tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 27, 2011 7:00am-9:59am EST
campaign 2012. and the logistics of the u.s. military withdrawal from iraq. and what happens to the u.s. military hardware that's been in iraq for years. then a conversation on illegal immigration, which this year fell to its lowest level since the nixon administration. our guest is a demographer the pew ♪ ♪ host: the road to the white house ginza in iowa one week from today. c-span cameras have been in the hawkeye state for weeks. "washington journal" will be live from iowa tomorrow. leading the polls is ron paul,
host: what is your confidence level in the u.s. economy? dave is a republican in cold water, michigan. where is cold water, michigan? caller: southern border of michigan, near indian of. a comment i have had -- the extension of unemployment benefits. yeah, i am unemployed and i'm not getting any extension of benefits. i am not sure how that fits into the presidential announcements and the voting of congress. all the benefits have ran out
and they are just not counted any more. i kind of wondered if there would be any comment on that. host: have you always been a republican? caller: yeah. host: what does this mean? if you are unemployed, which candidates do you think could turn the economy around? caller: that is kind of a hard one. the overspending and the bouncing of the budgets -- i would point towards the newt gingrich. he has accomplished that before. that is why my company left the united states, because taxes are too high. they send 50,000 jobs to china and laid everybody off. they issued a letter to us stating that. they left for taxes being too high in the united states.
host: any chance you would vote for president obama? caller: no, i think obama is pretty much the cause of this. the spending an extra $1 trillion has increased unemployment to about 20% nationwide. like the company said, until the spending is cut back and the taxes are cut back, there will be no jobs returning to the united states. that is their position as a world company. i guess they know what they are talking about. they are the ones in control of the jobs. they are the ones that do the layoffs. the response is to leave the united states. host: let's hear from a democrat in georgia. go ahead. what is your confidence level? caller: zero. the only jobs they create are minimum wage jobs.
there's not going to be anything that's going to sustain anybody. these people have sold us down a river of shame. they're losing their car. they're losing everything. they do not have adequate health care. you cannot support a family on a mcdonald's job or a walmart job. host: do you blame democrats as well? do you blame democrats for this? caller: i blame everybody. host: will you vote in 2012? caller: voting is over. you need to overthrow most of these people in office. let's just have a revolution. host: richmond, virginia. brian, an independent.
what are your thoughts? good morning. caller: good morning. i watch every day. i have strong confidence in the economy. it goes in cycles, and it always has in history. it takes a long time for it to come back when it has been in a big mess like it has been in. there is plenty of blame to go around. hopefully, people will get it right this time and vote the right people in and though the right people out. that's my comment. thank you. host: what does it take to get it right? caller: vote for people that are not career politicians. collecting lawyers. collecting people that all they care about is themselves -- quit electing lawyers and people who care about themselves. host: the front page of "the new york times" and "the new york
on it. are you still there? what do you think? caller: it is fine when people have money. when you have people that only care about lining their own pockets, they're out of touch with the common man. that is not how the system was set up. it was never intended to have career politicians. it was intended to have the citizen legislators who put themselves in a position to provide public service for noble reasons.
there are very few people who do that. host: how do you plan to vote in 2012? caller: whoever is in office, i will not vote for them. i will vote against them. host: does that include the presidential level? you are voting against president obama? caller: if the republicans that can come up with anyone who is more sane and who they have, i will probably vote for obama. i will hold my nose and vote for him. host: john, a republican in cleveland, texas. is that right? good morning. caller: good morning. republican. host: go ahead. caller: i do not think that changing congressman and doing all this in one fell swoop will do the right thing. we need to get banking bailouts
out of our system and return to some kind of a reasonable standard, as set out in our constitution. same as the state of utah right now. until we do that, we have a zero outlook on the economy. host: what do you think about the federal reserve? caller: it needs to go. any student of history should know that. host: here is the "washington times" on the federal reserve.
host: this is "the washington times." cindy is a democrat in stevens nville, maryland. host: i believe taxes are a -- caller: i believe taxes are a patriotic duty. if they leave the united states with more than 75% of the employees, then they should not be able to trade on the u.s. stocks exchange. my profit sharing is in that stock exchange. these ceo's are drawing out
millions a year. that comes out of the shareholders' money, which comes out of people that have a little bit of retirement. i am concerned about my retirement. if this economic disaster does not get taken care of, 20 years from now, seniors will be homeless. host: let's hear from an independent. edward i. m. las vegas, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what is your confidence level? caller: in whole -- i am hopeful. i have two children. one just bought a house at an unbelievably good rate. he is also independent. raise them as independents. which is a good thing. we always vote for a president that we think will do something well for the country. host: how was it looking right
now for 2012, as an independent? caller: as an independent, you are independent. what else can you say? i have two children. one is still in school. the other one just bought a house and he is very happy. like the other caller said, everybody has to pay their fair share of taxes. host: you feel hopeful right now. in november of 2012, if you still feel this way? caller: i would keep the president in office, only because the republicans have nothing else to offer. isst: on 2012 politics, here "the new york times" this morning. "going negative in iowa."
a new itt romney ad in iowa is debuting. take a look. >> i'm going to do something to government. i'm going to make it simpler, smaller, and smarter. i'm going to get rid of obamacare. it is a moral imperative for america to stop spending more money than we take in. it is killing jobs. it is keeping our kids from having the right prospects they deserve. the experience of balancing budgets is desperately needed in washington. i will take its there. host: rick perry, the texas governor, also out with a new advertisement talking about government, as well. >> if washington is the problem, why trust a congressman to fix it? congressman get $174,000 per
year and you get the bill. we need a solution. >> cut their pay in half. cut their time in washington in half. cut their staff in half. send them home. let them get a job like everybody else. host: the latest ads in iowa there. "the baltimore sun" says fox news is reaping rich rewards from its intense coverage. again, our cameras have been in this state for weeks. our coverage is on c-span.org. "washington journal" will be live from the hawkeye state tomorrow morning and we will be there through the caucus. it also says steve cain, whose support is coveted by the
presidential candidates, said he hoped to endorse one of them months ago. like many other voters, he is having a hard time picking a horse in this republican field. he will also be on our program from iowa this week. we look to see what is happening in that state and the latest polls and demographics. frank, a republican in michigan. go ahead. caller: how are you? host: good morning. caller: good morning. i feel that until the housing market improves, the economy will not improve. i have been selling houses for about six or seven years. during the bush administration, i made more money every year than i have made in the last three years under the obama administration.
whatot too positive about is going on until the correction is made on the housing market. it will never improve until the housing market has improved. host: frank, what did you make of the news yesterday that new construction numbers jump up something like 9% in november? caller: i do not see that around our area. it might have been on the east coast. i have not seen very many new housing starts. host: would you ever vote for president obama? caller: never. he would be the last person i would vote for. host: of the republican field, what is it looking like for you? caller: i have looked at all the candidates. i am very conservative. i want someone that can be obama. i believe mitt romney is the man
to vote for. host: ok. madison, wisconsin. gloria, democratic caller. what is your confidence level? caller: my confidence level is pretty low. i have lived a long time. i have been fascinated by all the things going wrong. someone is talking about the housing market. houses are sitting empty. there are more houses and more poor people. i look at college students that have incredible that. -- incredible debt. they are not getting jobs. college students i know personally are working at starbucks. sooner or later in wisconsin, the company is moving out because it is cheaper to build in china. as people know, they took our still meals -- a took our steel mills from this country.
when they talk about the keystone pipeline -- we do not even have the steel mills. i have no confidence in this country at all. within 50 years, the united states of america will be broken down into areas of -- i don't know. maybe the midwest will be something and east. i do not want that. people are so negative. host: gloria, did you vote for president obama in 2008? caller: i voted for hillary. i'm not confident in any part of this government, except a few more outspoken democrat once in a while. maine andndent remfrom some of these others with good ideas. what we have in this country now is socialism for the rich. we protect them. i have watched too big to fail so many times. i know where the problems are.
host: gloria, are you voting in 2012? caller: i vote. i will vote the good democrats. i have been a democrat all my life but i will not vote for republicans. my aunt said she would vote for al capone if he ran on the republican ticket. when you look at fox and all the money poured in -- somebody said revolution. i do not want that. we have children and grandchildren. let's have the positive attitude about helping each other on the low levels. maybe goodness will creep higher. right now, no confidence at all. host: here is "the new york daily news."
[inaudible] host: why not, sandra? caller: as you were reading earlier [inaudible] billionaires' and aristocrats. they are filling their pockets. people are not working. host: are you voiting in 2012? caller: yes. host: what does that mean for incumbents? caller: i'm going to vote against most of the incumbents. people should really watch c- span. thank you for c-span. you watch c-span, you see them in rely.
-- in real life. you know what they do. host: if you want to post your comments on our facebook page, go to that website. here are some of them. a couple comments say we are doomed. a republican in arlington, virginia, what do you think? caller: my confidence is very low. the united states is the largest debtor. host: what do you want done about it? caller: balance the budgets. host: you want ron paul in this race. caller: yes, most definitely.
host: paul, a democrat in dallas, tx. caller: obama has the most [inaudible] out of any president. i have opened two businesses and they are doing real good. because this is a world economy now, places like china -- they are moving their companies. host: more economic news for you. from page "usa today" --
raig, ancisco, c independent. what is your confidence level? caller: i do not have any confidence in the economy right now. problems range across the board. somebody was just talking about jobs going to china. there is a prediction that china's economy will bypass us in 2015, and so is india, and so is africa. i do not have too much confidence in it. one, china holds most of our debt.
now, china and japan will be using their own money, their own currency, and not be trading with the u.s. dollar. i think there are a lot of problems. i like ron paul. i do not like some of his views, as archaic as they are, but i do like ron paul. host: we will be talking about libertarianism and the 2012 race in about 15 minutes with the editor and chief of reason.com. next is a republican in mis souri. what do you think? what is your confidence level? caller: well, i think it is rather good. there are a lot of different playing fields -- of the perspective of the nation right now. i'm going with more democratic and republicans, but because the different problems on
republicans and democrats, since they cannot join, all of the problems fall right into the middle. what i believe should happen is, over the next couple of years, there should be a decrease in foreign spending, especially, when you take into -- when you buy a loan, for example, your interest rate is very high. when you counteract the debt the u.s. is in, you tell yourself we need to get more money so we can repair things. when you counteract the high interest rate and the base amount of money, it is doubling the debt that you are building.
i will probably be voting for mitt romney. i believe there are some pretty good ideas within his area of expertise. host: ok. that was jody, a republican. next is a democrat in denver, colorado. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: i think that the economy is in a good place. i live in a state that emigration seems to be a real problem. i think we really need to crack down on the immigration status. there are a lot of jobs. i think there needs to be a national language mandate, whereas folks have to speak
language -- it is really a powerful tool, when you are able to speak the language on the job and hire folks -- basically, if you are spanish and you speak -- if you are hispanic and you speak spanish -- host: what does this have to do with the economy? caller: legal mandate on english-speaking will force folks to have to speak english. in that way, it will get more americans working in the united states, instead of the illegal immigrants. host: you and others may be surprised to know that according to the pew hispanic center, the number of illegal mexicans migrating to the united states has plunged. we are talking about that very survey in the last hour of the "washington journal."
we will go to melanie, a libertarian. caller: i am a conservative libertarian. host: what is? the difference caller: i am a conservative. host: what makes you a libertarian? caller: a lot of the social issues, i am more to the middle- left. as far as fiscal issues, i'm very conservative. host: what is your confidence level? caller: not at all, not with the congress and the senate that are there. i can give you an example. nancy pelosi, who is the champion of the poor, pays $10,000 per night in hawaii. that does not even include her security team. there rick perry ad you showed earlier was true.
if we got half of the scandals in there -- they're making millions on the side. they did not get their being millionaires. most of them did not. a lot of the money we are pouring out for these guys to take vacations in hawaii for $10,000 per night, i think that's very embarrassing. host: back to iowa. here is able -- is a poll. it was taken two weeks ago. we show you this because ron paul is a leading in this poll. however, if you go to realclear you can seebsite,
-- mitt romney at 21%. gingrich in third at 14.7%. that is the average headed into the iowa caucus. again, the "washington journal" live from there tomorrow. we have one of the organizers for occupy des moines. look for our coverage on c- span.org. he will be joining us tomorrow from des moines. he is a republican -- and a republican from california. good morning caller: -- good morning. caller: i'm kind of nervous. host: do not be nervous. go ahead. caller: i do not have any confidence in the economy right now. i have been watching the debate
in the trips they take everywhere. my choice right now is romney first and then santorum second. well, i guess ron paul. i cross over. i do not consider myself a republican, democrat, or libertarian. i have voted for kennedy host:. -- i have voted for kennedy. i have voted for eisenhower. i am an older person, by the way. for the president, i go by who i think will run the country better. host: why do you think mitt romney would do a better job on the economy? caller: at least he has been in office before, a governor. like mr. obama, he was only a
organizer. host: we are listening. we are. caller: like i said, i have voted for different parties, but i do think mr. romney would be a better candidate. i have not had experience -- are you still there? host: yes, we are listening. caller: my x has been used to run a store. i have experience running one. i have office experience and bookkeeping experience and all that. they put me as a manager. guess what? i made it to the top 10 managers. he has a lot of knowledge. that will help. host: tommy, a democrat in detroit, michigan. what is your confidence level? caller: 0.
absolutely zero. i've been out of work for three years in michigan. with the bailouts, i would like to see the big three, gm, chrysler, and ford bail out the city of detroit. is this the best america has to offer? is this the best that america has to offer with the republican candidates? you ask a question -- are we going to plug a bomb and have world war iii? host: curtis, you are next. caller: i have absolute confidence in this country. i am an american. we just will not quit until we get this right.
the real important point -- this president came into office with two wars, a financial crisis, housing meltdown, political infighting, and yet he has kept this country from going off a financial cliff. after eight years of george bush, i believe we are full hearted to think that this man can correct all of this in only three years. host: after iowa, we will be headed to new hampshire, where the first primary will be held. here is "the boston globe" this morning. from the florida newspaper this morning, "the miami herald" --
host: andrew, a republican in jacksonville, florida. thank you for waiting periods -- thank you for waiting. what is your confidence level? caller: it is 100, i guess. back to the great depression, they didn't do nothing stand. we're not going to do anything until it is the last straw with the economy. we just waste our time bickering. i picked republican, you know.
host: how are you going to vote in 2012? caller: i'm not going to look at republican, democrat, independent, yada, yada, maybe this guy is cool. host: before we go to the next call, "the new york times" front page this morning, an update on a story you have been hearing about. that is the front page of "the new york times" this morning. also, "the washington post" has the story about the violence escalating in syria.
an update on the situation in syria, as well. one last phone call in here. a democrat in silver spring, go ahead. what is your confidence level? caller: i think it will go from 2% growth to 3% economic growth. host: what gives you that confidence? caller: everybody is moving along. this is going to put itself together slowly, gradually. i forgot what my point was. host: can you think of it, and gregory? we will leave it there. he says he has confidence in the
economy. coming up, nick gillespie joins us to talk about libertarians in campaign 2012. we will be right back. ♪ >> with the iowa caucuses next week and new hampshire primaries later in the month, a c-span series "the contenders" looks back at 14 candidates who ran for president and lost, but had a lasting impact on american politics. tonight, adlai stevenson.
wednesday, barry goldwater. thursday, hubert humphrey. saturday, george mcgovern, followed by billionaire businessman ross perot. >> middle and high school students, for this year's studentcam competition, we want you to tell us which part of the constitution is important to you and why. your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. $50,000 in total prize is. for complete details, go on line -- go online to student cam.org. >> this c-span app it's fast, easy-to-use, and visually
appealing. >> awesome application. >> anytime, anywhere. get streaming audio of c-span radio. you can also listen to our interview programs, including q&a, "the communicators," and "afterwords." >> "washington journal" continues. host: nick gillespie is editor- in-chief of reason.com, here to talk about libertarians in campaign 2012. let me begin with how libertarians have been represented in campaign 2012. is ron paul the libertarian candidate? some question whether or not all libertarians agree with him. guest: he is certainly the most libertarian-minded of those who
have gained traction, from gary johnson, and like ron paul, he was identified as a libertarian. he is likely to announce as an lp candidate. ron paul is the most libertarian candidate. libertarians -- there are always people that are one way or another. by any estimation, yes. host: how do you think the media has covered libertarians in this campaign? guest: ron paul is an interesting case. in 2008, he was seen as a side show. there was that moment early in the debate where rudy giuliani said, "how dare you suggest american foreign policy has anything to do with people who
attack us." it was seen as a sign from above that rudy giuliani was the greatest guy ever and ron paul was kind of a marginal two. that was the turning point for ron paul's campaign. he kept taking off from that and rudy giuliani kept fading. there was a lot of discussion that he was not giving as much coverage as he deserved. jon stewart denigrates thing. he was ignored by all of the major media. they're talking about people like rick santorum and huntsman, who have yet to secure the votes of their own family. since then, ron paul has been taken quite seriously. more importantly, a lot of the libertarian issues. these are really getting a full airing now for the first time. host: what do you make of the
latest polls out of that state? the average out of realclear politics has ron paul ahead. host: -- guest: the first thing you could say about gingrich, like most relatives, he starts to sink after a few days. i think his biggest problem is the more he is around people, the more people remember why his own rebellious colleagues kicked him out of cali -- kicked him out of office. i think he is a pretty smooth candidate. he is the choice of the republican establishment. he seems to be the most presidential. ron paul is relying mostly on his message. by all accounts, he has a great operation in iowa. i think he will do well.
he was doing well last time around and underperformed. it will be fascinating to see how this plays out. host: has reason endorsed? caller: we're published by a 5013c. legally, we cannot. we have a long tradition. the magazine has been around since 1968. we will not be endorsing. host: what do you make of ron paul being a serious contender for the nomination? jennifer rubin wrote in "the washington post" -- guest: you know, it is
fascinating. when people somebody wants are doing well in iowa, in what is the heart of america. it has. pulse on the brain of the american population. when someone you do not like -- it is a joke and a source of derision. the broader thing is that ron paul -- it is not his personality. if anything, he is anti- charismatic. about the size and scope of the federal government, including the federal reserve bank, he is the only major party candidate who says our foreign policy since the cold war at least needs to be fairly reexamined. he is speaking to a country that is extremely tired of a decade- plus of war with a lot of things
promised forward. he is doing well because of the things he is saying and not because of any other reason. host: critics of his, republicans, say people are torn about whether or not he is really a libertarian. in "the san francisco chronicle" for bloomberg, he writes -- "to present another side of their philosophy." guest: like we said, ron paul -- i guess we could say he is the consensus choice, not the
unanimous choice. on abortion, it is also true about drug legalization. ron paul makes a clear distinction between federal government and local government. he kind of -- i would guess somewhere between 65% to 70% of self-described libertarians are in favor of a reproductive choice. ron paul is not, but he also says it should not be decided on the federal level. most libertarians can live with that. host: where is the support coming from? are there many libertarians in iowa? guest: according to national polls, including "reason" magazine, about 14% of the population can reliably be called libertarian. reminded, free market, civil liberties, and fiscal
conservatism. ron paul is saying we are in a bad situation because the government is borrowing 40 cents on every dollar and is not -- this has not stopped since george bush was in office, or barack obama. we are waging wars in places where we should not be. they are not popular. we're bailing out big companies. we have a field war on drugs. he is the only one talking about how federal prohibition has been a complete disaster at every level for individuals, as well as for minorities, as well as for law enforcement. that is what is resonating. we have a reporter who has a biography of ron paul coming out in may. in 2008, he went on tour with him during the presidential season. he found that ron paul energizes people who have been following him for years, as well as conservative republicans who are
fed up with small government rhetoric. democratic liberals -- he is worse than george bush, if possible. ron paul is bringing out a new generation of people who are excited by the idea. a lot -- new people. host: democratic line in colorado. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just have a comment. i am really concerned about all the things people are saying about president obama. he will never be able to win,
anyhow, because of people like the speaker of the house. .hey're going to fight we also have to look at the underlying factor and why the united states is in the trouble that it is in. who owns all the large banks that are getting the bailout? who is responsible for the drugs coming into the united states? guest: who are you suggesting? caller: excuse me. why hasn't the united states progress? we have only had one african american president. anything that he does, you can see speaker boehner on television -- host: since those were just, as, let me ask a question. how does a libertarian like ron paul beat president obama? guest: i am not a political strategist.
someone probably, a somewhat ashamed of lee, i can say i have voted for one major party candidate in my life and that was walter mondale. that gives you a sense of help old i am and how stupid i am. that was the last note i wasted on a major party candidate. can ron paul win the nomination or the presidency? why not? one of the things i always find amazing is the way the somebody like newt gingrich or jon huntsman was somehow anointed -- ok, this is a believable candidate, whereas ron paul or gary johnson are not credible. people said barack obama had no chance against hillary clinton. he ended up beating her. i think he could. the question with somebody like ron paul -- what is fascinating,
can he move from -- libertarians have been seen as the conscious of the government. to spend less, invaded less. can he make a shift and say this is not a tendency, but this is the direction we should be going in? that remains to be seen. as a country, we have not -- we are starting a conversation about the kind of that we are in at the federal, state, and local level. we are probably decades away from fully embracing the fact that we have been on an unsustainable course -- every bit as unsustainable as europe. i do not know. host: john is a democrat in michigan. go ahead. caller: i enjoy your views on the drug war. a quick question on economics. do you think there's a
contradiction with capitalism when you have ownership over the means of production through private property rights doctrine? do you think that conflicts with the idea of democracy? thank you. guest: i'm curious if that was a democratic line. host: i say that to describe it. i don't think there is a contradiction in terms, especially if the role of the government is limited. the things people are upset about -- it is not that people vote in one realm and a vote with their dollars in another. whether trade policy or through protectionism or bailouts and things like that. when you go back and look at
tarp push by george bush, that was the moment decorated the tea party. it was not about barack obama. the republicans bailed out companies or helped companies that they thought were doing the public's work. this is the nexus. a tougher question for libertarians is, is there a system where businesses do not capture the political class and use it to their own advantage? host: let's go to a republican in north carolina. good morning. caller: i was turning to the channels and i saw your show. i'm not a real fan of c-span. i got to get to work.
there's one thing that is on my mind and blows my mind away. i used to be a democrat. then i realized, where are going now as a country? why can we just break the go,iers and say, let's economy. there are people that we will be following. i do not know. am i wrong? maybe you can enlighten me. host: argue following -- are you following? guest: maybe i am a leader. caller: i'm not voting in 2012. next election, when the have real leaders, i will probably vote because i'm not identifying with anybody. guest: there is a huge amount of
dissatisfaction with barack obama. we can look at the disapproval ratings are the approval ratings. he is not the most popular guy in town. among republicans, there seems to be a broad base level of dissatisfaction with the available candidates. i think he is tapping into something that is widespread. what are the things that would replace that? this is where i think somebody like ron paul is fascinating. he was not saying that he is a messiah. his stump appeal -- speeches. "i don't want to run your life because we have different values." that could be the beginning of
the transformational relationship of people to government where we don't look for people who are great speakers and say, i have a 12- point plan. the new gingrich model -- "you are an adult and i'm and adult and let's see how things go." host: ron paul was on the "washington journal" in 2008. i asked how it made him feel that he said it makes him nervous. i said, you're running for president and he said, i cannot fix all their problems. guest: this to be transformational. i wrote a book, how libertarians
politics can fix what is wrong with america. everywhere else in our lives, we're taking more responsibility for what matters to us and how to attain that. it is time we try that with politics. we have seen what happens when we have larger and larger apparatuses trying to control every contingency in life and that leads to over leveraged banks that are backed by the government and it leads to wars without end and to one chief executive after another saying i have the right to imprisoned american citizens whether you care about it or not. it is a bad place and go down a different -- we need to go down a different road. host: we have a tweet i want to bounce off of you.
guest: libertarians believe in responsibility, as well. paul told a group of college students, you don't have -- you should have every right to smoke and drink and eat whatever you want, but then you don't have a right to complain when you have screwed up. that is the nexus of the libertarian identity. you should have more control over your life, but also more responsibility. host: mike in florida, an independent. caller: a few questions on dr. paul. he is getting air time because of his pragmatism. i'm a lifelong democrat. i voted for gore, kerry,
obama, and i will never again vote for either major party candidate except for someone like ron paul, possibly gary johnson or buddy roemer, all the people that are not getting press. ron paul is going to win in iowa. it is an embarrassment that they are downplaying the entire caucus and say it does not matter. there has been no problem reporting on ron paul when he was you're crazy uncle. when he has a chance to make some changes that we all agree need to be made, and now he is a laughingstock. i am a lifelong democrat. i'm going to vote for your republican candidate if it is ron paul.
police believe the man is delectable -- please believe the electable.ctab that is true. he likes -- the caller likes ron paul because he is a pragmatist. ron paul has not changed. he is articulating the same vision of politics. it is a different world. now he's the pragmatist in the race. there's a lot of truth to that. they would take us from spending about $3.7 trillion to $4.7
trillion, democrats versus republicans. the establishment or the ones who are living in class coo-coo land. the one saying we need to cut money from the budget is the pragmatist. host: would be a mistake for ron paul to do what he is done in the past, swear off a third- party bid? guest: my sources are probably -- he is retiring, 76 years old and said he will not run for reelection of congress. he is interested in influencing the republican plot form. he has said that he is a republican and wants to influence that party. bidn't think a third-party
is in the cards for him, but you never know. host: we have a tweet from mary. guest: i did not necessarily agree with that. the real question involves -- it is an interesting issue. what is the role of government and what are the necessary function that it has to do? take the example that harry reid defend it against not actual cuts in spending -- should the government be funding cowboy poetry reading? i loved literature. maybe if we were so flush with cash we did not know what to do, maybe cowboy poetry would make
sense. the question is, do you get to choose among options for governance? you want your garbage to be picked up? to have people on apparel and health benefits. did you have contractor's bid for your garbage and you patent better rates for better service. that doesn't strike me as authoritarian. host: gregory from manhattan. caller: good morning. hopefully i'll have a chance to finish what i have to say. host: if you can make a quick. caller: i am a citizen just like you. why haven't we talked about ron paul and the dirty laundry that ron paul carries such as the
racism that seems to permeate around this man? he had to apologize for certain statements made in a newsletter. ron paul is talking about less government. he has been in government for over 20 years. president obama will be the president again after 2012. period. the idea that you guys believe that there is no support for this man who is our president, you guys are looking to the wrong lens. there is a bigger reality out there and it is not ron paul. guest: that is managed statement about the political class mrs. larger stores. i do not think anybody is overpredicting ron paul's media appeal.
to go to the real question that i think the caller was making, the ron paul newsletters which are everywhere in the news. reason.com has been covering them since 2008. they have existed for years. he had a bunch of newsletters that were published under his name. they seemed to have been written by him. most sources say there were not written by him. there is some racially horrible material. things that are not good by any stretch. he needs to explain how that came about. he is not a racist or homophobe. beckham up in the newsletters in a dark and disturbing way -- that came up in the newsletters.
how did this happen and how does it reflect on his ability to manage the white house? we have right now four or five of the most popular stories address this issue. there is a lot of dissension -- a lot of discussion and troubling elements within the libertarian community and in a broader kind of republican community. host: what did you make of the way he handled it this time around? he said he was not quite familiar with the content. people went into our archives and found them talking about what was in those newsletters back in 1995. guest: this is something we have documented as well as the
identity of the likely ghost writers of these columns. there is an article in our archives if you type been "who wrote ron paul's newsletters from 1998." the newsletter material is bad. his handling of that, he needs to do a better job explaining why his stories have changed over time and how this fits into where he is now. one of the things -- a number of our staffers -- the important thing is not to which this away but rather to recognize that his appeal right now are these things that i have been talking about. he offers an alternative to republican and democratic politics as usual. he is talking about cutting spending from this year to next
year. he is talking about a different vision of foreign policy and auditing the fed and creating personal liberties and freedom in terms of a drug legalization is an alternative life styles. nobody else is talking about that. that is his appeal. he is the alternative to the democratic and republican status quo. host: we were showing reason.com's website and who wrote the newsletters. we have a comment on twitter from donna816. guest: there is a huge body of literature on public choice olitics.
if he wins, it would be like bill buckley. he would demand a recount. the world willnds, change. unicorns will be eating out of our hands. host: -- from massachusetts -- richie. caller: i think ron paul is the best of the candidates from the republican side. as far as being obama, this country has totally dependent on government. it is getting bigger by the year. people cannot work and make their own -- they have to work two or three jobs. i am 67 years old and still go
to work at noon. i have worked all my life. as long as these people think government should take care of them, we will not beat obama. every time i listen to c-span, there is a segment -- a day that does not apply that a black person does not call white people to racist. just cut them off because i'm not a racist. i am a true american. guest: one of the things that is a fascinating -- people like ron paul. the major transfers from the government to individuals in america is going to generally wealthy and middle class and upper middle class, older americans through social security and medicare. these are the programs that are
fundamentally unsustainable in their current form, particularly medicare. they are becoming more and more understood. will we do through payroll taxes and with medicare is we take young people and poor people and give it to all people who are relatively wealthy. one paul talks about saying to older americans, do you want to be part of a generation that is taking the opportunities of your children and grandchildren by commiserating them to pay for your retirement that you can afford? that is the biggest shift that needs to happen. you build up resources and assets through the course of your life. as you get older, you filter that back down to the young rather than making the young putting into systems that are not going to be around in
recognizable form when they retire. host: republican in lynchburg, virginia. caller: i wanted to make a few brief comments and mention what the last caller said about racist comments. i have always felt like the position has been so much anarchist. i wanted to make clear to what mr. gillespie -- whether or not that's a true statement or are libertarians for limited government? guest: most libertarians are not anarchists. i like to use it as an adjective rather than a noun. young chomsky calls himself a libertarian socialist -- norma choms chomsky.
do you want to give people more options to make decisions? do you want to broaden the size and scope of action? they believe in a written constitution. they want a government that is far more predictable. there is talk in libertarian circles of what is called regime uncertainty. we talk about this in developing nations. investors do not want to move to a country where day-to-day they do not know if the government will topple or if there will be civil war. we do not know your to your what the budget will be and we do not know what the regulations will. we'll find out how much the stuff costs.
if you're shopping for employers, you cannot plan ahead. libertarians are in favor of regime certainty and are in favor of having a small, understood government. host: west virginia. caller: hello. i feel like libertarians are not getting enough credit. i am a liberal democratic person that is conservative. i think people want change with barack obama and i probably will be voting for barack obama. the lobbyists and the congress and the talk about health care. health-care and took forever to get past. the president had a meeting with the insurance companies. these things behind closed doors. the republicans gave their input
and changed a lot of it and then none of them voted for it. we want change. i could see myself voting for ron paul. you mentioned norm chomsky. it has changed. that is my point. guest: bring back to my book, which i think is the most fascinating book written in the past six months or so. one of the things i was thinking about in the greenroom in the book we talk about something like three dozen brands of pop tarts when there were introduced by kellogg's. now there is a proliferation of colors and shapes.
who isiberal democrat conservative, as the caller was saying. this is the moment we live-in where we expect and demand personalized service. we know categories like black and white and conservative do not capture what we are. let's say we are sophisticated and we need a politics that represents that. i think this is part of the problem barack obama is not the change agent that people thought. somebody like mitt romney -- he fails to engage people because he could beat george romney -- he could be george romney, his father. host: we to offer more than pop tarts in our greenroom. guest: you seem to be in bed
with the big carb lobby.l host: dale, a republican in florida. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. happy holidays. there are a lot of good leaders today. all of them are capable. i like the strategies of everyone, especially ron paul's, where there's more freedom. everybody out in the street is protesting. i believe some financial oppressions and possibly some other things. i think our answer is for if the economy and we are trying to recover from the war. inon't think anyone will get office and be a dictator. i don't think that is possible
in america. host: how about his comments about occupy wall street? guest: i think occupy wall street is best understood in conjunction with the tea party. the tea party has vastly bigger numbers and vastly more negative news coverage. there were reports of real and implied violence -- hundreds of thousands of people were marching around. there were no acts of violence. occupy wall street, much more popular media coverage and there was actual violence among people. they need to be taken seriously as red and unique public expressions of outrage as well as a demand to reclaim some measure of control over their lives. the only politician whose name
was mentioned at those things was ron paul. he is an interesting bird just for its ability to cover the waterfront in terms of where he is drawing support from host:. .ccu host: octopi des moines -- we'll be live in des moines tomorrow. also joining us from des moines tomorrow will be the president and ceo of the family leader christian conservative who designed the so-called marriage pledged that newt gingrich recently signed. this is "the washington post" today.
host: a couple more phone calls for reason.com editor-in-chief nick gillespie. caller: i am a veteran, spent 26 and a half years -- tell me why i should vote for ron paul? he is a bigot. he doesn't like blacks or jews. guest: it is interesting the caller talks about being a veteran. ron paul in 2008 and 2012 has
led the candidates among donations from active military people. he has collected more than all the republicans together and about twice as much as barack obama in the 2012 race so far. the pentagon and the military industrial complex hate his guts, but the actual guys and women patrolling the shores and firing the guns seem to dig him. about him being a bigot, he needs to explain the newsletters and the content. people around him to testify that he is not a bigot. he is not anti-semitic. he has said that the u.s. has a bad deal for israel with both
countries. we give them a lot of money and tie their hands in ways they might prefer. his foreign policy is probably the thing that more than anythingbu bug conventional republicans. he is talking about a radical shift in foreign policy. when you looked budget there was passed in the house and you look at barack obama's budget plan, barack obama increases defense a lot more than the republicans. that is coming on a doubling of the pentagon spending since 2000. these are issues -- we know the republicans are hawks and the democrats are soft in the clinches. that is not true in terms of the money they want to spend on
defense or homeland security. oll : i want to show a p out of new hampshire. newt gingrich and ron paul are tied. guest: he has a strong poll in new hampshire because of limited government. romney, that is his backyard. he picked up a couple of newspapers in new hampshire. they will with newt gingrich a while ago -- they went with newt gingrich awhile ago. newt gingrich is finished. he reached the high watermark. he is like a bad break up. andyear's eve is coming up you realize maybe should get
back together. if ron paul does well and i will, i think he will do well in new hampshire. he is not pulling as well in south carolina. people like newt gingrich and rick perry did not qualify in virginia. paul and romney have been doing this for a while and they know what they are doing. you will see an interesting discussion about the direction of the republican party and where america should be going. we have almost 90 years left of the 20th century. it has been kind of a bust politically so far. we have nice gadgets. we have the ipad and tablets and different kinds of pop tarts. we have to get our politics in order.
people like mitt romney or newt gingrich on the republican side. it could be the difference between whether we're speaking greek in 20 years or whether we are thriving. host: nick gillespie, thank you. we turn our attention to iraq but first a news update from c- span radio. >> more on the presidential election. the head of the republican party says note negative vibes should be inferred from the gop's inability to coalesce around a candidate to challenge president obama. america is ready to put a person in the white house who can make a promise and keep a promise. prime minister vladimir putin
speaking earlier to reporters says he does not need any vote rigging and the election must be an honest test of public support. his authority has been hurt by fraud allegations in the parliamentary elections. an al qaeda front group is planning -- claiming responsibility for it wave of attacks that killed 69 people. was islamic state of bairaq made in memory of those who work executed. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> with the iowa caucuses next week and the new hampshire, south carolina, and florida primaries later in the month, c-span's
series "the contenders" looks back at 14 candidates who ran for president and lost, but had a long-lasting impact on american politics. tonight, adlai stevenson, who lost to dwight eisenhower. wednesday, barry goldwater. thursday, vice president and civil rights advocate hubert humphrey. friday, four-time governor of alabama george wallace. and then on saturday, senator and congressman from south dakota, george mcgovern, followed by billionaire businessman ross perot. "the contenders," every night at 10:00 eastern on c-span. >> middle and high school students, for this year's c-span studentcam video competition, we want you to tell us what part of the constitution has meaning to you, and why. let us know in a five- to eight-minute documentary and get it to c-span by january 20, 2012 -- that's less than a month away -- for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there's $50,000 in total prizes. c-span's studentcam video documentary competition is open to students grade six through 12. so for complete details, go
online to studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with gopal ratnam, a reporter for "bloomberg businessweek." he co-wrote a piece recently on theus your write-in on ting defense industry. what is most severe in iraq -- what is mostly of there? guest: we have left behind several million pieces -- all the support stuff. things like cables and canteens, stoves and the support equipment that you would need to support troops that were in iraq.
most of these were spread about the 500 bases that the u.s. occupied. we give them over to the iraqis. the weapons themselves, depending on how bad they were used, they make it back to the united states for the most part. some need to go for repairs, but some will go to troops in the region in and around the middle east area. most of them get trucked to kuwait and cleaned up and get shipped to different parts of the united states or other bases around the world. host: afghanistan? guest: some have gone. the signature piece of equipment in iraq, some of those are going
to afghanistan. host: you write in this piece -- everything gets counted and r wrapped. host: what does it cost to get the equipment out? guest: it is not clear what the cost is. this is an ongoing thing. it's all kind of wrapped up. the larger, a bigger number is about $825 billion, the war effort in iraq. the last year, the pentagon asked for $20 billion. host: what is the process for
20,000-plus truckloads? guest: we talk to major general richard sson. his base was in kuwait. the operation began in september, 2010, when troops began coming out of the country. the army has an elaborate system of tracking just about everything they have in the country. you would kind of review on a daily basis and see which bases were being shot and how they needed to move back. the did a calculation on how many truckloads they needed. till the last moment, they were taking fuel in so they could get the trucks out. that was an ongoing operation on till the last moment, i would imagine and the last troops left a week before christmas. host: 4.2 pieces of equipment --
guest: 4.2 million. what happens is you have these bases. these were insulations the u.s. military just took over. host: you said there were around 500. guest: 505. they said that when they were leaving, it is unseemly if you just rip everything out and take back the land. they wanted to give a back in some shape that it could be used. you can imagine if an air- conditioner is used in the desert for seven or eight years, it doesn't have to much of a resale value. it was rather better to just leave it on the base and have some residual life left in it than rather to rip it out and take it.
things like radios and other gear that the troops used. those were all taken out. anything that was communication relieve it was all taken out. the toilets and kitchen equipment and office gear and things like copiers, those were left behind. the things that they could not leave behind, the 50 states had an opportunity to take them back if it would pay shipping costs and take them back. we talk about some of the equipment that has come back including a band kid that -- a band kit that went to alabama. host: there are two u.s. bases that still need to be emptied out. guest: that was before the last
troops left. they are all gone. host: $10 million is what iraq is spending on new military gear. guest: the iraqi military has been reconstituted. so some of the equipment tickets used was given over to the iraqi troops. the iraqi government's have ordered new equipment and that includes $10 billion and some trucks and moving equipment and guns and ammunition. they have ordered another $6.5 billion in jets from a u.s. company. host: let's go to phone calls. jeanne from maryland. caller: is there a contractor --
i feel the contractor at the time reaped the benefits and ultimately resold the same equipment to the humanitarian as in exchange for the humanitarian assistance for pol programs. who is handling this? hopefully it is not halliburton. host: the drawdown of that conflict, the contractors benefited? caller: yes. they had been contractor. normally they could not have that three u.s. contractor, but the contractor was physically over there and normally i had filed a whistleblowing sued and i was convinced at the time that
mr. cheney, when he was being nominated for vice president, that he was a direct benefactor via halliburton. host: what we're doing over there in desert storm? caller: i was in logistics. you have your pipeline of food and medical equipment and that is all this stuff, and tents, that plain and simple is a lot to move back. i was trying to get for military customers. i was working a 17-hour day during desert storm between the pentagon and my regular job. guest: it is sad to say that a lot of work is done by the contractors. try to figure out what happens
to equipment. there's a huge military base in kuwait that the united states uses. we do mentioned in the graphic of that story. a lot of the equipment that is left behind come the men and women leave and their equipment was left behind. all of the equipment needs to be washed and cleaned. u.s. regulations require that. we do not bring back any dirt and so on. it gets washed, like a car wash, but on a much larger scale, and everything gets cleaned up and in some places it gets shrink wrapped before being placed on the truck. the decision is probably made by the military and the cleaning get stung by the contractor. . many contractors responsible.
that is the process and it will probably take a few months before that to be cleared out. the troops have left but the equipment is still there. host: back to phone calls, akron, ohio. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: what the true and scores for all this would be -- end course. host: what do you mean? cost for gettingd this out. guest: i don't think the military has made a determination of how much it costs to pullout. it is part of the budget. some portion of that towards the withdraw.
at the height of the war in iraq, we had 157,000 troops. some of them have been coming back and all that counts towards the withdraw. it gets wrapped up in the larger budgets. host: as they came back, food went over. guest: we had a smaller footprint and it began to diminish over a point of time. host: john in new york. caller: why are we worrying so much about bringing this equipment back to the states? any equipment we do not need in afghanistan should be left in iraq. anything not too sensitive should be left there, send a bill to the iraqi government, and leave it.
a littlem pay la bit. if it is usable, leave it there. they were trained on it. host: is that the case? guest: that is exactly the case. the military decides if they need something and they get the first priority. the second party is the united states and the country if they want some of the court and back, like the band equipment. the third party is the iraqi government. whatever is left behind is in as is condition. but for the other support equipment, we leave them as is. there was a talk to a letter for that.
host: the u.s. is giving iraq five wanted $8 million -- %580 million worth of equipment. guest: right. there was some dispute about what he was saying and what the pentagon believed they were doing. the pentagon spent -- sent someone to iraq to represent this process and then showed that the states , what they
wanted -- got what they wanted. there was maybe a miscalculation on the part of both parties. it seems as if the states got some but not all of a wanted. host: randy in illinois, you are next. good morning. we'll move on. george in philadelphia. caller: you said a war and only congress has the power to declare war. congress to not declare war, so technically it is not a war. host: you are quickly without it is characterized -- with how it is characterized. caller: only congress can
declare war on the constitution. host: we have a tweet from ron. more of a general question. guest: they have been getting exemptions and right now there is a requirement to have them complete the audit in the near future and have it certified. it should be possible. i do not see why it should be possible to complete an audit. you have a vast agency spread throughout the world and multiple accounting systems. that makes it difficult to track items. that is why they have not had a certified audit in years. host: we have a tweet.
james in south carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. what company or companies benefited most from this war? thank you. guest: that this kind of a hard question to answer -- that is kind of a hard question. the caller mentioned halliburton. these companies were supporting -- providing support work and lot of the security contractors including a company known as black water, all them benefited including the weapons makers from lockheed martin and boeing. a whole range of u.s. companies
and international companies. part of the coalition has benefited from the war. the modern military does not go to war by itself. ofre's a whole army contractors who support them. host: we have a tweet. guest: state department told us -- the u.s. will have the largest embassy in the world in of theboth in terms site and the number of people based in iraq. the count is about 15,000. about 5000 our security contractors. i would imagine a lot of them
would be u.s. companies and u.s. contractors are providing that security for government officials in iraq. onst: you put a price tag o it, $3.8 billion. atlanta, georgia, david. caller: i was in kuwait and it was a staging area. how much roughly do we spend on just a camp or base overseas? now that we're pulling out, what that might be significant enough to make a difference in the budget for dod? guest: the question he was asking, how much do we spend on the base in kuwait. host: are you still there?
could you repeat your question? caller: the amount, now that we've pulled out. is that and not significant to help the dod save money this year? host: the savings from not having a troop presence in that country, if the makes a difference to the pentagon budget. guest: i do not know what the budget is for the base in kuwait. the overall troop presence from the world would be a significant number. your previous guest was talking not ron paul and his foreign- policy goals. he advocates shutting other u.s. bases around the world and bring you them back home -- and bringing them back home and that would save money. host: we have a comment on
twitter. bob in indiana, a republican. caller: part of the cost -- does that include the payroll for the soldiers, which would be a fixed cost matter where they were -- no matter where they were? host: i see what you're saying. the cost would remain the same. caller: war cost. i have been reading the rise and fall of the soviet empire. it is similar to what we have going on with this occupy wall street thing. thank you. host: let's take his first comments. do they get higher pay if they are in combat? guest: they get certain benefits
in pay echoes of the deployment, and several troops have been deployed multiple times. all those -- that gets counted in the budget for the operation. host: oliver on the independent line from florida. good morning. question or comment? caller: my -- during the second world war, when harry truman brushback, chiang kai-shek -- brought us back, shanghai scheck was still in charge of the mainland. they pulled us out of china. they send us home. we left behind billions of brand-new on used equipment.
i cannot believe that they are talking about peanuts now. what would look behind in the second world war -- i believe there were called f-4 or f-5's. host: or they -- what were they? caller: ford motor trucks. as far as the eye could see. we had jeeps and trucks by the thousands. he was hanging out. host: we will leave it there. we will show you this number from the "bloomberg" piece. guest: i think the caller was also talking about the equipment left behind for the rockies --
iraqis. we talk about the military transport trucks that we of donated to the rocky governments -- that we have donated to the iraqi government. he talked about the armored trucks that are being left behind for the u.s. diplomats, and that speaks to the continuing security situation in the country of iraq. some of the diplomats would travel in the armored cars and trucks. host: do we know how many vehicles or in iraq? guest: this was a signature vehicle bill was developed as a result of the roadside bombs in iraq. troops were traveling in on which were completely
unprotected. this is one of the things that robert gates made sure, that the u.s. military -- we spent about $36 billion developing and producing those vehicles. host: there was a story that the defense department notified congress to sell an additional batch of 18 jets to iraq. guest: i mean, this is again, part of the larger u.s. policy that we talk about. there is an agency of the pentagon that is based in the u.s. embassy of iraq. they will assess the needs of the iraqi military. they will suggest and promote u.s. military gear to them.
this is part of that. as part of the war, all of the iraq equipment was destroyed. thou art reconstituting the military and looking to -- because of our suggestion to them. like we said, this is the second batch. host: sharon, a republican from lynchburg, virginia. caller: i think a caller was confused. he said something about the war and permission from congress. that is not true. congress did approve of the war. i just wanted to comment on that. host: this is going back to the invasion of iraq and whether or not congress approved it. guest: there was a large group of people who wanted to retaliate against the attackers of 9/11. host: we will go to missouri,
loretta, a democratic collar. go ahead. caller: my question was when they invaded i rack and discovered millions of dollars -- when they invaded on iraq and discovered millions of dollars, no one has said it ended up back in the treasury. secondly, there is such a thing as foreign military sales. are we selling things to iraq? they have money. lots of it. and oil. host: we talked about it. guest: iraq is in the middle of a highly volatile region and there are other neighbors in the region who are pretty heavily armed. i would imagine that there would be more military sales to iraq from the united states. the caller is right.
part of the foreign military sales for the pentagon promotes equipment. host: tony from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i was just looking at the jets. i was just wondering, if you were to break that down strategically, wouldn't be safe to say that with all of the troops leaving the vehicles, wouldn't that be the bulk of the overhead? me being a former troupe, i do not think that the imminent danger would equal what the oil, the transmission fluid, wouldn't that be the bulk of what is going on with the actual price tag of iraq? guest: thank you.
i do not know what the breakdown is in terms of the overall cost for fuel and overhead, but i would imagine that, yes, indeed, it would be a significant number. the operations in the iraq for getting in and for getting out. host: and. -- anne. caller: good morning. my question to you is, can you explain the tax write-off that these corporations dead by actually having all of this inventory still there? and as they say they are occupy in iraq as correlation to what you just mentioned, over 500, if they get a special tax break in terms of u.s. taxes. in other words, they do not have to pay as much taxes because
they are still there in that the country. the next thing i would like to ask you, sir, if they purchase all of the equipment -- i mean, the iraqis, do they get something if they lease them from the corporation? host: are you familiar with that? guest: i am not sure. most of the equipment belongs to the military. it is being serviced or been taken care of by the contractors to the extent that the companies are taking equipment to iraq. it may have been bought by the u.s. military to be used in the country. i'm not sure exactly how that use in terms of a country taking its own assets to a iraq. i'm not sure about that. gopal ratnam is our guest here. he is focusing on the money aspects. a democrat in maryland.
caller: i was just paying attention to this. it occurred to me that nothing should be left behind unless it is going to be sold to the governments. i cannot imagine just leaving it behind like it is free. these are millions and millions of dollars worth of military -- host: are you just joining us? caller: i have been watching may be the last hour or so. host: our guests talk a little bit about why the military is not charging iraq for leaving some of the stuff behind. why don't you go ahead and say it again? guest: the rationale for this from the military's point of view is that they're taking things a little by little over a period of time. it is like if you lease a house and put stuff in it over the last eight years. now you are about to leave.
you have to take everything out. there are certain things that you probably made, like, attachments to the house that would not make any sense to rip off of the walls. the second thing is that these are older equipment that are worn out and it does not make sense to move it all. the third aspect of this, you want iraq to be a friendly country to the united states. you can leave some things behind so that they can use them. that is the strategic value as one of the officials explained. host: democratic collar. -- democratic caller. caller: i heard you say was one cost -- billion dollars for the embassy. what was the cost for the no-fly zone? guest: the $3.8 billion is for
the 2012 fiscal year. i do not know what it will be going forward, but that is a good question. host: that is what the state department has requested for 2012. the diplomatic mission there is the largest in the world, according to bloomberg. bob, an independent in minnesota. caller: thank you for taking my call. i hear about all these contractors and everything. i am an old retired person. military contracts, the government contracts, if they can charge you more to do the job then they get a percentage of a higher number. contractors never tried to do anything to economical. most of these contractors are people that are a former
government employees whether it is military or civilian, dealing with current ones that are looking for jobs in the private sector when they are retired. we have kind of a wild catch 22 theire. anytime we say the $3.8 billion or whatever for the embassy, how much of that percentage is going to go to contractors and negotiating yet? -- negotiating it? when someone brought stuff over, they did not necessarily negotiate the cost because they cost $1,000 and give 10 percent of that. host: ok, we will leave it there and get a response.
guest: a think the caller is talking about the aspect of how the pentagon does the costs. there is a shift towards -- because of the budget deficit, a shift towards doing more and putting some of the burden back on the contractor. i think he was also talking about the equipment -- i think he was asking about the equipment that is being left behind in iraq. as to how it got there and what kind of fixed price contract in there, i am not sure how that can be dealt with. host: we will go to steve, a democrat in indianapolis. caller: good morning. i served two duties in a vietnam. i served with the marine corps there. in 17 -- in 1971, we started
pulling out of vietnam. we packed up everything that we had, including paper clips, put aboard the ship and brought it back to the states. who is leaving things there -- is that the marine corps, the air force? guest: i think at this point is probably all branches of service. i do not think it is possible to distinguish which service left what behind. again, just to emphasize, this is not anything that the u.s. military would definitely need that is being left behind. in fact, the people we talked to told us that anything that was considered a security item was either shipped back or taken out. for example, internet cables and other raptors, things that to be used to connect to other people,
they were all taken out and destroyed. host: joshua is our last phone call here. we will try to maybe get one more in. joshua, in lincoln city an independent scholar. caller: good morning. it is kind of early over here. host: what is your question or comment? caller: i think we should pull out of our world dominance instead of just iraq. we have battle groups around the world penitential to other countries. we should just come home and worry about our own problems we have here in the states. host: joshua, does that mean you are for a candid like ron paul who is made similar comments? caller: i am not really sure where i am going. i plan on making a decision by the end of the year hopefully. it is just, there is so much
stuff that we need to take care of here in our own country before even starting to go to, like, libya. all the problems they're having right now and adjust the revolution they are doing over there -- i just imagine seeing it happen here. host: ok. bill, a democrat of florida, you are the last. good morning. caller: i was wondering if there is something in the clause about leaving the equipment over there. can the government there sell the equipment? is there something risen in where they have to wait so many years? -- is there something written in where they have to wait so many years? guest: my understanding is these are all the stuff we left behind that are used equipment
that has been heavily depreciated. it has some residual value, but really not much. that is my understanding. host: gopal ratnam, thank you very much. here is a recent headline for you. the number of u.s. immigrants, we will tell you why next. now an update from news radio. >> standard and poor's index reports this hour that u.s. home prices sell in most major cities for the second straight month. prior to that thought they had risen for five consecutive months at -- in at least half of the city's track. they measure prices compared with january 2000. it creates a three month moving average. meanwhile, an associated press survey shows that the u.s. economy will grow faster in 2012 ended -- if it is not knocked
off track by the people in europe. the climate will barely fall from the current rate by next november's presidential election. in other economic news, sears says it will post -- it will close stores after terrible holiday sales. the store closings will generate up to $170 million in cash. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> with the iowa caucuses next week in new hampshire, and the primaries later in the month, c- span's series "the contenders." it looks at people who ran and lost but had a lasting impact. tonight, adlai stevenson,
wednesday, barry goldwater. thursday, huburt humphrey. friday, george wallace. and then on saturday, george mcgovern and billionaire ross perot. we want to tell us about which part of the constitution has meet you and why. make the documentary and get it to c-span by january 20, 2012. there is $50,000 in total prize is. cam documentaryt is open to students through sixth grade. the one line at studentcam.org for more info. >> "washington journal"
continues. host: at is what to show our viewers the numbers. 340,000 in fiscal year 2011. down 24% from 2010. the lowest number recorded since 1972. hear from the pew hispanic center. 10.2 million adults, 1 million minors, 35% have been in the u.s. for 15 or more years. what is happening with immigration in the united states? guest: the numbers have dropped over the last three or four years. mainly, from what we can tell, due to a dramatic plunge on the
view of unauthorized immigrants coming into the country. there is a slight increase in the number leaving. but the number of new ones coming in to replenish the numbers has plunged to a very low levels. it seems to be a combination, all the factors are pushing in the same direction. enforcement has been wrapped up severely over the last 15 years or so. since most of the unauthorized immigrants are coming for work, and there is no worked. particularly in the case of mexico, where crossing the border has gotten more dangerous, more difficult, or more expensive to try to come in when there is no prospect of jobs. it makes a lot of sense when people have stopped coming. host: what about the decline of
the birthrate in mexico? guest: there are other factors contributing. democratic factors take a -- demographic factors take a long time to work out. the fertility rate has dropped from about seven children per woman in 1970 to about 2.4 million -- 2.4 births per women as of 2000. what happened as a result of that, beginning about 15 years ago, the number of new berths in mexico dropped every year. -- of new births in mexico dropped every year. i think it will be a significant factor over the next 15 to 20 years. it is not a major factor in what we are seeing right now. host: jobs being one of the reasons -- or lack there of.
what about jobs in mexico? have they increased? guest: there has been a little bit of an increase. there has been some activity on the part of people who may have migrated to the united states. it plays a role, but the economy in mexico are really long range factors that will play more in the next 10 years. host: what about those illegal immigrants who are here? what did you find out about them? guest: by and large, this is a group of young working families or young families that would like to be working. about just under half of all of the adults are parents. 46% or so of unauthorized immigrant adults are parents
with children. host: these are people who a been here for 15 years or more? guest: a lot of them, yes. because of the dynamic of fewer of them coming in and not many people leaving, we have accumulated over the last 10 years or so larger and larger numbers and larger and larger shares of adults who are here for a significant period of time. host: are they staying in the united states? going back? guest: like as said before, there are always people coming and going. we have not seen indications of a substantial increase in the number of people leaving. the prospects in mexico are still not that great. the combination of the roots of people have put down, the equities they have built up in the united states and the lack
of similar prospects in mexico -- host: if the economy or to improve, and you think the number of immigrants -- illegal immigrants in this country would jump up as well? guest: i would suspect that more people would come to the united states. bennett is an issue of how effective our law enforcement apparatus is. -- then it is an issue of how effective our law enforcement apparatus is. that would answer the question of the role that enforcement has played in this decline. host: do we know? guest: everything is pushing in the same direction, so it's hard to know how much of it is enforcement or economics. host: the threat of deportation from the obama administration since coming into office, is
that a deterrent? guest: i think the job factor is of the major one. we do not really know, like as said, if there were jobs to be had, perhaps we would be able to separate this out a bit. but certainly, there is a fear. our surveys of the latino population show that they are worried about deportation. host: frank, a democrat, and you are up first. question or comment? caller: you think that with all of these immigrants coming over, it makes our country better? host: frank, what do you think? caller: no. i do not. also, do you think it would be better if we had less of whites
in this country? host: frank, i am not sure our guest has an opinion. he just looks at the numbers and tells us what are the factors in the numbers he is seeing. a republican in north carolina, go ahead. caller: yes, i would like to know how you -- how you physically can do this census? how'd you find them and how accurate is it? what tools do you use? guest: we base our estimates on government surveys. we asked people where they were born. we do not ask their legal status. basically, we are able to estimate the number of people who are legally in the country because we can put that together with demographic techniques. we can compare those counts with
the accounts from the censuses and surveys. at the end, we make an adjustment for the people who are missed. one of the prime factors in doing this is you are from mexico because basically almost all the mexicans in the world are either in the united states or mexico. by looking at historical patterns in the united states and mexico we can make an assessment on how many people are missed. host: to you have an error rate? -- do you have an error rate? guest: we haven't margin of error estimate. i have been -- we have an margin of error estimate. we have much better day debt now and the margins of data -- and the margins of error are much smaller.
host: will go to gary, an independent in minnesota next. caller: i have two questions. the you think this is a strategy for obama to get the national guard at the border? we have a bad economy, so that cuts down the number of illegal immigrants coming across the border? that is one question. second, the you think we should take some sort of strategy or advice from north korea, iran, as far as protecting our borders? host: what you mean by that? caller: it seems like if anyone goes across iran's border, they arrest them and it's on the news. host: let's talk about the resources along the border. what do we have?
guest: i have not been following the budgets, but we have somewhere between 20,000 agents on the border patrol, which is on the order of four or five times what it was. a lot of technology, they have built fences and sensors. it is a lot harder for people to cross. the strategy has pushed people away from the easy crossing points into places that it is physically difficult. i think that has deterred some people from coming. surveys done mainly in mexico, the chance that somebody would get caught to get in has gone up by about 50% over the last 10
years. host: and the expense of trying to get across? guest: the expense has gone up by a factor of two or three. i think the going rate is about -- to hire a smuggler. now anyone who tries to get in does use a smuggler, where as 15 or 20 years ago it was much less frequent. host: cbs news poll, 60% to 25% americans disapprove allow the children of illegal immigrants to attend state college at lower tuition. a caller from chicago. caller: good morning and happy holidays. i have a comment. i am from south the cod roe -- from south chicago.
we had to open up five churches to the spanish when the recession came. the houses were boarded up. on sunday when i went to church, it is stunning how many churches have left and gone -- who knows. they are very great at buying homes over in mexico and going back and forth. do they help us here? not in this community. the education went down. it has been a lot of hard work. they are good people but i really disapproved of all of this illegal stuff going on. i thank you for listening and goodbye. host: to you have any numbers
about the cost on schools and medical costs? guest: we have not done any studies that try to measure that exactly. but the general sense you get from all the studies that have been done is that those are the areas that are the most affected. most of the undocumented immigrants are working and paying taxes in one way or another. as i said before, there are a lot of children. there are a population of young families with children. schools are where you will see the impact. host: explain how they are paying taxes. guest: at least half, and maybe as much as 2/3 are working in jobs and covered by social security.
in many places, the principal source of tax revenue is property sales tax. those are certainly taxes that everybody pays regardless of their legal status. host: here is a tweet. alfred is a republican in san antonio, texas. good morning. caller: i was born and raised in washington d.c.. i do not know where half of these demographics or polls come from. the majority of them are wrong. i know, for example, my wife and her mother. there are 25 other people in her family that have used their id's to come into the united
states legally. they get medicare and benefits, and here it is. i cannot even afford health insurance at my job. they get all these benefits for free and keep having more kids and more kids. they go back and forth and bring more and more people here. that is a problem, how they can just get across -- they are not sneaking across the border. they are regular family members with id's and passports and,. that needs to be addressed. host: they are using legitimate documentation from other family members? caller: yes, for example, my wife's father is a citizen. once he became a citizen, he gave his ideas and his papers to his son. -- his id and his papers to his son. then they sent it back. then his kids came over.
they are not even citizens and they are getting free medical insurance, a free food stamps, free school. host: ok. we got your point. any surveys that you have done that show this? guest: if they are not citizens they are not eligible for those programs. there is some indication -- there is not any indication of massive levels. for the most part, non-citizens do not use those benefits. there are some indications that you certainly hear from the border patrol and the customs people will tell you about people coming in with documents. increasingly, they are deploying technology to make sure that the id match is a person. from what i understand, it is
much harder to do than it was 15 years ago. host: we will go next to an independent in holiday, fla.. good morning. caller: i would like to ask if it is true when it illegal immigrants -- excuse my dog. if it is true that those children are automatically citizens and how that affects being able to deport the illegal immigrant's parents. guest: children born in the united states are automatically u.s. citizens regardless of the status of their parents with some minor exceptions for diplomats. again, historic plea, 10 or 15 years ago -- historic plea --
historically, 10 or 15 years ago, having multiple children was considered a factor on whether or not someone would be deported. a decision was made to stop that. basically, people were subject to deportation whether or not they had a u.s.-born children. how that policy is being played out, i am not sure. it used to be a significant factor but i believe it no longer is. host: what about the recent policy -- the crackdown on an employer who hires illegal immigrants? guest: i think most of the people who have looked at this all along have talked about enforcement to actually work as a deterrent would have to be focused on the employers. i do not know how that is being done right now. it is not what we study. host: is that playing a role in
the number of illegal immigrants? guest: going back to what we said before, the employment opportunities are what is really drawing people. if it is harder to get jobs through employers, then that would tend to keep the numbers are lower. host: john, a democrat in riverview, new york. caller: to you really think that a mexican born in mexico is going to tell you that there were born there when you do your survey? guest: week, again, we do not have any indication that the numbers are badly wrong. we correct for some undercount.
what we do have indications are a much larger number of mexicans appear to tell us that they are naturalized u.s. citizens and the data supports. we are picking up this kind of response misinformation that has to do with citizenship rather than place of birth. we do have a good idea of how many people were born in mexico over the last 58 years. by combining data from mexico and the u.s., we can see that the numbers are pretty accurate. host: how you go about your survey -- i think he said this earlier, but you do phone calls or how you do it? guest: when we do the american survey and the census bureau -- and the current population survey.
the american community survey is principally done by mail, but for people who do not mail the forms and -- host: oliver, a republican in virginia. caller: when you say the number of illegal immigrants went down recently, based on what? the other illegals do not know about them. how'd you know that they went down? they are in the shadows. that is why the government is asking them to come forward. how'd you know that it went down? thank you. guest: well, we have data from surveys that shows the number of people from mexico in at the united states has not changed in the last four years. the number living here legally
has gone up. so we can estimate that the number here of undocumented immigrants has gone down. we also have surveys from mexico that reports our estimates that the number coming in, survey data from mexico shows that the numbers of mexicans coming to the united states dropped about 75% in the last five years. host: if you look at the estimates of the unauthorized mexican population in 2010, it was about 12 million. it dropped in 2008. in 2010, up slightly. guest: it is well within the margin of error. we can to say it will level off. we got some indications from the
data census bureau that the overall numbers may be higher, but we think the pattern change over the decade is captured within these estimates. the numbers did go up quite rapidly in the first half of the decade and peak in 2007. host: do we know what the increase was? the reason behind the increase? guest: these are, again, the economy was in reasonably good shape. the numbers coming in tend to go up and down with the u.s. economy. we had peaked migration from mexico right around 2000. you pointed to the apprehension data as peaking in 2000. our estimates of the inflow show a peak as well. there was a little bit of the drop with the recession in 2001 and 2002.
the inflows went up again in the middle of the decade. host: what does it say about the increase in the first half of the decade and how quick and increase it was verses' the last -- guest: it goes back even further from 1990 to 2007. the increase averaged about half a million per year. some years more, some years less. there was a steady increase. since then, it has dropped 1 million. it is really a dramatic change in the pattern of what we have seen over 15 years. host: a dennis, an independent in baltimore. caller: i would like to first off apologize to our fellow americans of mexican descent for these extremely rude and
racist, and godly comments that people are calling in. i want to apologize to all of them as an american. i also want to say that our country is born of immigrants. almost every single person here has immigrants as ancestors. i am just appalled at the comments and things that people are saying. and, oh, it is ok to be racist christian nation. i want to say merry christmas and i apologize. host: we got your point. a democrat in new jersey. caller: good morning. i live in south jersey. where i live, i am more closer inland. most of that is rural farm area. a lot of farmers employed mexicans to work their farms. with this sense is that is going
to be going out, are they going to be going out to a lot of those farmers who employ mexicans? a lot of them stay on the property. i know there is a blueberry co. out of hammonton, new jersey, where a lot of the farmers live on their property. they go out to do the senses with those mexicans to do work for those farmers and they are deported. they do not pay them a lot of money to do that work. i am sure that is going to kind of mess up -- what am i trying to say? their ability to be able to maintain and get produce out to the stores by pain cheap labor to the mexicans and still be able to process and bring more produce the following season. host: ok. any comments on that? guest: this is an ongoing debate
and issue about labor. we have seen agriculture as they have the employer of immigrants. in some places, we hear stories that crops are not getting picked over the long run. other industries, other parts of the agriculture industry, have to look for alternatives. mechanizing in some places where possible. host: we're talking about illegal immigration here this morning. we want to show you the breakdown. here is the decline in unauthorized immigrants population between 2007 and 2010 in florida. there's a difference of about 200,000 less. in virginia, it is declined by about 100,000. arizona, utah, nevada, about 160,000.
where there have been increases are texas, louisiana, and oklahoma. do we know why? guest: again, there seem to be some economic factors underlying it. florida, at this particular time. , was going through a very bad economy. -- florida, at this particular time period was going through a very bad economy. places where jobs were less available seem to be losing people. in particular, texas seems to have a relatively strong economy compared to other states. host: jeffrey passel, senior at the pew hispanic center. caller: i am sick of people apologizing for america. let that women go sneak into mexico to try and live there
illegally and see what happened to her. also, canada is clamping down because their economy is better than ours. they're clamping down on illegals of breaking into their country. if we do not have borders, we do not have a country. and sir, you say they pay taxes. that just means they have stolen somebody's identity or else they would not have a social security number. it appears they're very involved in human trafficking and drugs. when was the last time you went to walmart. you say they do not get a food stamp car? you go to walmart nc who was waving that card and getting groceries. host: had you know they are illegal? caller: because you can look at them and they do not speak english. host: i do not think that means they are illegal just because they do not speak english. guest: more than about half of all the mexicans in the united states are here legally. mexico is the largest source of legal immigration to the united
states. about 20% of all legal immigrants living in united states come from mexico. host: what about english versus spanish? guest: the logger immigrants are here, the more likely they are to speak english. many of them do not speak english well. host: here is a tweet. bob, an independent in colorado, go ahead. caller: i lived in mexico for the last 10 years. my friends to come into the united states, as the gentleman mentioned earlier, use a coyote. that is a person who will get the more they want to go, usually a relative.
it is a natural thing. they want to do well for their family. but they do not want to come here necessarily to live. some of them eventually do. but they really want to go back to mexico, as the gentleman knows, millions and millions of dollars back to their own families. host: do we know about money being sent back? guest: there are billions of dollars. the last number i saw was around the order of $11 billion. that was several years ago. the differences have gone down. it is a major source of foreign exchange in mexico. there is a strong debate in economics literature about the overall impact of these remittances. the governments tend to view them favorably and like to have the money coming in.
the mexican government has set up a number of programs to try to channel it into generating productive economic activity. host: elton, a republican in bakersfield, california. caller: good morning. first of all, i want to put up an argument with your numbers with the total amount of immigrants in this country. in thinking it is about three times that number. secondly, why is the united states still allowing dual citizenship to those who come here to become citizens? it was to be that it would eventually go back to mexico and 3-emigrate. it has not happened. -- andand -- and re-immigrate. host: let me bounce this
question of you. it seems the republicans are the most angry, so why, when they had a republican everything 2006 to 2006, didn't they do anything? caller: there are progressive republicans and progressive democrats. they are in both camps. host: so george w. bush was a progressive on this issue. caller: yes, he was. host: you disagree with him? caller: yes, i did. guest: many countries and now allow people to become citizens without giving up citizenship in other countries. the united states has tolerated it for a while and there has been a change in mexico within the last 15 years and their approach to citizenship.
mexicans in the united states are the least likely of any group to become u.s. citizens. legal mexican emigrants have the lowest naturalization rates of any group of immigrants. it has gone up quite a bit in the last 15 years since the dual citizenship -- since the changes in mexico have occurred. but the numbers -- the undocumented immigrants cannot become citizens. host: we go next to body, a democratic car in tucson, arizona. we're talking about the legal migration to the united states. go-ahead. caller: please give me a little bit of time because this is a very complex subject. i appreciate c-span.
since i tend to be and try to be a very moral person, i approached just about everything from a moral standpoint. i demand about a 40 word explanation to me from your guest. i say about two big sentences. i am trying to focus on the morality of the issue, ok? is it moral to consider that there is -- i am talking about the formation of the united states of america. is it moral to have over 1000, let's call them in indian, native american, and have their ancestors who have possibly been here thousands of years and most
of the people from mexico possibly derived from that? and possibly the people that rate, you know, young indian people down there? pardon me? host: bobbie, i need you to stick to your point if you could. caller: i'm talking about morality. i would like your guest to address the point of morality of the formation of borders at either gunpoint or a military complex. host: i'm going to jump in at this point. our guest is a demographer and not here to talk about morality, he is here to talk about numbers. let's go to our republican line in orlando, florida. go ahead. caller: i think that we are looking and blaming the wrong people. we are planning the illegal
immigrants themselves. i think what we need to do is blame it on the employers. they are hiring these people. even the private contractors who are hiring these people. they know who they are hiring and they are doing it because they do not want to pay taxes. they do not want to be liable for workers' comp. if they are hired under the table. -- they are hired under the table. this is just another prejudice against others. if your house is not up to code, the code enforcement comes over. they check on you. house inspectors come to restaurants all the time to make sure food is cooked right. why can't they come to these places and that they know and checking out? that is really the issue. we should not even be talking about these illegal immigrants. if they did not have somewhere to work, they would not be able
to come here. host: we touched on that a little bit. what to the numbers show about the crack down on employers hiring? guest: well, it turns out it is a difficult political issue to go after employers. andy -- and above, there has been -- there has been an increase and in enforcement. i think this is all about how effective the laws are and how many people we hire to enforce them. there has been a tendency to focus on border enforcement rather than work side enforcement. host: on our democratic line, carol in north carolina.
caller: i just have a question. i need the definition -- i just have a question. i would like to ask your speaker their the definition of "illegal." guest: we tend to use the word "unauthorized immigrant." we're talking about people who do not have papers that are authorizing them to be in the united states by either a permanent basis or a temporary basis. we do not check people's papers in making these estimates. we make them with aggregate data. we do know how many people have been admitted as legal immigrants and are able to make estimates with those numbers. what we then look at is people who were born outside the united states who appear not to have authorization to be here.
host: what is the difference between unauthorized illegal? is there one? guest: not really. it is a question of how you define them specifically. it is worth pointing out that a significant share of the people -- we think some are between 40% and 50%, came into the united states legally. that is, they entered through ports of entry with temporary documents allowing them to come into the united states on a temporary basis. tourists, work permits, and the like. but then stayed beyond the authorization. host: so it was not necessarily illegal migration, but now they are here and there unauthorized immigrants. guest: that is right. they violated terms of entry, if you will. host: we will leave it there, jeffrey passel, the senior
demographer at the pew hispanic center. thank you very much. guest: you are welcome. thank you for having me. host: tomorrow on "washington journal" we will be live up from iowa. our coverage begins. c-span's camera acts have been there for weeks. thank you for joining us. we'll be back tomorrow morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
>> with the iowa caucuses next week and the new hampshire and south carolina primary later in the month, the c-span serious "the contenders" look looks back at canada's who ran for president and lost but had a long-lasting impact on american politics. wednesday, barry goldwater. thursday, huburt humphrey. friday, george wallace. and on saturday, george mcgovern followed by a billionaire businessman ross perot. >> over on c-span2 tonight, booktv. booktv.