzler, a republican from missouri and a member of the republican study committee. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you, steve. host: your first appearance as a freshman. glad to have you. let me talk about the pulp
budget -- the paul ryan budget plan outlined last week. as a member of the republican study committee, some in your caucus wanted to go even further. where would you go further? guest: i think it is a wonderful plan. it is a plan that our country needs to reverse course that we are on them. this -- it is unsustainable where we are right now. it is excellent in that it addresses the real reforms that needs to take place. i was disappointed to learn we could not get to a balanced budget within 10 years. that would have been my first goal. but when i see that that situation -- debt situation, that will not be possible without getting into current entitlement spending for current seniors right now. i am not willing to go there. i do support the ryan plan.
host: let me read to you what the "washington times" is writing. tax and spending, myth and reality. how do you respond to that? guest: i am a small business owner myself, and i can tell you that if we have less taxes and were able to put more in into our business, we can hire more workers. most jobs in this country are
from small businesses. i feel confident that if we can bring our tax rate down on individuals and on businesses, it will create jobs. and if we can get our unemployment rate down to 4% projected to do according to the heritage foundation, then we will have more tax revenue and that will help balance the budget. it as a pro-jobs plan, plus a cut spending. those of the things that we need right now. host: but can you bring down the deficit without increasing revenue? guest: you will increase revenue as people get back to work. you have to grow the economy and get people working here, more manufacturing jobs, more companies coming back to america driven overseas through our tax structure and our regulations that we have here that are very onerous to companies. this plan encourages growth and that will increase our revenues.
host: did the bush tax cuts in the first eight years-nine years create the economic growth that you and others expected? guest: it did create jobs and it did create economic growth. that is what our country needs now. to balance the budget, i used to teach home economics and personal family finance and we would talk about balancing the budget, increase the revenue or decrease the spending. that is what we need to apply here in washington, d.c. as far as i see. i am fresh highs here, been here three months, but we are spending money that we do not have. 42 cents out of every dollar the government spends is borrowed. we would not do this in our homes. we do not do it in our work in in our businesses. why is it ok in washington? we have to discuss this spending and at the same time we need to increase the revenue,
and the way to do that is to decrease taxes, a decrease regulations, get american companies coming back and having their businesses here and creating jobs. and then we will get to a balanced budget. host: where is the compromise between the republicans and the democrats and especially president obama proposing today? guest: in my opinion he was not leading when he introduced his budget a few years ago. it was the same old story, more and more increase spending, more debt, more deficits, more borrowing, more taxes. that is the road that we have been on for years that got us to where we are today. we have come out with the bold, smart, courageous plan that is right for americans and will give us balanced at the end. and now the president is planning to play catch up. he is coming up tomorrow with the proposal because he sees that his first plan did not
lead. we're the ones that are leading. we will see what he says, but i welcome his support of reforming the mandatory spending that is driving this budget. you cannot since this budget balanced unless you address medicare, medicaid, social security -- and so we have put forward a plan to do that for future generations, and now the president i guess is coming out with his version and i am interested to see what he will say. host: vicky hartzler, and if you are listening on c-span radio, she is joining us from the office building. you can see people moving around in that house office building. she is a member of the republican study committee, representing missouri. ruth joins us from newport, florida.
welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you for taking my call. i had a couple of comments here. i was wondering why are you allowing companies like general election who do not have to pay taxes when all the things are made in china? it makes no sense to me. and you have all the small businesses started up under another name so that they can get tax credits for small businesses. and why are we in a war that we cannot even afford? what are we doing over there when there are some of the biggest dope peddlers and the world. they do not pay taxes than they do not do anything for this country and they sure as heck did not put money back into our budget. they do not do anything. they save all their money and they get all of these tax breaks and buy more cops, more property, or everything, and
meanwhile in the middle class we have to pay for them that do not pay any taxes at all. i want to explain this one to me. host: we should point out that she is a republican. guest: well i share her dismay when i found out as well about g e not paying any taxes. that is ridiculous. she is spot on with that. and your right with the light bulbs being manufactured over seas. in my district, there is a light bulb distribution center. and they were saying you cannot buy american light bulbs. the regulations are pushing a lot of smaller companies out. but back to ge, this budget and those close those loopholes. i was very glad to see that. that is not right. everyone needs to pay their. -- their fair share.
these budgets will close the to loopholes for ge. as far as their rage not paying taxes, some would agree. but the average person who makes a lot of money in this country, as far as the numbers that i say, they pay the majority of the taxes that our country takes in right now, coming from a very small percentage. they are paying and most of them are business owners. so we need to certainly be fair, but most of the people i believe to make a lot of money to contribute more than their fair share to our economy. and as far as the war is, you know, we need to win them and come home. i think that has started with iraq this summer, our men and women coming back from iraq and now will be transitioning over to their government, and in afghanistan, there are plans there to start winding down as well. it is a very dangerous world,
and we are engaging the battle to support the troops and what they do, and we wish them well and hope that we can win there. and keep the battles over there and keep our country safe right here at home. host: our guess is a member of the republican study committee. you can go into their website. in your proposal, representative, one of the items is to balance the budget within the next 10 years. vice-president dick cheney said at one point in his administration, the deficits do not matter. was the vice-president wrong? host: deficits do matter. they are a dark cloud that hangs over the head of all of us, and certainly government. any creates uncertainty here in the economic environment in our country, so that businesses and entrepreneurs are worried about whether there will be a recession again, and they are not willing to invest their money. hi no small businesses in the
fourth district of missouri that tells me they are not starting a second location because of what washington is doing. and they're concerned about their taxes and are we going to have a recession because of all of this debt. as a result of that, they are not hiring workers. that is very concerning to me. we have to reverse course. we cannot keep spending money we do not have. we have to pay off our debt like we do at home and get back on sound fiscal footing so that companies feel comfortable -- confident hiring and entrepreneurs will invest and to confident they will get a return for their investment. host: chain on our twitter page. is there a difference? guest: i do not think so. i guess thought budgeting for years to our students. my husband and i also have a small farm as well as a small business.
we budget. it is fundamental. you cannot spend more than you taken. yet washington has done it and done it and it has got to stop. that is why i ran for office and that is why we are here, to get back on the right course and to change the direction we are on right now. i think that we are off to a good start. it is not easy. people have been spending money here that we do not have for a long time. host: on next caller is from pennsylvania, robert is on the phone with a vicky hartzler, good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i've got the tv off so i guess i would just go by hook or by crook. host: we can hear you. caller: i really wanted to get on the show about a year-and-a- half ago. i am a first-time caller,
because i have been calling for a year-and-a-half. this is the first time i ever got through. so -- host: one of the reasons you cannot here is is that you are -- you have the tv on. caller: no, i have the tv off. i cannot hear what is going on on this side of the conversation. host: how will put you on hold and make sure we get you back on the conversations and to have been waiting for so long. david is joining us from kansas. caller: good morning. i have a question about nafta. i watched c-span yesterday and charles boulton, the administrator of nasa, was testifying what they needed on a 2012 budget.
the proposal was $21.8 billion. senator kay bailey hutchison seemed receptive to him, that is the way it seemed to me. i do not have any doubt that mr. boulton will be approved. there was some conversation of bob the paul ryan project, and i heard senator hutchinson referred to it a couple of times -- that it could not be discontinued. my question is, is there something in that project description that legally blinds
nds them to keep that going. host: on the issue of nasa funding, representative hartzler, what is your view? guest: i am not as first as some others. i would defer to them when it comes down to a vote. i have not studied that part of the budget. i will be visiting with them on their opinion on whether it is good for nasa. host: we will go to leonard next in cleveland, ohio, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of questions. the constitution that everybody read one of the freshmen came into office this
year, when protecting our borders, for the safety of the american public and the people that our founders wanted, i saw a conversation the other day were the saudi arabian -- they produce are oil, which we rely on, which we should not -- our country should have other alternatives, and we should have come out with the carburetors of 100 miles a gallon that the guess people put away and did not want out in the public. saudi arabia says they do not want to change their country over there with egypt. they were upset. all of this would be apparent -- libya. i understand what the americans have been doing to protect citizens. we all do not want to see people
hurt. since they do not want to conform or protect their people, why should we have an interest in their people, and send them money? i am interested in that. if they do not want to help end conform with things, why should we have no interest -- why should we have an interest, and spend our technology. if it was not for the american people, these people would not have the equipment to do this. host: thank you for the call. guest: we need to become energy independent. there is no reason why we should not be using the resources of our country is blessed with. we are the saudi arabia of the world in col. we need to use that. if we could use that in a clean way. we also have oil in our country.
i have been obsessed with the president and his on willingness to grant the permanence -- i have been very upset with the president and his on willingness to grant permits for the oil drilling in the gulf of mexico. we need to move on and get the pumps going again. we need to drill in and war. we need to use natural gas. we need to use everything, even nuclear, so that we are not dependent on countries that do not even like us. i have sponsored some bills to do that and to encourage that. i think that is a key battle it to our economic situation in having lower gas prices for every family, but for our national security as well. he also touched on the borders. that is concerning to me. his concern to people in my district. we have to support -- we have to
secure the border. there are people that are essentially terrorists that are able to come over here. it is, once again, a national security issue. we need to get control of that, and then make sure we have an immigration system that is fair for everybody, and expedited, so the people do not have to wait for years. we need to address the border situation. i think he was also a leading to the action that has -- of moving to the action that has taken place in libya. i am-rain that as well. it is a tough call. -- i am monitoring that as well. it is a tough call. it is difficult to watch innocent people being slaughtered by their government when they just wanted freedom. so, we are going to continue to monitor the situation, but i agree with him. it is time we become energy
independent. host: a couple of emails would like to give your reaction to. first the law, formally set -- from -- first of all from lisa, what about recovery been damaged from all of these cuts? gee, business owners and corporations, and those with capital, they see there is some certainty that we, as republicans in the house, are not going to let the government to impose these onerous bills on them anymore. last year they have the threat of cap and tax so business leaders did not know what their energy bill was coined to be. they did not know about their tax structure because the democrats were trying to increase taxes. they didn't know what the health-care costs were going to be. they were pushing on the government-mandated health insurance, which is skyrocketing their costs.
if that create a lot of uncertainty. business owners are now saying we know we are not going to get cash and tax past. we are starting to see people hiring more. the unemployment rate is moving downward. i think cutting spending is the right way to go, and it is going to be helpful to our whole recovery. host: vivian says how is the family budget different from the government -- the ball to borrow money? -- they both borrow money. host: on the first point about homeowners that borrow money for education, what is the difference? guest: there is a difference
between a small amount of borrowing that you could afford and you could budget, and make sure that you could pay the interest -- interest payments. and, there is an irresponsible situation here. we are borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar we spend. it is almost a situation where we are borrowing money to pay the interest. it is like people get out of line with their credit lines sometimes. they end up taking the cash and vans out of one credit. to pay the minimum balance on the other credit. . that is pin irresponsible. -- credit card. that is irresponsible. we have way too much debt. host: from our twitter page -- bauhaus and the car are collateral.
-- the house and the car are collateral. one other viewers as please? but congresswoman to be more specific about the number of jobs that were produced by the bush tax cuts. do you have a number? guest: i do not. there was a question i also did not address about the balanced budget amendment. i am a co-sponsor, and i certainly support that. i believe the data is imperative if we are going to get our federal -- i believe that is imperative if we are going to get our federal budget under control i was a representative after i left teaching, and we had a balanced budget amendment in our state constitution, and most states do. if i think it is over 30 states. that was very, very helpful. it forces lawmakers to balance the budget, to not spend money that they do not have. it calls for tough calls on
behalf of the elected officials like every state is dealing with, and misery is now, where revenues have gone down -- like misery is now, where revenues have gone down. it is difficult. it is too easy to keep spending and putting it off for the next group. that is where we are here, in washington now -- unrestrained spending, putting that off for the future, has got us to lay off $14 trillion debt. we are the generation that has been elected to stop this and reverse course. along with that, we need a balanced budget amendment, so we will have the same restraint at the federal level that we do at the state level. >> this issue has caused quite a debate on our twitter page. by the way, do you use twitter,
and how regularly? guest: i do, at least once or twice a day. you can sign up for my facebook and my twitter page. host: tom has this point -- government against households -- the differences the government can spend -- can print money. guest: and the governor -- the value of the dollar goes down. that is not a good solution. host: jim, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with about half of what you are saying. i do not mind seeing spending cuts, but you are not going to get out of this problem without revenues and trickle down, where you are talking about, it has just not ever worked. i like to ask you one more question -- are you a member of
the tea party? guest: i did join the tea party caucus. it is reflective of why am. we believe the limited government and lower taxes, and the constitution. that is the fourth district of missouri. it made sense to me to join that group. host: quincy from cold water mississippi -- cold water, mississippi. good morning. caller: i would just like to comment on the paul ryan budget. its coat the what budget? caller: the paul ryan budget. what they doing for the middle class and the poor? it seems to me you are getting cuddy -- you are cutting, and
the poor is getting more support. i'm wondering what we are getting out of it. guest: i am still reading the entire document. we are setting up new programs that we believe will better assist as far as medicare goes. that will be block granted back to the state and allow each state to revise that program however it is most helpful to the lower income people in their state to get them the health- care and the help they need. we are also encouraging job growth. the best way to help the poor is to give them a job, so they can have more money on their own, and not be considered for any more. that is what we want. when jobs for people, and we believe this budget will help promote that.
host: tomorrow the house will vote on the budget for the rest of the fiscal year. will you support the agreed budget plan for the rest of the year? new guest: that is a difficult one. i'm still wrestling with that. i did support the vote saturday night because i felt it was important to keep the government open and that our men and women in uniform receive their checks i was not in favor of the government shut down and have our military families not receive paychecks. it was the responsible thing to do. i am concerned and disappointed was the amount of cuts that we were able to get. on the one hand, it was historic, the biggest that has ever happened in history. you look at it that way, and that is good -- is $38.5 billion. asked if you look at it from the standpoint that we are borrowing $4 billion every day,
and you realize the cuts only amounts to about nine days' worth of borrowing. is just a drop in the bucket. we were under tougher restraints with this cr because it was left over mess from last year. they kick the can down the road. we came in at a disadvantage. it only funds for the rest of the six months. in some ways, it is good. we're starting to reverse course and rain in the runaway spending, but on the other hand is a shame we were not able to get more cuts. host: let me ask you about the accounting practices. one story this morning says the budget deal acts as a number of -- axes a number of czars that
are already gone. other areas and became the source of contention, most notably npr and the corporation for public broadcasting will get all of its $445 million. guest: that as part of the difficulty that we have had. we came here ready to do the people's work, and the american people spoke loud and clear last november that they want us to cut spending in a big way and reverse course and get our economy and our jobs back because of the uncertainty that is out there. we came to washington and we are faced with a democratic senate. we are faced with a president and a white house that do not get it. they do not support what the american people want. that has been frustrating as we talk cots, the other side it is not cooperating.
you need both sides to pass the budget. there were concessions made. host: this is the front page of all told the washington times." -- "the washington times." all of these cuts by the house. she called that was part of the negotiation process. -- guest: that was part of the negotiation process. we get some cuts, and some concessions. the senate is going to have to vote on the total repeal of obama-care. they will need to vote up or down whether taxpayers should fund abortions in this country, and they will need to do a number of studies that will be helpful to us as we build a case for why we should repeal obama-
care, and including whether some of the actual costs. they have been withholding that with a smoke and mirrors type of thing with the true cost of implementing this huge government takeover of health care. under this agreement, they will need to provide those studies. we, as republicans, did get some things we wanted as well. obviously, not everything. that is what it compromise budget is. host: greg joins us from garfield heights, ohio. he is a republican. good morning. caller: i wanted to bring up the fact that we do have not the way i would do what was it be to increase the cap on social security, the cap on income, and i would also implement a tear off on corporations that produce overseas and bring the product
back into the united states. whinnied to bring jobs back into the united states. host: your response? guest: we need to help preserve social security for our future. there is a way to do that. the budget does not address this directly. what it does do is say that the people in charge of social security, if they deem it is going to be bankrupt, the president and congress then have to take pro-active steps to make the balanced again, and to preserve that. that will force the issue because it is going to go bankrupt if we do not make some of those changes. it can be done fairly easy since it is a defined contribution and defined benefit system. you could tweak the age, or the contribution level.
also, the revenue side, the benefits -- it will balance. i think that will happen down the road, after we passed the budget, and that will be helpful for future generations. i just wanted to make sure that theybody understands republican plan does not impact current retirees. there will be a lot of scare tactics trying to say republicans are damaging that, but that is not true. reform,lking about revising the system for future generations so they will have the same retirement benefits and security in their old age that people who are senior citizens now enjoy it. those will happen as we move forward. host: we welcome listeners on c- span radio. our guest is representative
vicky hartzler cared if you -- vicky hartzler. a viewer says, the military jig is the defense budget on the line? g tel the budget that paul ryan has put forth includes $78 billion in cuts that secretary of defense robert gates studied and found deficiencies that could take place and he supports and put forth. it is in the president's budget. our budget reflects what the president had said there, but does not go beyond that. i would not support any further reductions to our military because i sit on the armed services committee, and i can tell you there are a lot of threats around the world, and according to our constitution, that is one of the few things congress is supposed to do -- provide for the common defense.
while our military budget has actually been decreasing for over 30 years, the threats are increase in, and i believe that defending our country and making sure the people here are saved should be a top priority. host: use a decrease in, but certainly after september 11 we saw a huge spike in defense spending during the bush should administration. >> guest: if you compare it to the gdp, we are only spending 4%, which is less than backing president kennedy's date. we spend 20% our budget on defense. if you look of those comparisons, it is less. the threats of an increasing -- in addition, i am concerned about the age of a lot of our equipment. many of our airplanes in our air force are 30 years old, or some
are even 50 years old when you get to some of the b-52's and others. the ships, our navy fleet, is the smallest as dense as world war i. on the other hand, we have china that is building 13 nuclear submarines. our country is building one. and they spend over fall% of their budget on military. they just a couple of months ago is seduced a stealth fighter aircraft, and then eric -- introduced a stealth fighter aircraft. we have other people in other parts of the world that are building up their military. we have threats in north korea and iran. anywhere you look. now is not the time to continue to erode our military. we need to stay strong, and peace through strings -- that
was president reagan can't tell axiom, and i believe -- reagan's axiom, and i believe it holds true today. host: we have this e-mail. host: your response? guest: i think we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. we do not need to tax more. we need to spend less. it makes sense. we are spending money we do not have. that is why we are borrowing 42 cents a out of every dollar. that is not sustainable. we need to rein him in, but the smart choices.
-- rein in. make the smart choices. this is our generation's challenge. i believe we are off to the task and we have to be for our children and our grandchildren. host: john joins us from lancaster, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span, and thank you, representative, for taking our calls. i am all for balancing the budget, and cutting work cutting makes sense. but, it seems like the proposals that are going on, like we get these cuts and there is a corresponding tax cut for the wealthy, because most of them benefit. it is just like the last one in december were the majority of the benefits went to the top 2%.
i want to get out of the deficit as quick as possible, and i think it is counterproductive to cut and give a tax cut that offsets the deficit reduction that you are trying to receive. a tax cut is government spending. it is money that they were taking in, that are giving back. i do not see job creation of the last eight years over the policy at all. i do not see any way forward if we keep going down this path. it was not the american people that -- host: i think he hung up. guest: he was on a roll. i got most of what he was concerned about. let me clarify as far as the taxing situation. most small-business owners, which are the producers of jobs in this country, and that is will be needed in this country
-- more people working and paying taxes. most small-business owners reflect the income of their business the growth of their business in their individual tax return. their tax return might come back and say they make $300,000 or something that year, and for the average person, they would say there are rich, when the reality is that the salary that that person might have taken home may have been $50,000. most of that of a tax return is the growth in the business, the increase in the assets. the value when up of their assets. they bought a vehicle for a salesman to drive. that is increasing assets. that is what reflexed in the tax return. it makes it look like the business owner is a rich person when and a reality the value of
the business has increased. yet the business owner has to pay taxes on that full amount. many business owners have seagull borrowing money just to pay their taxes because their -- have to go borrowing money because of their revenue does not cover their taxes. when we talk about reducing taxes, most of that would go to small business owners, so they could have more cash to hire somebody. right now, they have to have $30,000 or $40,000 a year to go hire somebody. if they are giving back to the u.s. government, sending it to washington, they cannot hire the workers, and that is just the very plano truth of how it works. that is why we are here, trying to reduce tax on the business
owners said they could hire more workers. host: our conversation with represented vicky hartzler -- let me conclude with one final question. your vote on the budget for the current fiscal year -- when do you think you'll make a decision? guest: later today. i'm still reading through the details. it only came out earlier this week. i am listening to the people in my district, and i'm happy to weigh all of the decisions there. h., which why are you leaning at the moment? guest: i am leaning toward supporting it. this is a mess from last year. there is something to be said about getting that off the table so we can concentrate on cutting trillions of dollars, which is the 2012 budget. there is something to be said for molding on, getting all you
can get, and making sure that our troops are funded. host: representative vicky hartzler join us from capitol hill. thank you. guest: thank you, steve. host: coming up, representative allyson schwartz will join us from pennsylvania. another vote did the -- video from the student cam competition. today we go to knoxville, tenn., where we talk to andrea terry. congratulations. >> thank you. >> why did you choose to focus on home foreclosures? >> we realized home foreclosures are everywhere. we were reading the newspaper, listening to the radio, and we heard a lot about home
foreclosure. we understood it was a big topic. >> how have you been personally effected? >> well, my family and i were fortunate enough to never experience foreclosures, but it could happen at any time. >> how is your community and then effected? >> not civilian general is not one of the states with a bigger number of foreclosure rates, but the numbers have gone up, real reason really startling recently. it is getting there where it will be a big issue. >> in your opinion, was the hardest hit? >> in the united states, i would say california, and from my research in the 2009, irvine, california, had arreally high home foreclosures. >> you. claudia stylings who sells
homes. what did you learn from her? >> she told me 6% of homes in knoxville, tenn., our home foreclosures, but 24% that are actually selling our home foreclosures. >> was then the impact of the home foreclosure problem? >> it is pretty bad. people are losing their houses and going homeless. i think it is a really big problem that our nation is facing right now. >> what are some of the things people can do to prevent home foreclosures? >> the biggest thing is to analyze your financial situation. that is the biggest thing. people nowadays are spending money carelessly cared that results -- carelessly. that results in big problems. >> what did you learn from doing
the documentary? >> i learned so many things, from learning how to deal with people, and learning how to research and patience terror i learned basically to stay positive. -- patience. i learned basically to stay positive. >> thank you for joining us. let's watch a portion of the video. >> foreclosure is when a party cannot reach the spending for the loan the bank gave them. >> the bank will file a petition to foreclose on the property. the bank has to prove that it is the honor that there for closing them. the person will go to court. broadcasting live with katie -- the reason for closure rate has been alarmingly high, everyone
in the 89 housing units filed for foreclosures. in our community, is not as much as the nationwide number, but the numbers continue to add up. >> this effects various neighborhoods. most people do not want to live in neighborhoods follow foreclosure signs. >> foreclosures are a huge problem for the families and the lenders because they have to sell the property. obviously, the main person is the family. they have to leave the house. >> you can see this entire video and all winning videos and continue the conversation at our facebook and twitter pages. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we want to welcome back allyson schwartz from the philadelphia area. a democrat. thank you for being with us.
thus began with congressman paul ryan's budget blueprint. we also have some democratic alternatives. what are your thoughts? guest: the chairman of the budget committee, paul ryan, did present the republican budget, and we did pass it out of the budget committee. we go through a 12-hour debate, and we offered amendments. host: none of which passed? guest: there was one that was essentially expected said it was an effort to try to consider the defense, the pentagon, as part of spending cuts for the future, which the paul ryan budget did not do. if it left the cuts on defense and some of the recognition on what we could be doing, which is looking at tax expenditures, tax policies, and the bush era tax
cuts. they will expire in two years, and we think they should expire for the wealthiest of americans but he left that off the table. he left a number of subsidies off the table. he proposed dramatic changes in medicare and medicaid -- medicaid. instead of looking seriously at everything, we really need a balanced approach. we have to cut spending, but we also have to look at every part of the budget, not just a 12% of non--defense, discretionary spending. and, we need -- we have a legal obligations to our children. the rise and budget, which i would say is a republican budget -- the paul ryan budget, which i would say is a
republican budget, i think does not make the right tauruses for the american people. -- choices for the american people. it does not look at the tax breaks for the wealthiest americans and big corporations host: i want to come back to the tax rate issue, but let me gutted as wednesday morning " wall street journal" editorial. host: they go on to talk about the explosion of spending in the first two years of the obama administration. guest: what they did not
mention there is because of the extraordinary downturn in the economy where we were losing revenue because more people were not employed, not paying taxes because they could not, that as part of that, and that came out of the bush years. president obama inherited a $1.30 trillion deficit. we took action. it was a one-time action. we did a stimulus. we did the economic and recovery act. we knew we had to stop the recession from turning into a depression. host: did it create jobs? guest: we save store retains 3 million to 4 million jobs. three years ago, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.
and in the last six months we have been gaining every month. that is our right direction. did it work? i think a number of actions weren't. -- worked toward we stopped a much worse and depression. it retained jobs. it started busman's for the future which we are starting to see payoff -- it started investments for the future, which we are starting to see payoff than we are beginning to come out of this really terrible recession to see economic growth. that is part of how we will get out of this crisis the country is in. host: let me get your response to what mitch mcconnell had to say yesterday, the republican leader in the senate. >> it was not that long ago that both the white house and democratic leaders were doing everything they could to ignore the nation's $14 trillion debt
and to preserve the massive growth they presided over. yet some point, democrats in washington finally got the message. the ground shifted, and spending reductions democrats recently described as extreme and draconian are now being called historic and common sense. the debate has turned from how much to grow government, to how much to reduce it. he is a major departure from the standard democratic position. host: your response, representative allyson schwartz? guest: we have always said we need to look at spending cuts, but again, we think it should be across the budget, and that has to include tax expenditures, which is about $1 trillion. we need to look and what we could save on tax breaks for certain corporations, and certainly for certain groups of
individuals, and that is serious. we are very concerned a lot how to bring down the deficit, and we will. we will talk more about medicare and medicaid. passing the health law saves and improves the fiscal stability of the medicare trust fund for 12 years. we really do want to work together to find common ground, but what we are not willing to do is just, where we cut into the bone -- where our obligations to our seniors, medicare -- our obligations to the future -- we think there are investments we need to make. affordability of college is something we think is important if america is going to grow the economy in the global marketplace. host: let's go back to the issue of medicare. that will come up to date. there are a couple of questions
in today's 0: the new york times." guest: i will say that under the republicans' plan and medicare, they will end medicare as we know it. there will no longer be guaranteed benefits for future seniors. that would end completely. the question there is there would be no more guaranteed benefits. what will happen is that future seniors will get a limited
voucher to go and buy health insurance in the private marketplace. seniors will have to go and negotiate themselves what benefits they could get, knowing the voucher will not grow in the future to meet the rising health-care costs. two things go together. we cannot sustain 5%, 10% increases every year. we have seen a 100% increase in health-care costs for all americans. it is throwing individual seniors into the private marketplace, which we know does not work now. companies did not want to cover sick children, six young adults, will they cover 16 years? i do not think so. host: or phone lines are open.
you can give us a call. 202 is the area code. you can join the conversation online. speaker of the house john boehner says tax increases are a non--starter. he will join some of your colleagues today. where will the compromise between democrats and republicans? guest: if i could predict that, that would be something, but we do have to find common ground. everything has to be on the table. the republicans say "we will not consider any kind of additional taxes from our wealthiest 1% or 2% of americans." their bottom line is protecting multi-millionaires rather than
protecting seniors -- that is this wise they're making? we will not let oil companies that are making great profits paid a little more in taxes? instead, they want to cut head start for children who really need that kind of start? it is just not the right choice to make for americans. host: conversely, where would you give in? guest: first of all, we are very open. i have voted for the spending cuts. we already voted for almost $50 billion in tax cuts -- in the spending cuts this year. host: in the first six months, the deficit went up $86 billion. you, art -- you're cutting spending, but we're still spending more than we take in.
guest: absolutely. that did not just are less chair. we saw a great rise in the deficit under the bush years. they did tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. that cost us $700 billion going forward. i think we should get some of that money. it is about everything being on the table. do i think that we ought to get better value for our dollars in medicare and medicaid? i do. in fact, i worked very hard in the health care law that we now have to make sure that we reduced the rising costs of health care for all americans by insisting home-patient safety, reducing errors, and insisting on having our health system do a better job more efficiently. we are seeing that move ahead. there are really smart ways to
reduce costs in health care. of course, we should look at every way we can to make sure dollars we spend our spent well and on top priorities. host: your colleague outlined a budget blueprint for the democrats. what is the headline? guest: i think he is looking at everything. he wants to reduce the deficit more than the president's objective in the proposed budget which it suggested that -- suggested in the proposed budget. everything needs to be on the table. we need to invest in the future, and rain in the deficit, and that is the only way to do that. host: harrisburg, pa., weighing on the democrats call -- democrats line. caller: i agree with everything this lady just said.
she had everything is on the button. my problem is the new republicans that canyon, they go hand-in-hand with the old democrats. where are there new ideas? that is what i want to know. host: i am not sure who it says the old democrats are. thank you for agreeing with much of what i said. some of the new republicans here in washington are not interested in compromise or finding a common ground. they are insisting on their way or no way, and that is not a good way to run the government. host: our next call is john, republican line, st. petersburg, florida. caller: thank god for c-span. i have just one question -- whose idea was it to drop the
cost of food and energy from the cost of living calculation? that resulted in two years of social security benefits without a raise? host: how was that impacted you? caller: i am retired. please, i did not want any generalities. i do not want political speech or double talk. all i want is the truth -- which administration is responsible. thank you. guest: the caller is referring to the fact that seniors on social security did not receive a cost-of-living increase because it is based on a particular calculation of what the inflation rate was, and whether the cost of consumer products and living went up, some seniors did not receive an increase in this last year or
the year before. it was setup to receive automatic increases should the cost of living go up. there is discussion about whether the calculation needs to change. many seniors say their costs have gone up. they also point to a lot of new costs that might not be included, which is everything from cable costs or cell phones. howdy managed in these days without that? -- how do you manage it in these days without bad? host: of course, we hope to keep their table. guest: exactly. host: everybody would agree that more and more americans are retiring, and fewer are supporting the social security. there are the options of raising
the retirement age. would you support that? gee, i do not know. this is one place where i think democrats and republicans might agree. we need to look of sources to be going forward. before i got here, there were smart folks that realized the baby boomers were aging and we needed to put more money into social security of what could be this window where there are many more seniors then there are young people paying into social security. we did anticipate it. we do have a number of years to work this out. we know we probably need to make some changes in social security, but if we're going to do that, we need everything on the table to make sure we are getting enough money into the social security trust fund. host: there is also the idea of the cap. $108,000.
many people on wall street could earn that in a couple of days. guest: that is something we should look at. should we raise debt so that we are getting revenues in on higher-income folks. host: sean drug joins us from virginia. -- scandra joins us from virginia. caller: for social security, why can't they raise the tarriffs a little bit? people cannot live on a $800 a month. a lot to apply not getting anything. as far as medicare, why don't they ala healthy people to buy into medicare? that would raise the rates, the doctors would make more money, and everybody would be happy.
you cannot just cancel people out and say die. [laughter] host: there is this point, did not raise the social security 88 -- age, race the income limit. guest: this is the same thing we have been talking about on the budget. we need to look at the revenue side and the expense side. i think the caller raised two questions. you are right. there are so many americans living on social security. the average amount they get is $14,000 a year. that is not a lot to live on. so, -- i have been somebody that has advocated to encourage all americans who can to save a little bit early on, and let the compound in interest over many
years. on medicare, you're also right. what we did in the health law was to say all americans ought to buy health insurance, and if we have all americans buy health insurance and able to get the health care they need, it helps spread the costs and will potentially help us in the long run because we have a healthier people, younger people being able to buy in. we did not choose to open up medicare to all americans. that was discussed, but as the president and most americans said, we do not want more government takeover. instead, all americans are buying insurance -- we create new rules, rules about what kind of benefits will be included. i even worked on with the language would say.
that is the competition in the private marketplace that will of bring down costs. if that is what we are hopeful for. the rules, regulations, and protections for consumers as they buy insurance and health care is extremely important in the house what, and that is what the republicans want to repeal -- in the health care law, and that is what republicans want to repeal. host: john says social security tax 14% of one's earnings in livefe. guest: that is in part of -- in part because of wage stagnation. we want the balance to be right. you need your wages to go up over time, but certainly some of the federal taxes, and this is an argument we are having in washington, go to medicare and social security.
they also go to help support things that we all do together, whether it is protecting food safety or clean air. host: paul ryan makes the rounds this morning, and tells cnn that the country needs tax reform, not tax hikes. guest: is both. we do need tax reform, we are an agreement on that. it is the notion that we would be able to reduce the tax rate if we got rid of some of the special tax provisions. we call them tax expenditures. i say it is about $1 trillion that corporations get. we need to do both. one paul ryan says that, he says he is trying to protect the tax breaks for the wealthiest americans, the multi- millionaires.
we want to protect these tax provisions for most americans, 98 percent of us, many americans who earn under 258,000 -- to under $50,000. we might have to ask the wealthiest americans to pay a little bit more. host: joined the debate on our twitter page. there is this point. host: do you tweet? guest: i did not. my staff says i should. -- i was sitting next to a congressman who said he was sitting next to me. guest: a number of us take the
train. i am very pleased to have that advantage. host: amy is joining us from indiana with representative allyson schwartz. good morning. caller: good morning. i had a couple of comments, and then a question my husband and i run a small business. we manufacture. right now, and for about the past year and a half hour sales have been declining, and our customers are kind of frozen out there. we market our product all over the country, but our customers are not expanding, they are not buying, they are only doing what they can to get by right now. they are totally frozen in time because, among other things, obama-care. the wall needs to repeal that. -- you all need to repeal that.
as everybody so scared in the business community of increased theys and mandates that th are frozen in time. if i call it obama-care, it is not just because i'm a republican. john connors, a democrat from michigan refers to as obama- care. host:. -- host: thank you. guest: of course, we are deeply concerned about businesses ever really been struggling and about consumer and investor confidence. i hope you begin to see some changes. certainly, we hope you can do better in the future. it is tough, we know, as an economic situation for all businesses. what we are beginning to see is some economic growth. we are seeing growth in gdp. we need stability in governments
to help make that happen. we have been very supportive of small businesses. i do not know if you have taken advantage of the appreciation. we have tried to do all we can. we have new hires. you get a tax credit. it sounds like you're not able to do that. one of the reasons we passed the health-care laws because of the high cost of health care for businesses. if you're a small enough business, you could get a 35% tax credit under the health care law. i hope you're taking a tentative that. -- taking advantage of that. one of the reasons we did that was because it was not sustainable to the increases in your premiums for employees if you cover benefits for your employees. they were continuing to
increase at 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, increases from one year to the next. the only way you can do that is have you participate in the marketplace where you can get a greater power. you do not have the negotiating power that larger companies do. in the new exchanges that are going to be implemented in 2014, that will give you a greater ability to reduce your costs, but that does not kick in until 2014. we have to bring in rising costs and growth in health-care expenses and costs, and that is what we're trying to do. there are a lot of ways that is happening right now. that is for small businesses, large businesses, individuals, and the government. . .
the annual deficit and begin to pay down the national debt. host: our conversation is with allyson schwartz, a member of the house committee with the democrats. she represents the greater philadelphia area. the next caller is from virginia. john is on the phone. good morning, welcome to the conversation. caller: i have a few comments i wanted to make. back in the '90's, the republicans tried have medicaid, medicare put on the new york stock exchange and out of the hands of the government. they're trying to have it removed and put in the insureds' hands. another comment, they're wrapping themselves up in the constitutional thing. i was watching last night as one of those representatives on the republican side talking about it.
they don't give a hoot for the elderly people. only looking for out for the multimillionaires in the united states and want to give them tax breaks. that is telling me that they don't care about those elderly people whose only support is from social security and our medication coverage from medicare. i just don't like what they're trying to do. i thank you very much for listening. host: thank you, appreciate the call, john. guest: you are right. they choose to protect the wealthier americans and not senior citizens. you are right, this is no different than previous proposals to privatize medicare. and do that with social security as well. you can imagine if everyone's
social security was in the stockmarket and the loss of almost 40% for many people in the value of their stock during the deep recession, almost crash. we will privatize it, get a voucher. they call it premium support. it is not premium payment. it is support, partial support for the premium. any increased cost will fall on seniors. look for what you can afford. they say that is the right way to go. can't afford your health care, it is really on you. that is not the way we have done medicare. let me be clear, i do believe we have to rein in the rising cost under medicare, that does not mean denying health care to seniors. host: a critical piece on president barack obama in "the
washington post." republicans are willing to outcut democrats. that was by the absence of the impact of the shutdown and cuts to themselves. the other argument is the president is not leading on the budget. your response to both of these poin points. guest: certainly, i would like to say, too, we are interested and willing. the president started out with his proposed budget. not to mention the president did propose a budget with many cuts in nondefense, discretionary as well. both a spending cut freeze on hiring in the federal government -- host: let me stop you there. guest: the $400 million. host: the real cuts in medicare,
medicaid, social security defense. everything else doesn't get to the core problem. guest: he said and you will hear more about that today, the issue here is that it can't just be about spending cuts. absolutely right about that. it's got to be about medicare, medicaid, rein in the costs. it has to include defense. it has to be about growing the economy. fuzzy math on that. but let me say this, the republicans are willing to take us to the brink -- you mentioned the shutdown. to shut down government. that is a huge risk to our economic stability. really making 800,000 federal workers at risk of losing their job. last thing we need is 800,000 more people not earning an income or not working, even for if a short term. they switch quickly to the debt
ceiling taking it to the brink. if we don't get conditions or get what we want, we will consider defaulting, consider having the united states default on international loans. that is devastating for us and future interest payments and for the economy. host: you brought up the president's debt commission. it is brought out, when the plan was released the president declined to even expression a point of view, he was stuck to the vagueness strategy of the state of the union address in the proposal. guest: i hope we hear more details this afternoon, too. i believe the president believes we need to find a common ground. host: he didn't support his debt commission. guest: well, the republicans said this last week as they were
waiting for mr. boehner and senator reid and them to come out of the white house. the president had senate his team over to the senate to -- had sent his team over to the senate to negotiate. he had his team together in the white house. that is what he did. he got an agreement did. they seem to negligent mentioning that. host: live coverage of the president's comments underway, you can listen on c-span radio or live on c-span3. the house and senate are in session today. also streamed on the web. and pete is joining us from carolina with representative allyson schwartz. caller: thank you for cage -- taking my call. the republicans make it ideological battle. the democrats stood up and
screamed about they were throwing women under the bus to defund planned parenthood. their budget provides services to 25% of their patients live at or below 150% of the federal poverty level. therefore, administering the medicaid funds they qualify for the same services under medicaid. at the same time, the republicans try to protect corporate interest and protect the richest of our population. that is also not fair. i agree with representative schwartz completely, everything needs to be on the table. it is not so much about generating more revenue from the richest part of our country as it is from cutting spending. i have to live on a budget. fanniemae and freddie mac are a perfect example of people going beyond their means, extending credit and causing the collapse of an entire industry.
host: thanks for the call. we will get a response. guest: your caller is impressive with all the things he said. of course, we have to try to live within our means, just as families do. you are absolutely right. if you gave families the option to live within their means but states have to balance their budget, the federal government has to move forward balanced budget and get the deficit under control. it has taken a long time for you to get here. families, too, if you are deep in debt, you have to figure out how to get out of it. it is not likely it will happen in a few months. that is true for the federal government. we need a plan for now, and plan for going forward over the next couple of years. it is not all going to happen, even the republican budget doesn't get us there in a few years. the really question is how do we get there? how do we cut spending where we can? raise revenue where we can?
make sure we can recover from what is a fragile economic growth, seeing economic growth. how can we invest in innovation and keep america as great as it is and economically strong as we have been. that is the challenge we are faced with. we should have it with everything on the table and taking the short and long-term view of this. host: carl allen, a regular viewer in new mexico said why do the democrats always play the class with warfare cards. you keep our dollars out of the terrorist countries and put millions of people to work. no way, you want to build a windmill, put 10 people to work and feed three houses with electrici electricity. guest: i would love to talk about energy independence. i supported the research and development tax credit, which oil companies get.
to the degree that oil companies are looking at -- and many of them are, more efficient fuel that we could use, some of them are actually investing in some of the alternative fuels. i would not put down the alternative renewable fuels. the fact is -- drilling will be a part of it. the use of oil will be a part of it. natural gas. we have a tremendous opportunity in pennsylvania with the mar salis tail. we should be looking at other alternative energy sources and making the kind of investments now so that we can be more independent of foreign oil. that is extremely important. and we can. so investments, yes, in wind, solar, bio fuels. that is extremely important. you know, you start making a bit of a joke of it. one, two, five, 10%, maybe 20% of our energy coming from alternative and renewable fuel would help us dramatically to
reduce our reliance on foreign oil, fossil fuels and reduce our costs for our families, for our businesses and really for all of us. that is what we ought to be doing. it is a loss that we have not been doing more over the last 10 years. host: allyson schwartz is the democrat member of congress, representing the philadelphia. janice is from connecticut. caller: good morning. good morning congresswoman. this is not about cutting medicare, it is about changing what goes into medicare, what comprises it. i learned a lot. my mother passed away two years ago. i learned a lot about what is covered by medicare or not. a natural pathic doctor is not covered but an integrated doctor who san m.d. is, but knowledge is probably not as wide as a
naturo pathic doctor. having them as part of medicare, you would final, actually, i believe her longevity was increased as a result of that. the other thing is the vouchers i would like to see is additional vouchers for elderly to do a community gym membership or community something or another. exercise or other things to supplement their wellness. and move away from the hard, fast model of doctors, hospitals and prescriptions. guest: thank you for your comments. the best way i can answer is to say we are -- many are keenly aware of how important it is -- one, for people to take personal responsibility, exercise, eat right, you pointed that out with exercise. obviously, you say you do it,
then you don't. americans we have a problem in taking our own personal responsibility and doing all we can do be healthy. it is not easy. i recognize that. the other, i worked on this myself with others to make sure that in the health law, we did create a new emphasis and focus on primary care. that enabling those with chronic diseases but all of us to have a primary-care physician or nurse-practitioner or physician assistant to be able to be there for us, know all about us, to be able to help us navigate through the specialist, rather than jumping from specialist to specialist, getting us to the specialty care with we need to or work with us, reach out to us. for example, i use all the time, someone diagnosed with a serious chronic disease early on, getting the right kind of care, following that recommended care, working with the primary care provider, it is extremely
important. early diabetic prevention and helping them never get to the point of renal dialysis is hugely beneficial to that individual and huge cost savings for all of us. i think you will hear the president speak about that this afternoon. the emphasis on being able to integrate, coordinate what is really a fragmented health care system and makes it more costly. that is what we are working on. we will see cost savings and improved outcomes. host: preview the president's speech, carroll lee saying the president will propose a sweeping plan with cuts and entitlement programs, medicare, limits in military spending and overhauling the tax system. do you think the speech will be specific? guest: i don't know. i think the president is not
giving us some idea. i think what he will do, is correct. he will say as i was talking about this morning, issues on medicare and medicaid, with the emphasis on primary care, making sure people get the health care they need that we don't duplicate services we reduce errors. millions and millions of dollars can be saved. improve outcomes, reduce costs is better than saying we will leave you on your own to negotiate with insurance companies and cut you off if we can't afford it. he will talk a good bit about that. that is all about reform. he will talk about tax policy an the need for us to get serious about some of these tax expenditures, you know, the special provisions for certain corporations. may even talk about that for tax benefits for all of us, do we really need those? how can we pare them down?
host: two votes tomorrow, one for the budget for this fiscal year, will you support it? guest: we're looking at the details. i hope to. i want to look at the cuts. i want to make sure they don't hurt my constituents, hurt pennsylvanians. host: what about the paul budget cuts. guest: i voted no on that already. it puts seniors in nursing homes in a terrible condition under medicaid. i will not support it. host: how is the speaker doing, speaker john boehner? guest: he did get to the agreement. i think he's in a tough spot. members of the caucus, 40 or 50
of them are rigid in the way they're going forward. really, what i would hope speaker boehner would do is reach out to democrats as well to find the common ground. host: linda, on the republican line, good morning. caller: i want to say i'm very tired of hearing how awful the rich are and how we should hate the rich. and that is the rhetoric. it is the bottom line with the democrats. they want to demonize the rich and say we are letting them go play and get their yachts and all that. they are the people that are hiring us. they are the ones that create the jobs. and i don't understand why democrats don't see that very clearly. host: we'll get a response. thank you, linda.
guest: thank you for the question. that is not the way i want to be heard. we all have hopes to all be rich some day in america. it is the opportunity that exists here economically. it is one of the reasons i believe the president wants to invest in education and helping people be able to go to college and return to college if they need to. i think it is great that we have the capitalist system to allow people to make money. that is where we want to be. i will say this about it, two things, quickly, if i may. one is we're saying to multimillionaires, paying a little more. not saying make the money. pay a little more in taxes. second, the notion if we give tax breaks to multimillionaires that that will trickle down to the rest of us hasn't happen
economically. in bush years they cut taxes, they will grow jobs, we didn't. under the eight years of bush we saw a loss of 600,000 jobs. and we saw the economy tank. no regulation, you know, let everyone go, actually didn't really work. it isn't going to work in the future. do i think it is great people should make mon nethis country -- money in this country? i do. do i think they should pay their fair share? i do. i think we should have a skilled workforce and infrastructure in this country to incentivize innovation. there is a long way to go to make sure lots more people can make mon nethis country -- money in this country and pay the fair share back. host: the rich invest their money in china and don't invest in the u.s.
our last call is on the democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to tell the previous lady not all the democrats hate the rich. matter of fact, i really admire them. i thank them for the jobs that they gave me. unfortunately, when i was 20 years old, i came down with a chronic neuromuscular disease. by the time they diagnosed me when i was 25, because it is rare, it is myosteamia gravis. they told me i have maybe eight to 10 years to live. i didn't think i had much of a future. when they put me on the medication, i did go back to work. i worked up until i was 46 years old, when i could no longer function in working society. i'm sorry, i take part of their tax money. i get $821 a month.
$74 in food stamps. i try to live within my means, but if i'm cut anymore, i've had cancer twice since then, i take a lot of medications. believe me, there is times i wish i would fall asleep and not wake up. host: thanks, pat. i will get a response. appreciate your call. guest: i think your story, the fact that you have done as well as you have and able to go back to work had to do with the access to the health care you needed. the medication enabled you and probably many of the medications you are on allow you to function. that is what we are fighting for. we wish you good luck guess. host: the which you were only asks -- the church only and for 10% of my income. isn't 25% of my income enough?
guest: we can reduce the overall tax rate, if we get the specifics, tax cuts, advantages that corporations and most people have. i had interest in that. if we could reduce the corporate tax rate, reduce the overall tax rate for americans paying in income tax, that is a good thing to do, assuming we get rid of the special provisions. we can't do both. host: representative allyson schwartz, democrat from pennsylvania, come back and see us again. guest: absolutely. lots to talk about. host: the president, vice president, first lady, joe biden, with a new initiative for military family. first, nancy callo with c-span
news. >> good morning. consumer spending numbers are in. an increase of .4% for march. commerce department tuesday is the ninth consecutive gain. however, the increase shrank to .1% when sales at gas stations were excluded. consumer spending accounts for 70% of economic activity. as we have been talking about most of the morning, president delivers a speech outlining his plan to reduce the deficit today by in part cutting spending and raising taxes on the wealthy. ahead of the event, house speaker john boehner calls any increase a nonstarter. eric canter on the cbs early show said most people understand that washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. also weighing in. house budget committee chairman paul ryan telling "good morning america" he's glad president obama is joining the conversation. >> in the midst of budget
negotiations, health and human services secretary kathleen celebri sebelius is announcing the program to reduce patient care injuries by 40%. funding will be made available immediately under the affordable-care act. those are the headlines on c-span radio. >> your questions for chat man university professor. tibor machan. he will take your questions, calls, tweets live on c-span2's booktv. >> follow c-span on twitter, the fastest way for link updates. you can tweet questions directly
to the "washington journal" guests. join the viewers that already follow the feeds. to american history on c-span3 and c-span radio. get started on twitter.com/c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome joyce raez raezer. guest: thank you. host: what are the major issues military families need? what are the biggest concerns? guest: how to sustain support for families challenged by a decade of war. the needs of the military families have grown. even in support services have grown. the issues they face, the challenges they face are cumulative. research now that says military
families have a harder time the longer that service member has been deployed. if we look to the challenges our nation faces our military families face the challenges sustaining family support. not just the government but also from all those citizens and organizations and people out there that interact with military families on a daily basis. host: we have a line for military families. if you have a spouse that is serving in the military, either here, stateside or overseas and for all others we ask you to call the other number. so specifically, in terms of programs you think need to be addressed, is it financial, support, education, is it medical? guest: it's all of the above. military families interact in the world as civilian families
do. if you are a military family today, you're concerned about your child's education, you are concerned about access to quality health care. access to quality health care including behavioral health services is more important when you are stressed from many years at war. you are concerned about a career. if you are a military spouse, you want that career because the family needs an income and you feel that you need to satisfy the career goals yourself. it is good housing in a safe neighborhood. recognition from your employees, friends, neighbors that people care about you and understand your sacrifice for our country in addition to your service member's sacrifice for this country. host: here is how the president addressed this issue yesterday from the east room in the white house. >> part of a landmark presidential study directive. for the first time ever, the well-being of our military families is a national priority.
not just a defense or b.a. priority. it is a federal government priority. today, my administration's working to implement nearly 50 specific commitments to improve the lives of military families. everything from protecting families from financial scams, improving education for military kids and spouses, to stepping up our fight to end homelessness among veterans. host: let me pick up on the president's issue of homelessness. we hear a lot about veterans coming back, unable to get jobs and living in shelters. how big of a problem is it? guest: everyone's statistics say it is a huge issue. it is an issue where we need the community and federal government to work together to solve the problem. employers to reach out to veterans, to hire them. these are talented, dedicated people who want to continue to
work and want to serve. so they're a wonderful labor pool for employers. we need the local civic organizations to be aware as they work in communities that our veteran population is out there, maybe with families who need help. and we need our government to step up and do as much as possible through getting the program out. and also work on prevention. what can we do to support those families as they prepare for that transition while they're still on active duty? host: this is at the same time congress will vote on cutting almost $40 billion in the budget for the next fiscal year and president talking about reducing the overall debt and deficit. where does the money come from? guest: military families are taxpayers too, they're concerned about the federal deficit just as everybody else in this country is. but military families also are doing a job for this country. so i think the money has to come
from the federal government. one of our goals is to make sure that in that budget debate, the people who are making the budget decisions don't try to spend the peace dividend too soon. that they consider what the military families need to maintain long-term and have product as citizens of the country. we need community organizations and foundations to promote good projects to serve veterans and communities. and employers to embrace these folks as vital members of the workforce as well. it is a tough issue on the budget, but look at the cost of the support programs and the cost to the country if we don't keep these support mechanisms in place. host: kay wright saying 40% of the homeless people are vets or around 250,000 people, so much
for thanks them for service. larry is joining us on the line from tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your help with military families, young lady. i'm a third-generation combat vet, a second-generation military brat and 100% service connected, totally and disabled combat vet out of vietnam. the same thing that's going on right now with veterans at 40% of the veterans being able to find a job and living on the streets is the same thing that happened after vietnam. the people of the u.s. do not care about the veterans after they have served their time. they want to be protected but they don't want to pay. they don't want to go to war themselves because they're scared of getting killed, which
is rational. but there has got to be somebody out there to protect the american way of life. and if the people that receive that way of life aren't willing to help, how long do you think the military will remain as a volunteer organization? host: thank you, larry. guest: thank you, larry for you and your family's service. you are right. the nation has to support and honor that service, not just with yellow ribbons and welcome-home ceremonies, but through that whole life of that military family and that veteran. and that's what we're trying to raise. that is what i think the administration is trying to raise with this point of getting -- joining forces,
pulling in employers and donors and nonprofit organizations and american citizens to help. we're a nonprofit, we don't take any federal funding. it's been -- individual americans and workplaces and civilians who have enabled us to do more for military families. the desire is out there to help. we need to sustain it and we need to give folks who want to help ideas about how they can help. >> more information by logging on to militaryfamily.org. the white house is also releasing photographs from vice president joe biden and first lady michelle obama as they meet with military families. host: what percent of the enlisted military on food stamps and other programs?
guest: a small percentage of people on food stamps. the way it is calculated, most of the families do make more than would make them eligible. it is generally large junior enlisted families. those that came into the military with a family looking for a better opportunity that probably live in government housing. more military families that are eligible for wic, the women and infants and children program, but this is true across the united states. a very high percentage of our citizens are eligible for this wonderful nutrition program. and we want our military families to be able to take advantage of those services. but i have to say that just because military families aren't on some of the government programs, doesn't mean that they might be on the financial edge because they're dealing with the deployment and extra costs that emerge because the service member is gone.
they're young families. they've been ordered to move maybe across the country or across the world because of their military service. that military spouse may not be able to find a job right away when they do move. they're incurring expenses. we need to watch out for those families, whether or not they're on government programs and most of them aren't. we need to watch out for them and understand that many can be on the financial edge. i think that came out strongly last week with some of the news programs and stories about the potential government shutdown and what might happen to military families if this friday they only got one week's pay versus two weeks' pay. host: next caller is sheila on the phone from north dakota. we have a phone for military families. give us a call. good morning, sheila. caller: i have a question. me and my spouse are both
military. over the course of the last 10 years, i had two children. me and my spouse were like passing ships, he would be deployed, then i would be deployed. it eventually led to our divorce. however i was then a single parent. when i would have to be deployed, my family members would come and live with my kids. but when you go with all the cuts they have done, when you call for counseling for your children, you are only given five sessions. now, when someone is gone and the kids are only given five sessions when you come back, trying to deal with teenage issues that have arisen while you are gone and certainly not enough to work through the problems and anger and resentment. they're cutting out the chaplain, which is your only other option. i have a question as to what kind of -- you know, life skill
services, why they limit those only to active duty instead of family members? host: thank you, sheila. guest: sheila, thank you for your service. your family is certainly one of the more common military families today in terms of dual military. you have kids, you are pulling family members in to help the kids when you or your former husband was deployed. it is rough. the counsel services that you talk about are new since the start of the war, but we're hearing from other families as well as you that in a lot of places they're not enough. sometimes, the problem is there just aren't enough providers in an area to see all of the families who need that counseling support. military chaplains are stretched thin as well. we're worried about them in terms of caregivers who is providing the support for them? but there is a national shortage
of mental and behavioral health support countrywide. we have families in some areas and it may be that your location in north dakota that the government doesn't have enough. we need more counselors to step forward and say, we will see military families. even though military doesn't maybe pay the best in terms of reimbursement rate. we will see the patients because we believe it is important for us to do so. and we also would urge families, if you think you need more services than are covered, go back to military 1 source, which is the d.o.d.-sponsored program for military families or tricare program and say, you know, help me with services. there are additional services coming online that are available, not just for the service member but for the family. but we know that in some geographic areas, that is a real problem. i would hope that you check with
us as well to see if we can connect you with resources. host: one viewer said if we were to exit iraq and afghanistan soon, some of the affected soldiers returning home without jobs. i use that as a way to point out that usa today yesterday a story on vets from combat to campus, trying to ensure success and ease the transition from military life. on both of these, how do you respond? guest: what we have seen in the economy has been a factor in the veteran employment rate, as it stands today. we have a lot of people out looking for jobs. i think military veterans are going to have the same issues. we know military spouses today have the issues because they move to a new community and can't get a job in that
community because of the economy. i think we have to push out to employers and say this is a valuable workforce. these are people that are highly trained. i think the new g.i. bill enabling the veterans to go to school to gain even more skills is going to help them in the long run. that g.i. bill has a transferability portion where some service members can give members they're not going to use to family members. it will help military spouses and military families send their kids to college. that unemployment issue is huge. we have to be careful sometimes about the messaging. a lot in the news about p.t.s.d. and combat stress. we should not portray these folks as damaged goods. these are folks that reacted normally to abnormal situations. they have been dealing with these issues. they want to be a continued part
of the arican society, and they can do that through meaningful jobs. so we need to give them that help. host: next is tim from idaho. we want to show the militaryfamily.org website. our guest is the executive director of the association. good morning, tim. caller: good morning. i came from a military family. my dad fought in the second world war in chorea. i was in korea twice. and i'm hearing all of these things about military families. today, individuals the same rank i was, same time i was when i was retired makes almost twice as much money as i do. that doesn't include benefits like housing allowances, separate rations. you know when i man's overseas,
he can live on his overseas pay and his combat pay. a lot of the soldiers don't inform their families what is available to them. you know, a love my country and i love the fact that we should take care of these families, but i think oftentimes they go overboard. host: thank you for the call. also this tweet. most people have no idea nor do they care that so many of the enlisted families are struggling to survive. guest: i don't think it's that people don't care. i believe that there are those that don't have the connection with the military the way folks did in world war ii, for example, when lots and lots of people served. one thing that happened with the call of the national guard and reserve during this war, more communities affected.
the local firefighters, the police officers, the school teachers. some of these folks that are a key part of the communities have been called up to serve. communities have stepped forward. i think it does -- it does call for all of us to raise awareness about the issues that military families are facing. to say these folks are strong, they are proud of their service, they're determined to follow-through with that service, but they look to all of us as americans for help. i think it is -- the caller raises a wonderful point -- very important point about the economy today. you know, military families start financially at a more fortunate level than a lot of people do today, because everybody in a military family is getting at least one paycheck. there are a lot of military benefits available for those families. the sacrifice that we ask of
those families. the frequent moves, time away from home. we have a lot of kids who haven't seen their parents for birthdays, holidays, for several years. half of the military kids in the country today are under age 8. all these children have known is war. so we have to recognize that there are unique sacrifices our military families are called on today that sometimes pay can't compensate for the sacrifices. a lot of times it makes life better but can't compensate. host: we need the for-profit technical colleges to train our vets to be the well-trained technicians so we can prosper. john is joining us with joyce raez raezer. caller: good morning. good morning ms. raezer. guest: good morning. caller: i think there is a
disconnect in the political section of the country. we have the recent initiative by the president and first lady to assist military personnel, visit military families for the support that they want to give us, but at the same time, we just got done with a budget debate and one of the big things that they debated was the -- whether or not military people in the field getting shot at were going to get paid. when they bring up that as a debatable issue, i have to wonder about the sincerity of other programs that they come up with for veterans. and based on the fact that they did even bring up the issue of pay for a debatable issue, i think everybody in washington, d.c. needs to hang their heads in shame, crawl back under their desk and hide for the black stain they put on the honor of the country.
host: comment? guest: frankly. i agreed with you last week. we spent all of last week trying to get information from military families about what that shutdown would mean. it was a frustrating process. we agreed. my staff. my husband is retired army. my staff is mostly military family members. they're asking the questions you're asking. our association is testifying with others this afternoon before the senate armed services committee and one of the things we're going to say is please don't let this happen again. that debate last week over the shutdown and the fact that there were questions about what military services were going to be open and whether military families were going to get paid on time create aid lot more stress in a community that is already stressed enough. and we believe that concerned citizens need to tell their members of congress, don't put our military families through this again. host: at this point, then we will go to chuck on the phone.
there is the best g.i. bill and job training skills. is that the case? guest: the military focuses on education. on active duty if they can fit it in between di ployments. today's g.i. bill is a wonderful tool to help people transition to veteran status and get the skills they need. it is the best g.i. bill since the post-world war ii g.i. bill. our guest is joyce raezer, national military family association executive director. we have a caller. good morning. caller: good morning.
my problem is during the la last ... what's going on with congress here, in the taxes, both my retirement checks from the army and civil service, my taxes went up. now i'm speaking to a lot of young people in saying too many elitists in congress, in the senate. what we have to do is get these people to realize that you're not only hurting them when they're in the service, you are also hurring them after -- hurting them after they retire, on top of it. i don't think we should be going through the pain we are going through. guest: that is a tough issue. military families are taxpayers, too. we're concerned about the government and the deficit, but we want to make sure that military families aren't penalized for their service. and that we also want to make
sure there is funding available to support those who are bearing the brunt of war today. host: the president, first lady, vice president biden and his wife out more with this initiative. this is what the scene looked like from the east room as we listen to paul from pensacola, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. joyce, let me put a different slant on this. i retired about 20 years ago. i feel they have had a very positive military career. i raised three children. two of them college graduates. when i joined the navy, i was making lots of money. i made base pay, $77 a month. i got b.a.q. for $55 a month. and i think probably due to a good manager, wife, we have
taken -- never got anything extra from the military whatsoever. we have just taken our military pay and i guess survived. she's turned that -- we started at $77 a month, 55 b.a.q. i joined the navy in 1956. this has evolved into a net worth -- i guess i'm bragging. a net worth over a million bucks. so i feel that the military has been great to me and my family. guest: i think most military families who are serving today share your pride. your wife is one of my new heroes. there are a lot of military spouses out there like your wife, watching those finances, keeping the focus on the future well-being for that family. military families are proud of
their service and the retention rates show. people want to stay military. they don't like the separation, but military members are doing what they have been trained to do in many parts of the world to help others. you know, i think the relief efforts in japan are the latest example of how our service members are, you know, trained on the ground to help others. military families are proud of that. but i think we have to continue those of us who care about military families have to continue to make sure that the pay and the benefit and the support services that were good for your family, given the times you were going through, are what today's military families need. so thank you for your service and thank you for -- to your wife for all of the support she gave to you and this country by supporting your service. host: militaryfamily.org is the
website. for those that didn't get through this morning and want to reach you what is the best way to reach you? guest: through the website. host: go ahead, terry. caller: i'm a disabled vietnam veteran. i was at walter reed for a year and a half. i have a son there now for a patient. i recently went up to visit him. i feel that he's getting the best care of anyplace in the world. the army is treating him extremely well. he's national guards from florida. the only problem is sometimes the national guard is treated as stepchildren from the regular army. there are differences they have that they need to work on, but all in all, i think my son is receiving excellent care. they do absolutely wonderful things through the wounded warrior program in washington.
my son's two daughters and his wife have been flown up there to stay with him for a week. they plan all kinds of things for the soldiers when we were there. they did that for us in vietnam, but not quite as much. doing so much wonderful things at walter reed right now for our soldiers, i'm so happy about the way the boys are being done today over the way they were in the past. host: are you still with us? before we get a response from joyce raezer, how was your son injured and what is he being treated for at the moment? caller: they had an operation in kuwait. they made a mistake, messed up. his incestins are messed up -- intestines are messed up right now. host: thank you for the call. guest: that is the challenge. we want to keep the quality health care available for the wounded, ill, injured service
members and their families. that is why we need to fight for adequate funding for the military health system. that is why we need civilian providers. we need to make sure when your son comes home to florida and maybe has to get some of his care through the v.a. or through a civilian provider, that they're going to work with d.o.d., work with your family to give him the best care possible. it really does take all the medical resources in this country to help military families because military families are everywhere. host: kelly is joining us on the military family line from alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. i have three points to make. i have three daughters, there is three times, senior high school years. they all moved their senior year. my youngest daughter that is a senior, we tried use the
national compact for military children -- i might be saying that incorrectly. you know what i am talking about? guest: i do. caller: well, i feel like the state of alabama even though they participate at face value they don't really -- we had to fight for her to take state testing. she had just taken the same basic test in louisiana. being from alabama, i don't think the standards are that different. so, you know, a senior year is stressful and taking tests that she took the same thing. they wouldn't abide by what the results were there. she had the a.c.t. which she had a great score on that. it is almost like, it was a slap in the face and they thought we were trying to get out of something. that wasn't the issue. she just had the tests. another question i have, she's been accepted into george washington university but we will use the yellow ribbon program. we can't find out until may if
she will even get accepted with the g.i. bill, you know with the yellow ribbon program. you know, that puts us in a predicament, because other challenges she has to give them a letter of intent may 1st. what do we do? host: thank you, kelly. we have about a minute left. guest: i hope the university will work with you. everybody is learning the details with the g.i. bill. there have been issues that have come up in terms of the extra funding, the private universities are providing. so i think continue to work with that school and say, look, you know, we will know when you know and that is an issue we are hearing from other folks. i think the feedback on the interstate compact for educational opportunity for military children is valuable for us. we do advise that compact commission and bring inpe