Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20100826

different stories, he is suggesting there is a case to be made that there should be rational optimism about the state of human condition we will talk to you about that. here are the phone numbers on the screen. let's take a look at his theory and we will come back and talk to you. >> here are a few examples of how things are getting better. life expectancy. in my lifetime, up roughly one- third, doubled in 200 years. we are adding -- this is globally. this is not the u.s. or anything like this but the world. adding life expectancy at the rate of about five hours a day. host: nat ridley is a writer for "the economist." he is british, as you can hear from his accent. science editor, washington correspondent for "the economist" and has a regular column in "the daily telegraph." also was the chairman of a british bank that has some in society criticizing him, chairman of northern rock that needed a bailout. but let me give you the pros and cons. first of all, gail collins is looking at this -- that is why we want to bring you this point of view. she starts her column in "the new york times" this way. to talk about this is the most depressing august in the history of summer. when you think about his case about rational optimism, a lot of reviews about his book. we covered him in the video you saw and it is on our book tv web site. on "the american conservative," this is a little bit of what they read about it. -- write about it. brendan o'neill goes on to write -- it is based on a historical analysis of what is unique about human beings and why we were able to improve our living standards. this contrast between how we live today and how people lived a few decades ago should be enough to perk up even the most miserable of miserable. yes, there is no poverty, especially in africa, but overall "this generation of human beings have access to more calories, lumen hours, square feet, gigabytes, megahertz, light years, nanometers, bushels per acre, mpg, air miles, and of course, dollars, than any before." that is one of review in "the american conservative." we will show you a very different view in a bit. but let me get to some of their cause, admits the bad news there is a case for rash of optimism and if you disagree, we would like to hear about it. pittsburg, jim on the independent line. good morning. turn down your tv and go ahead, please. all right, jim, sorry. we are going to move on. st. stephen's, south carolina. georgie, republican line. caller: i don't know. i think there should be a case for irrational optimistic -- yes, i think it would be good for the american people. but i really would like to say that i am a christian and i believe in fairness and for what i am seeing right now all -- across america, there is so much hate and it has got me scared. i have never seen this before. i am 70 years old. i have not seen so much hate for a president i have seen for this president and i am a republican but right now i have decided i will go as a democratic because republican right now have so much hate going up i am afraid somebody is going to get hurt and killed. host: use started out by saying there is a case to be optimistic -- you started out. where are you finding the optimism? caller: well, i don't know. host: not quite there yet. caller: i am not quite there right now. host: gavin of the democratic line. gary, illinois. caller: thank you for taking my call i would like to just briefly make a point. how can you have rational optimism when conditions in this country are getting worse each and every day. by conditions, i mean workplace, financial, home ownership, infrastructure, education, political leadership, commercial real estate, bankruptcy levels, poverty levels are up. it is very, very difficult to have rational optimism at this time. host: gavin on the line from illinois. let us listen to a little bit more about matt ridley's theories on why he is at least irrational optimist. caller: i am of the view that things are getting better. people are actually getting nicer, as a result. that will be a tyrant -- tough one. i will give it a go. the reason is everybody is increasingly working for everybody else. that is the great story of human history. it is a habit that started pretty much exactly -- or roughly 120,000 years ago. the way it works is that exchange had the same impact on cultural revolution that sexual roberta to have a biological evolution. i will explain when we get to it. it leads to some kind of collective brain where by the knowledge of how to run society is not in anyone's brain. it is distributed among everybody's brains. as a result of which, i would argue, we ain't seen nothing yet. there are extraordinary changes to come in human society and those who say it will all go to in a handbasket quickly, i think they are going to be wrong. host: more of matt ridley making his case of why he is a rash and often as in the midst of a tough summer for a lot of people. here is a review, very different. this is from "the guardian" in the u.k. the book has been reviewed dozens of times and almost always the viewers have been unaware of demonstration of one of philosophy are applied are too polite to mention. the reason is icy because matt ridley is telling rich and powerful people what i want to hear. he tells them they needn't worry about social and environmental issues because these will sort themselves out if the market is liberated from government control. he tells them they are right to assert that the government should get off their backs and stop interfering with petty rules and regulations have been left alone to make as much money as they like, however they like. the poorly regulated greed of the kind oversaw the northern rock is and that the great moral quest that makes the world a better place. he writes, i expect the executives of bp have each ordered several copies of his book. there you have it, a pro and con review of the concept of rational optimism. we will show you a little bit more about his points and we would like to hear from you about whether or not you think there is a case for rational optimism or if things are really going south, as our last caller suggested. lancaster, pennsylvania. john on the independent line. caller: good morning, susan matt ridley sounds like he probably got a $50 million parachute when he got booted out of northern route. there is more corruption, more greed, more distrust of political leaders. the niger delta, gulf of mexico. torture, rendition, drones. but i am optimistic because you cannot make it through the week if you are not. host: so, humankind will prevail in the midst of this dead sea of news? your theory is basically humankind will prevail despite the bad news right now? caller: i think we will have to hit bottom. like an alcoholic. we have to hit bottom and we are not there yet. i think the people are slowly rolling around to the idea that we really have to do something from the bottom up. we have to get rid of washington and 98% of the people down there. we have to curb the corporations because they are destroying the earth. grand scale stuff, but that is what happens. left of their own devices, corporations will grind is up and put us out as they have been. host: thanks, john, from lancaster, pennsylvania. good time to catch up with the results of the primary election for senate in an alaska. there is a lot of tea leaf reading. on the line with us is the report be -- reporter for mcclatchy newspaper and "the anchorage daily news," which is one of their properties. as the situation stands, people who follow politics know that all of the precincts have been counted and that puts the challenger ahead of this sitting senator by a couple thousand points, but there are a lot of balance to be counted, absentee and voting. guest: right now senator lisa marc rotenberg is behind by about 1600 boats -- senator lisa murkowski is down by about 16,000 votes -- 1600 votes. there are absentee ballots. about 7600 have come back so far. the division of elections have several days to count those. right now as it stands, this is looking like an upset. host: she would have to get what percentage of the absentee to pull ahead? guest: i have not done the math personally, some other folks have. and some political consultants are people will have been watching this race closely and they say it is going to be very difficult. i am not sure the exact percentage but it would be very difficult for her to reach that, considering the number of ballots that are out and how far behind she is right now. host: there is a lot of conventional wisdom that seems to be in a newspaper story. first of all, the challenger is sarah palin's candidate. how strong is that felt a lot -- among alaskans? guest: it is interesting. that has been a story line, that sarah palin drove this guy to victory but i am not sure that is 100% the case. there are a lot of factors that were at play. one, joe miller ran a really aggressive and grass-roots campaign. he ran a good campaign. he is a good candidate. and people responded to him. but also there was a ballot measure on this particular ballot which was asking folks to vote on notification of abortion for girls under 17 -- parental litigation, and that in a primary drove out anti- abortion voters who also supported joe miller. there are other factors. people have a complicated relationship with lisa murkowski, with the way she came to office, she was appointed by her father in 2002 and one on her own in 2004 with three percentage points. so, there is a lot going on here in terms of how joe miller won and also probably least of murkowski's own campaign should probably take some scrutiny as well. go to another bit of conventional wisdom is joe miller is an unknown. he may be unknown nationally but is the unknown among alaska? guest: he is. he is known answer back -- their banks were he is from but he was definitely not a known candidates in alaska. one pollster i spoke to yesterday said it was interesting how quickly he came to be known. part of that -- and this is another factor -- the tea party express spent a lot of money on this election and it is partly due to sarah palin's attention to joe miller as a candidate. he has spent a lot of money advertising in the final weeks of this election and the final days. you could not go anywhere without seeing this guy's name or hearing an ad on the radio or something. he really close a gap where he was completely unknown a couple of months ago and now he is definitely someone known in alaska. host: when will the election of the leak because? guest: there is a week to finish the absentee ballot counting. it is what senator murkowski is likely to do -- contesting the results. there is actually a discussion of a third-party candidacy on her part, which could happen if she goes -- it would be an incredible domino effect change of things but she could perhaps run on the libertarian party. she has said it is a way to send to talk about options like that. this thing is far from over. host: thank you so much for giving us some of the background and helping us understand the results as we know them so far about the primary result in alaska. it all kind of fit into our discussion this morning. talking about matt ridley's theory and the notebook, -- and the whole book, the theory of rational optimism and we are asking given all of the news is there a case for rational optimism. it reflects the theme's going into the midterm election. teams espoused by tea party proponents and opponents. let us go back to the discussion. laurel, maryland. john, republican line. caller: three things that jump out. one, item on the capital beltway and i feel for all of those people who are out of a job. while the traffic is good and that works for me, i feel for all of those who lost their jobs. i am gainfully employed, public- service employee, and probably the only reason why i am. you had two colors, part of the problem. the first caller is definitely a democrat posing as a republican -- blind allegiance to obama. simply i believe because he is black. and the last one who called to say it was the corporation's fault and it clearly is not. that class warfare in play. i understand that piven -- trying to drive everything into the ground so they can rebuild it. right about that. they are going to try to rebuild it. meanwhile everybody gets stepped on, everybody loses their job and we are going to -- all grand design. host: david, independent line. virginia beach. caller: that last call some of it. americans have a narrow perspective. only thinking about the next two years. i am a student of logic and i understand having a worldwide view and that look at how -- the should be optimism. look -- as much as you hate the wars, these wars connected the united states more with iraq and afghanistan more than any other time. i am in the military, the war in iraq, i understand the significance. we look of the deftness and -- definition of truth. the media will add rhetoric to it and we all look at it through an american eyeglass. the average american cannot understand these perspectives and see the optimism that there could be. but we are more connected now than we have ever been in the past eight years. we have to look -- stop looking at things from the lands of republican and democrat. -- from a lens from republican and democrat. host: cake from ohio. the democrats' line. caller: i want to be an optimist. i think we potentially could as a nation but i think we have to face the stark harsh realities we did in iraq and what we are doing -- our foreign-policy is extremely shaky and the rest of the world knows it. if you ask most americans how many people in iraq have died as a direct consequence of our invasion they would not have an answer or how many people injured and displaced. they did not do anything to us. so i think we have really harsh reality to face like an earlier caller said, like we are a nation of algol politics and how we deal with what we are -- alcoholics. you can watch rachel maddow and keith olbermann every night and a weak and not hear anything about the deaths in iraq war our foreign policy with israel and the palestinians. we have had decades of black out of the news about the harsh realities for the palestinians. as a nation, no, i do not think we should be optimist's except that the american public in many ways to not want to know the harsh reality and the mainstream media certainly does not give people the harsh realities of our actions and our foreign policies. host: thanks, got your theory, from ohio. a tweet -- rational optimism is the question this morning. it is a very proposed by an author named matt ridley. we will hear more from him, but now gulf shores, alabama. caller: i had to start laughing when i heard this. sounds like typical scientific poppycock mindset combined with absolute euro-centric thinking. i cannot know if your listeners have traveled. you mentioned africa. a quick aside. the suffering we see. traveling much outside the slums of rio, born as ours, squatter communities of manila in the philippines, certainly africa, as you mentioned. it is so euro-centered to say that things are improving for people for a tiny fraction of the wealthy that the united states represents a large portion of. perhaps things from a material standpoint are improving but from a spiritual standpoint, things are tragically wars around the world. now, i can go material with the author. suicide,ploding, exploding, particularly in the west, the collapse of families, genocide, rates of abortion by any measure a failure if anyone has to have abortion, whether you are for it or against it, it is a failure. single-parent homes, rates of incarceration, levels of debt to foreign nations and people. obesity rates. no, absolutely category disagree with that silly poppycock. it's good jim from alabama. -- it is jim from alabama. a tweet. that caller referenced africa. here is a little clip from matt ridley talking about africa. guest: africa is a subject on which many people are pessimistic. people are saying always to me that asia is coming out of poverty but it will not happen to africa, is it? i think it is. it is happening already. the poverty rate has begun from of -- plummeting in recent years. i think you're seeing and under printer revolution and all sorts of things happening that are very hopeful. host: returned to phone calls as we talk about the case for rational optimism made by matt ridley in a new book. fayetteville, north carolina. willie, democrats line. caller: the case for rational optimism. you know, we are americans. we are a strong nation and i believe that once the flames are no longer fan -- once we stop fanning the flames with a 24- hour media i honestly believe we will move forward because we are americans, we are strong, and we are very logical and rational in our thinking and i think if we get on the spiritual track and loving one another and caring for one of the -- one another are nation will be better. host: david is up next. republican line. cambridge, new york. caller: i could not agree with the last two callers more. i say that in the schools, ever since we have taken the bible out of the schools, we have taken prayer out of the schools, we have taken "in god we -- "in god we trust" and the pledge of allegiance out, we felt these kids' heads about the theories that we all came from monkeys millions of years ago even though there are mountains and mountains of evidence to disprove that the increase insights ministries has a website anyone can go to to seek out a strategy fossils' that cut through millions of rock -- that say they are millions of years old that are completely impossible. and now the moral fabric of this country falling apart and god is no longer here to bless us as we murder -- if you want to have a graph in front of you of all the babies who have been aborted, there are more children that were aboard then there are people who died in every war the world has ever seen -- more children that have been aborted that died in every ward of we have ever seen. god is judging this country every day. 100 years ago, everybody went around with the bible. even the mailman carried a bible when they had such little room to bring even the mail that they had, they needed all the room they could get. everyone took a bible with them. host: thank you for your call. michigan, this is martha. democrats like it caller: if you look at the jack. democratic color. caller: if you look at the trajectory, we made a complete turn. ameritech is called up -- all the advances we had been making starting in the 1930's, the real advances that created the middle class, we are under assault, they have taken away our savings, taken away our home equity and we are becoming homeless and the people in the nation, only about 5% of our population in america really are economically secure. the rest of us are totally under assault. we have lost our 401k's, anything that we had considered security for the future of and which had created a secure economy. we have been led down this false path that free markets with corporations controlling the world and americana, what the -- what the economic theory visited on the third world is now being visited upon us. host: thank you. in making her case. a tweet -- rational optimism is the theory we are talking about this thursday morning. west virginia, carl is on the republican line. caller: i would be more optimistic when we elect some good conservative family valued people into congress. get rid of these socialists down there. there is no room for optimism until we can do that. we have to get rid of some of these people down there which read themselves like royalty. they think they are entitled to all of these perks at the taxpayers' expense. host: ok, thanks for your call this morning. we told you at the outset gail collin's column about this possibly being of the most depressing august. the general nasty tone trend, republicans this before an applause line -- its cutback in gail collins and "the new york times" today." ration optimism? caller: i did not think there is a case for that. i think an older book would present that case, called "the shock doctrine" by naomi klein. i would like to get her take on things that are going on right now. it host: next up is denton, texas. kirk, a republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. sure, i believe it is time for optimism and i think that goes whether you are anarchist or evangelical, frankly. things have gotten so bad that i think collectively we all know we've got to do something different. host: ok, thanks. next is a call from kathy watching us from texas on the democrat line. caller: good morning, susan. i think it is about time the united states people declare trees and on wall street, on congress. let's see. and i would like to let everybody know that prescott bush, jr., was chairman of the u.s. chinese chamber of commerce. so the bush company basically owns the company, booz allen, jonathan bush, he funneled to the 9/11 terrorists -- the line host: the front page of "the washington post" about ben bernanke's speech tomorrow. fed policy foggy as the economic picture clouds. many voices compete. market looks for speech -- that is "the washington post" this morning. minneapolis, abraham. what would talking about do caller: what are we talking about today? host: the next call is from maryland. kathleen, independent line. caller: i am not a rational optimist. my question would be how far would america be if the democrats and republicans were together with the president. until we learn that we are all americans, regardless of what party and the elections, we will not survive if we do not work together. and that is why i am not an optimist. host: joe tweets -- i guess he is making the case for some optimism. elizabeth, new jersey. this is a call on our democrats line. is it khalid? you are on the air. caller: no rational optimism if you are palestinian or iraqi or anyone in the third world or anyone who received a drone. there is no rational optimism. only for the people, the small percentage enjoying the benefits of what ever they are benefiting from. host: thank you for your call. westwood, new jersey. this is a call from her role on the republican line. caller: good morning. in 1973, we accepted the culture of death as being a policy of the united states. we do to babies what you would never, ever do to a captain or a puppy for the convenience of the abortionist and only for that reason, we permit the babies to have their limbs are removed so that the dead or almost dead baby can be removed for the convenience of the abortionist. we really should reject the culture of death and accept the culture of life. host: thank you for your call. next up is a tweet -- we are talking with you this morning about this theory of matt ridley's about the case for rational optimism. another business story. reporting from the present about vacation in massachusetts. president about it -- obama held a lengthy conference call with economic advisers to discuss the course of action in a partisan election season. phoenix is next. mark, republican line. caller: i would like to add to say this. all of the callers kind of have gotten off key. are we optimistic or pessimistic? i would say for the most part very optimistic that things are going to continue to go downhill until we the american people choose to change things. host: all right. thanks. >> eased detroit. this is john, independent line. caller: i think there is no case for this rational optimism because do we keep denying the truth of what is happening? no way we can fix the problems. we cannot adjust ourselves if we deny what is happening and that is exactly what i hear. it is like a useless effort to go to the polls and tried to boat and tried to make attempts to fix the problems when it is a choice between that corrupt man or that corrupt man. there is no hope for america to fix the problems if we keep pretending there is no problem. that is what i hear the media spelling out. host: matt ridley has a web site if you would like to hear more about his theory. it is on the screen right now. i think i have to do research for it, i did not write down the dress -- address. the box on the lower the 10 signs suggest he is giving a portion of his royalties to a couple of different charities and a big one of them is related to africa. it is rationaloptomist.com. the regular participant says there is no reason for optimism. our country is in decline and we are refusing to acknowledge this. next is a call from new york. kevin, democrats line. caller: i would like you to try to steer the focus to what i thought was this man's original point, is this optimism is supported by the quest for prosperity which i think is just about the most destructive go al we can try to obtain. the more toys you die with, the better. thank you. host: middletown, new york. david, democrats line. caller: good morning, susan. i have this optimism over writing -- but with the callers are mentioning about, the greed, the attitude, somehow i think the good of mankind will just happen to over will eventually. my hope is it does not happen before it is too late. people getting together and helping one another, especially with aids like the internet, all i could do is try to be hopeful because i think it is a lot easier to be pessimistic about things. host: kilroy on twitter -- the next phone call is from connecticut. this is cynthia calling on our independent line. good morning. caller: how are you? host: very well, thanks. caller: i am very, very optimistic because it does not seem our economy will return around very quickly. people are telling themselves because they cannot take care of their families. the government sending more money to foreign countries. people are losing their unemployment. it is just disgusting. host: you find no basis for optimism. caller: how can you be optimistic about the past when you have nothing to look forward to? host: looking at the week-long investigation into the causes of the deepwater a rise and incident. we have been covering this extensively. robbie brown in "the new york times" -- there you see the captain is saying it was unclear who was responsible for the rig. this hearing continues today and we carry it live on c-span2 and our website, beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. related to that, another story from "the wall street journal" last day. s the key players and what their roles were in the days leading up to the catastrophe. louisville, ky. republican. good morning to you. the interesting conversation, what is your input? caller: i believe in optimism and i believe this is the greatest country in the world and i believe that everybody is doing the best that they think is right for this situation that we are in. unfortunately we all don't agree with what is right. it is good that in this country we can fight with words without fighting with arms, and that is being done in another country for our rights and for other people's rights. i have a faith in god and with that i believe there is optimism. he is in control. he is in control. and i believe our president has a faith in god, he says he does. and he looks towards him for help. there is so much going on in this world. there is so much he has to deal with. he is doing a wonderful job. he is a good president. and our congress and senate, they are good people, too. it is just that there is so much going on and so much they want to do and they can't come together. and if we can pray that they come together and pray for our officials instead of beating them down, then everything would be fine. host: lebow, kentucky expresses her opinion on our question of whether there was a case for rational optimism. lauren tweets -- >> is a call from here locally, allen -- next is a call from here locally, ellis from alexandria. caller: i choose to being. i lost both of my parents to lung cancer from smoking. i grew up in the 1980's, a lot of my friends died of aids. i want to say two things, if you have aids or if there is abortion we should not blame either one, the woman or the person with the bed disease -- bad disease. share with someone else. we are going through hard times. i do believe with technology we will make it through this got awful period we are going through. i want to say god bless you to everybody. thank you. host: from alexandria, virginia, the washington suburbs. the last call on this topic is from the independent line, atlanta, georgia. caller: i think there is a reason for intermediate pessimism but i think in the long term there is a reason to be rationally optimistic. but i think people need to understand that while we are going through a rough patch right now, with the advent -- or when capitalism came into being a couple of hundred years ago in 1776 along with the birth of this country, that brought forward the greatest era of prosperity over the last 230 years that the world has seen. and what you can make an argument that people in the third world are a lot worse off than we are in america, you can also make a valid argument that they are a lot better off than they were 150 years ago. i think in the short term we have reason to be concerned, and may be reason for pessimism. but i think if people come to realize -- once people realize that they are in control of their lives and have to depend on themselves and not government and not god and we can go back to our roots and embrace capitalism the way it is supposed to work then i think there would be a bright future for us all. host: he finishes up with short- term pessimism but long-term optimism. if you are interested in understanding more on the theory, booktv.org, you can watch the entirety of his speech. thank you simmons participating. we will take a short break and then we will talk about the economy, the stories of the summer. we have a senior writer for bloomberg business week in our studio for new york city and he will be our first guest this morning. we will be right back. >> we are all ponds on the chessboard and playing our part in a drama that is neither fiction nor unimportant. >> i come before this body to personally express again my sincere regrets about the encounter with the capitol hill police. >> i can't walk away and have you guys doing a campaign by and annoying. >> current and former members giving apologies and explanations directly to their colleagues on the house. watch it on line and read about them on c-span video library, all searchable and free. it is washington your way. this weekend of c-span2's "book tv," and look at the aftermath of hurricane it katrina and argues that businesses and faith based organizations are better equipped to handle the disaster that the pro-government. if free lance journalist offers a critical view of talk show host glenn back. on "after words" going inside the high risk fast money world of hedge funds. for a complete listing of programs and times, visit booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: let us introduce you to roben farzad, senior writer for "bloomberg business week." i will start by engaging in any discussion we had with our audience this morning. about, given all of the stories we have this summer but the economy and the situation there, with don going on with much of the world, we discussed the theory called rational optimism, whether or not there is a case for having a long view to be optimistic about where society is going in the long run. what do you think of that. given all you are seeing in the markets and the economy today? are you optimistic? guest: i was listening in and what immediately came to mind is some of the best investors of the world, including warren buffett, saying that they are greedy when other people are fearful and fearful when other people are greedy. it does pay historically to be contrarian. in times of peak fear and irrational pessimism, as it were, just as we have a rational exuberance 12 years ago, it pays to be contrarian when investing and protecting your money is concerned. host: this week we have seen a number of indicators and the market has acted volatile -- it has gone up after going down with the housing statistics. so many numbers thrown at us. what are the best indicators to really get a handle on the state of the american economy right now? guest: right now it is bifurcated between joblessness -- which initial jobless claims shot up warningly, i think the number was close to 500,000, which was far above estimates. two, obviously the housing market. that overhang of the epic bubble we are coming off of. housing is shoveling it really is not hitting a bottom any time soon. new-home sales are in the gutter. bankruptcy's, a bank owned properties, foreclosures, really we have not seen the bottom of it yet. so much of that was systemically connected. this is the opposite of what we were feeling six or seven years ago when your house was such a store of wealth and was going so well. now it is the exact in verse. host: this week will close with an annual speech by the fed chairman on economic policy. the daily newspapers -- "financial times" and others, all suggesting this is a pivotal moment for the fed chairman. then you give us some of the observations about the fed's handling of the economy so far and what kind of tools it needs -- may still have left in the chest? guest: blunt instrument the fed -- controls is short-term interest rates and brought it close to zero. it has shown a willingness to create powers, i think, after that. this series of financial reforms we got entailed much strength and federal reserve. largely he has carved the launch to do what he has to do but the question is after his main instrument, monetary easing, is exhausted, what else is out there? they can by toxic mortgage securities, threw everything but the kitchen sink at the problem and increasingly you hear people whisper about the paradigm of japan and its lost two decades, actually. japan had a bubble economy in the 1980's and -- when it all crashed and burned, the central bank of japan was very quick to to go in and try to stanch the problem but low rates became a belated way of addressing that and the rates have been at emergency low levels for japan for as long as you can remember, and that does not help. now people are wondering, my colleagues are wondering if the fed is pushing on a string. that is what terrifies the market because how many air rose you have in your quiver, how many different things, how much can you expand the powers and bailiwick of the federal reserve? that remains to be seen. host: our guest watches in the economy and economic indicators and policy moves from washington and the market's reaction. we would like to invite you to join our conversation. all numbers are on the screen beneath me. we will also give the twitter an e-mail address. one aspect that i would like you to explain the effect on society, for many years we heard the big problems with americans is we live on credit, not saving enough. contrasting with the japanese who are a nation of savers. now in the past year and have it seems statistically americans are in fact saving more. we are being told that that has a negative impact on the economy. help understand the american savings rate and how it plays into where we are? guest: the savings rate shot up from something like zero in the bubble years up to the mid single-digits now. a necessity. so many over extended and were up to their chins and mortgage debt and credit card debt. they lost a lot in the stock market. pulled money from the market and put it into savings. they used it to pay off medical expenses. the problem with it, it is very wise to do on an individual person by person level but when an entire country does it and you have everybody saving, it causes kind of a self- fulfilling prophecy. you have to have people spending or else shopkeepers have no incentive to keep people hired. you could imagine kind of the perverse multiplier effect of people ratcheting in spending, ratcheting down spending, and you get more joblessness and that causes even less spending and the vicious cycle that the fed and treasury and everybody right now is trying to undo. so, that's the problem. by the way, to talk about the contrarian in polls, it would have made a lot of sense to say back when everybody was spending because if you husband that cash, you are now sitting in the catbird seat. you could name your price for houses, can buy assets really you would not get the time of day for five or six years ago. it is completely a buyer's market right now. just walked to the studio down stare -- downstairs. nk next to a man's wearhouse, begging people to buy sued to -- by one and we will give you two or three. and a lot of people are too scared to buy. they are in the process of rebuilding their personal balance sheets. it behooves you to espouse the contrarian in polls. when everybody else is spending you might want to be saving. host: our guest is a graduate from princeton university, mba from harvard business school, started out on wall street then writing about. reporting fellow at "the new york times" and was a "business week" market senior writer in 2007 and you can find him regularly on twitter. let us get from calls beginning with this call from jacksonville, florida. angie, democrats line. go ahead. caller: i am and economist and i am more interested -- hello? host: we are interesting -- listening. caller: earlier in this crisis i wrote a letter to the president, wrote a letter to congress and a lot of democrats and i was asking them to concentrate on the propensity of the economy to consume because that it is what is going to help the multiplier. there is no way you can keep giving money -- making efforts toward recovery by supporting groups that are more sabres then the groups that are more consumers. at this point, given the state and anticipation and the economy, the best way to stop the problem that is going on is only to support consumption. because you do give money to groups that save more, they will keep saving the money. thank you. host: thank you. guest: here is the bottle -- who is giving money to people who are saving? it is historical awful time in terms of what you get on a 10- year treasury, 30-year, two-year note. the government in no way is consenting saving. that is what bringing interest rates to zero and all of fiscal stimulus is to do, to get you to spend. there are people out there, critics that would espouse the opposite position. in that we have been too fixated on consumption for too long and that really this is that our huge this interest in the long term. everybody is going to max out on credit-card debt and the over- leveraged and the government cannot keep printing money for it. almost mortgaging the fiscal stability of your children's lives and order to prop up spending today. is it sustainable? yes, and the short term, if everybody is ratcheting down the spending. it could lead to deflationary down the road. but i would really take issue with the idea that the government is in sending saving right now. you could make an argument that those who have been on their best behavior during the credit to bubble and the subprime both are really getting very little vacation right now. host: annapolis. rosie, independent line. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. my comment has to do with -- i used to be a democrat for 20 years and then this crisis struck and it is just such an eye opening of experience to really understand and see what it's going on and how things to work in this country. one of the issues i have is obviously the comment that you made about, that america is a consumer society. how can you create an economy based on consumerism? that is the first point. the other thing is, my issue has to do with the federal reserve. because i never paid attention to that, how banking truly works. but i find it rather disturbing because when you look at the history of the federal reserve and how they managed the money in this country, what you can see over almost the last 100 years is the cycle of cost and boom and bust are getting bigger, more destructive, the american consumer and society is ultimately paying a price by less wages, flat wages. there is less prosperity. i truly believe that this country is still at the beginning stages of a depression. and the only people, the only people that have benefited from this so far are the private bankers that pull the string behind the closed doors because there is absolutely nothing federal about the federal reserve and there are no reserves, either, you know? host: let me jump in and get a response from our guests. thank you for your call. guest: a very valid criticism. there is almost a neo-classical argument that there. a lot of this goes back to the time of alexander hamilton when there was opposition to a strong central bank. with the creation of a federal reserve and what we saw an early 20th-century, these were some of the ideological undercurrents. yes, indeed, you see that. the crises get in -- ever bigger. you keep hearing that this is the worst economic backdrop since the great depression. the federal reserve had to get its hands of rounds really rampant inflation in the late 1970's and early 1980's and the savings and loan crisis in the end of the 1980's, long term capital management's decline and the russian currency crisis in the late 1990's and it all seems like small peanuts compared to what is happening. this is the cost of the brand of capitalism you could argue, there are a lot of people who believe the federal reserve should be weakened and banks should be allowed to fail. we are paying for the - -- regulatory neglect of the past decades. they enjoy a preferred tier of citizenship to individual businesses, home owners, who are allowed to fail. whether or not you have people out there electing the likes of ron paul to take down the system, i think that is doubtful. there is largely in in the right now that we need to prop up spending of some sport. -- unanimity right now that we need to prop up spending of some sort. and as i said before, j.p. morgan chase, there stearns, everything washington mutual bought over the years. bank of america. merrill lynch, first republic. it is all wrapped up into that. these are far bigger things that the government has to control. this is a particular brand of creative construction that u.s. capitalism goes on. you've effectively have to have national champions, the government. this is not picking winners felt right, and designating firms that it will not allow to get too big to fail. in the past, this was not, fine, just left out there until we had a crisis big enough to contest that. host: if institutions are bigger still, what does this mean for the loss that would prevent the types of meltdown that we saw two years ago? >> all it does -- guest: all it does is to codify the federal reserve to intervene in provide for the orderly demolition of one of these hydrous. it is a potentially saying we think it is important right now that we are going to put it in this legislation. how that is done in the real time process, i think, a beggar belief. i do not know how they do it. host: next phone call. scott on the independent line. caller: when i was in grammar school, and unearned and interesting point. to really affect change, you have to do something radically different. when we were in a boom and everyone was working, we made a radical change and turn them into the wild west, both now and the 1920's. we are not in the persian now but we are headed that way. -- depression right now but we are headed that way. people need to get honest, quit stealing millions of dollars. if not, we will not get out of this situation. host: your response? guest: this is what historians call the ones in a generation opportunity for everything to be cleared out there. things that we never imagined the federal government would be of their underwriting. to a much broader extent, the system was allowed to fail back then, and was rebuilt from ashes, and that memory is pungent in a lot of people's minds. many people cannot fathom the sense of conservation, frugality, and these other fine virtues that were to be discovered in the great depression. the system has become much bigger now. the treasury and federal the serbs have become much bigger. we have the entitlement programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, bigger government bureaucracies, much more in the way of obligations and an interconnected legislative system. it is so much harder to say let the system burned down and we will rebuild it from scratch in how many years, let the depression take place. there are some that aren't you that instead of -- argue that instead of throwing trillions of dollars at the problem, we should have taken our lumps of from to. host: speak to that, if you will. what suggestions will begin to turn the situation around? people need jobs in order to consume, pay mortgages, etcetera. what is the view of those you talk to about what will start the momentum? jobs, but they do not appear out of nowhere. internet90's, the spanned this huge productivity. we do not know what this will be yet. these tens -- these things tend to happen in silicon valley, labs of innovation. people are suggesting that it can be clean technology. suggesting that it can be clean technology. commercial property defaults, increased joblessness and people getting the wages cut and employers, back saying if you want a job you are going to have to take a haircut. you can imagine how then that leads to a further decline in spending. that is far harder for the federal reserve to forestall. inflation is it a known villain. paul volcker fought it and defeated it successfully in the early 1980's and alan greenspan was vigilant about it. but deflationary, that is actually quite terrifying. it is the idea that the fed will just keep pushing on a string and things will keep falling in price. it visited japan several times over the past 20 years and it is really where we sum for an economy our size -- especially after this epic intervention by the fed reserve. host: a tweet -- we are talking about the economy. next is a call from sacramento. this is bill, independent line. good morning, you are on the air. caller: sorry, my minutes went out and my battery went down. i am right on top of what is going on. i and a statistician. not an economist. i deal with analysts' and i -- vetting of projects. what i am following in the media, when you bridge the gap between the old ways and what they need to be, what the new ways are, that is where jobs are not being found. i am content -- contacting a gentleman again who is in a very good position to change waste. if you take waste management and turn it around and put it in use instead of storing it, if you take alternative energy and transit and housing and construction and you make it with the new technology, you have to bridge the gap. the people in our universities are to consolidated. they need to be able to open their minds and realize people who have been out of it -- in the field and researching, the people who are two generations ago, coming out of the woodwork and will not retire and will be there like children and grow up like teenagers again because they refuse to dry up and blow away. these people are going to bring out the knowledge and bring it to the fore. they have purified what they are doing in their lives and on a bit -- in a position. the government has to recognize that the people who are in the growth industries that are assimilating what the large corporations are refusing to chains -- and i've got a gentleman on the line and it is amazing what i am able to accomplish because of being the statistician and haven't opportunities because of our way of government and supporting me and my family supporting me, i'd like a millionaire. alligator shoes, a wardrobe, tried on five italian suits the other day. helping the people who are helping people. the people claiming the ongoing out of business -- would close. when it does happen i have my people lined up. i have been researching the last 35 years. i eat better than anybody i know. i do most anything better than anybody i know -- host: have to interrupt as i did not know what we are going to do with your story. guest: i need a translator. host: anything to say to him? guest: there is an important point. he talked we can throw billions at clean technology instead of bailing out the general motors or chrysler, it would not fit well politically in parts of the midwest. he would see all of these auto parts suppliers going bankrupt. there would be a daisy chain it is this bold american industry versus new american industry. silicon valley is begging for money. clean technology is begging for the government to get out there and throw money at alternative energy. bill gates just from an essay on this. there are political vagaries in the near term. the need to prop up the economy and not just dump thousands of auto workers back into the system. it shows you, in theory, it is wanting to write these things down, and they make for great talking points, eminently reasonable to allow the old economies to blow away and spend on the new, but in practice, it is vexing lead difficult for a government to do these types of things in a recession. host: as we await the jobless numbers, these numbers will be closely watched. last week's an anticipated report took the markets by surprise. what would be the market's reaction, depending on which windows? guest: the market is your -- it is still a huge number relative to jobless claims. the fact that they are down there trying to slice and dice numbers, hopefully you see a moderation in the growth of unemployment, growth in jobless claims might be good news. it shows you how low we have been laid. in the past, you were just looking for these numbers to beat them in a mess, with unemployment naturally supposedly around 5%. host: elizabethtown, pennsylvania. harry, republican line. caller: we have been practicing only one side of free trade. until we change it and go back to the tariff system, we probably will never have a recovery. the japanese living standards past nine of the united states in the 1990's. there is a real decline here. until we change our trade policy and build a manufacturing base, we may never had a real recovery. guest: this is a tough thing to comment on. there is a walmart effect in this country. they are doing well politically because people can go in and buy clothes that were manufactured for pennies abroad. people can afford a digital camera for $150. these are the fruits of the trade. unfortunately, we have the eviscerated manufacturing in this country. you cannot sustain the industry that are used to paying people $25, 30 fund dollars an hour, when the chinese equivalent can be manufactured at a fraction of that. there are beneficiaries of free trade. by the millions. anyone that has experienced discounts at a target, walmart, costco, things that you can do, efforts and we can get in the country, but there is a phrase -- there is a price to pay. the question is, do we want to be helping these people be replaced in industries where the united states is competitive? maybe in medical devices, semiconductors, a corridor of clean technology can be billed out. that is where there is some debate between free trade and protectionism. host: in the "new york times" business section. steven greenhouse's story. do you have any comments on this case? guest: in a much better economy, it would be much more of the day pr black guy for walmart -- more of a black eye for walmart. people are trading down, people are realizing they really need a company like this to help them spend their overtaxed dollar. whereas walmart, in the boom years of 2006 -- you would always see magazine covers portraying it as a psychological guilt trip, providing stingy benefits, tearing apart cities, mom-and- pop businesses -- a lot of that criticism has been muted over the past two years. host: michael on the independent line. caller: a quick comment and question. i think the only thing that is saving this country is the fact that we have 16 aircraft carriers and stealth bombers. if china own to us, until they get 16 aircraft carriers, we are still the biggest stick on the block. host: that is a good promotion for our look and defense and defense spending. today, we will be looking at military members, what their economic situation is, what their compensation is like. at the close with you here, we started by asking you if you were optimistic. what may happen this fall that may impact the way the economy is coming? guest: this time of year is just so were some four markets. people come back from summer vacation. they have to come back and open up their statements again and look at the real numbers. kind of day confluence about a locker -- lackluster stock market, the atrocious housing numbers. certainly, right now, the stock market is now on the cat's meow. there is a record disparity between the earnings disparity offered compared to the tiniest of treasury yields, but nobody seems to care because the stock market has gone nowhere. you have to look at this as a two front of thing. it is one thing to be academic, a very staff-oriented world. it is another thing to look at the peculiar psychology of the stock market. in the past, it has shown that it has a mind of its own. i would caution people from correlating the two exceedingly. host: you can watch and read him regularly at business week. also, twitter and other places where you offer your commentary. we are going to take a break. in the interim, we are going to look and jobless claims numbers. our next segment is switching gears, talking about the privacy of medical records. the final segment this morning is our continuing series on defense spending, looking at military personnel today. now for an update on the latest news. >> here are some of the headlines. the first hearing on a new trial for former illinois gov. rod blagojevich is on the docket in chicago today. among the questions, when the retrial will take place and who will defend the former governor against corruption charges? this is a first-year rescinds the jury deadlocked on 23 out of 24 charges in the original trial. in iraq, six members of a government-allied sunni militia are dead following an ambush northwest of baghdad. iraq is still reeling on -- from an attack that left 56 dead. the iraqi foreign minister says insurgents are trying to cause as much chaos as possible as u.s. troops withdraw and iraqi troops struggle to form a government. the ron's state tv said they had submitted a proposal to russia to jointly produce nuclear fuel for iran's nuclear power plant. with russian help, they began loading uranium fuel saturday into its first nuclear power plant, built by russia. finally, five nobel peace laureate, including mikhail gorbachev, are calling on president obama to visit hiroshima later this year. they will be hosting the 11th world summit of nobel peace laureate winners. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> we are all pawns in the chessboard, we are playing our part in fiction. >> i come before the body to personally expressed again my sincere regrets about the encounter with capitol hill police. >> i cannot walk away and have you do your campaign because i am on million. >> policy members delivering -- house members delivered apologies to their colleagues. all searchable and free. washington, your way. >> join our conversation on the american revolution, making of the constitution, and importance of historical study next sunday with gordon would. -- gordon wood. host: let me introduce you to our next guest this morning, marc rotenberg, he is the head of the electronic privacy information center. most people are not familiar with the fact that there has been a big debate pulling out about records and privacy, rules pertaining to them. guest: the debate has to do with preached notification. in other words, medical information, sensitive information stored in electronic data bases. there is a risk intermission can be disclosed, stolen, or improperly accessed. the question is the obligation of hospitals, doctors, insurers, when that happens. the law passed by congress suggest that if you run into this problem, you need to tell the people affected that there has been a breach. hhs put out a preliminary goal that did not go that far. they said maybe you only tell people if there is a significant risk of financial or reputation of harm. that was the position favored by the hospitals. the white house decided to pull back that rule, and i think that was because of consumer privacy groups. this is just not fair to people if there manacle information has been properly disclosed. -- if there medical information has been properly disclosed. host: there are a number of ways that people's information can be compromised. can you give us some examples? guest: it is pretty amazing. disk drives that were stolen, misplaced laptops. records that were thrown in a dumpster in mississippi and someone got access to them i think what we are seeing is the privacy risks that have always existed with medical records, because it is sensitive information, have been magnified, because so much information can be stored in so many different places. you can put 100,000 records into a small thumb drive. host: the concern over the direction that hhs was going, was the concern over the significance? guest: yes, just prior to the decision to pull back this rule, congress members wrote to secretary sebelius. they said the rule you are proposing on notification does not reflect the intent that congress had when it passed this act. they wanted patients to be notified when there personal information was compromised. i think that contributed to the decision by the agency to withdraw the rule. host: we are talking about privacy of medical records and the laws that govern them, whether or not you are being compromised. the numbers are on the screen. you can also join us on twitter and by e-mail. what is your role in this space? guest: we have been involved in civil liberties issues from the start. we look at a wide range of questions from privacy to civil liberties, privacy protection. we have been involved in this issue for several years. what we have said in testimony, in contrast, comments to various federal agencies, we think people have the right to know if their personal information has been properly disclosed. it is not fair to rely on the companies that make the mistake to decide whether or not they are going to let people know that in the state has occurred. it is the classic fox guarding the hen house. host: what does a day just have to do next from a procedural standpoint? guest: they have regulations in place now that requires hospitals to provide notice when 500 were more people are affected by an improper disclosure. they need to now issue a final rule. we presume it will be stronger than the interim rule they withdrew, and that will be up in the next couple of months. it should place clear obligation on hospitals, insurers, to communicate when a break occurs. there are lots of people focused on this issue in washington. business groups have always had an effective lobby, but for consumer organizations, privacy advocates, it has become clear this is a privacy issue. they need to be more active as well in this debate. host: as soon as jobless claims numbers came out, we said that we would bring them to you. new requests for an unlimited benefits fell sharply last week after rising the past three weeks. claims are higher than they would be in a healthier economy. new claims for jobless aid dropped by 31,000 to a seasonally adjusted 473,000. we will see how the market reacts to that news today. back to medical privacy, medical records, how they are affected by changes in technology and by the rules governing them in washington. greenbrier, arkansas. caller: thank you very much. i am a vietnam veteran that is going through the va. the problem i have always had, maybe you can explain it, what is the big deal of someone's medical record becoming public? could you go down a small list of problems that people can get into with their medical records becoming public, at least available for people -- if they are that nosy to see your medical records, what can they gain from that? guest: it is a good question and there are several answers, of course. medical information can be used by employers in hiring, promotions, in improper ways. people can be stigmatized by their community if medical information is disclosed. i think people have a general sense with personal medical information, it is just no one else's business. people should not have to fill the need to justify medical privacy. part of it is when a person goes to a doctor seeking good medical advice, they want to be open and forthcoming, and doctors encourage that. if they have to think, what if someone sees the diagnosis, these notes that the doctor is taking, maybe i should not say these things? host: clarksville, tennessee. walmart, democrat line -- lamar, democrat line. caller: i was wondering, as far as the private sector goes, why are people given more medical funding than others? i think the private sector is ruining it. people should be able to go to wal-mart, walgreen's and get their prescription without having to go through the hassle of the private sector, insurance. i was wondering why medical bills -- records should be private. guest: i am just trying to answer the question, why the information should be private? i think similar to the first question, it raises a lot of the same concerns. you have basically the same problems associated with risk to the individual. it is one of the reasons there has been so much attention in this field, building better security safeguards. of course, you need to create systems that can process a lot of information, move it around quickly parts of the medical network. much of the information technology on privacy and security right now takes place in the context of the medical records and claims processing. host: let me tick -- pick up on a theme about going to walmart and picking up a description. there are big bucks for pharmacies, small clinics, drug stores, some ordering online. water clean, that the team to increase the challenge -- guest: absolutely. people have this 19th century view that there is a doctor's office, all your records are sitting there in the league and there are only accessed by the doctor or nurse. in fact, our health care system is far more complex. you have providers, insurers, adjusters, fraud detection, all these things taking place simultaneously. but even in our complex system, people agree there are people who should have access to those records and people who should not. so what medical privacy records to deplete do are, unless you have good reason to have access to them, you will not. caller: assuming i am had diagnosed with carcinoma, a common form of cancer, i pay for the treatment, is there a process that an insurance company could find out that my was treated for that if i pay for the insurance with private funds? host: that is an interesting question. the other direction, keeping records private. guest: i have heard from some dealing with people paying in cash because they do not want to create a record. i cannot give you a definitive answer on your question because you are basically asking whether or not these techniques are foolproof. the problem is, increasingly, it is not just about -- the doctor that makes that determination about tests that could be ordered, procedures that could create records, likely be associated with and then a final patient. it is an interesting strategy. host: the president has been a vocal component of a electronic records, funding to create the system. what does bill law say? guest: in a february 2009, the president signed the high- technology act, which appropriated $19 billion to move the united states to a more advanced medical records system, adopting electronic health records for most claims processing. there has been a push to modernize medical information systems, but at the same time, we are starting to see privacy and security risks. both are moving forward at the same time. host: big databases increases the exposure. guest: the hope is that with better technology, we can provide better cost, better care. some of that is true but the privacy and security risks are also there. as hospitals incorporate these systems, they are facing a new challenge to protect those records. host: so there is a bit of chaos. and there. guest: maybe. i do not know if that is the way you plan for those things. host: next phone call. stan from michigan. caller: as far as the privacy act goes, a lot of hospitals will tell you, if they wish to use our medical information for any reason, you have no say. i have a deteriorating disk problem in my back. when my hospital got my mri, my information was not even there. how does privacy cover bad one? guest: obviously, there has been some effort to integrate the systems, particularly if people are mobile, go to different providers. it is a complex system and it may be the case that not everything is there when it needs to be. as for patients contend, that is another big topic. there is a growing sense, as you expressed, how does one get access to my information and do they have the permission to do that? secretary sebelius said earlier this summer that there should be in greater focus on patient consent, give people more control who have -- has access. host: this is not directly related to the conversation but i wanted to talk about this health-care story. "the wall street journal" -- does this mix in with our debate over records and privacy? guest: i have not looked at it closely, but on ensure there is an impact state will play in helping to administer the provision of health care. the central question is what personal data is being collected and who will have access to it? as the system becomes more widespread, people will continue to try to answer that question. host: we are talking about the april of the hhs as a regulator over these rules, but is there any movement to identify these privacy rules? guest: the idea goes back to a california state law that said abruptly, not just for medical care providers, but any company that suffers a breach, would be required to notify the customer that a breach occurred. people wondered what the benefit was, but it turned out, one day the company had disclosed records and identify a criminal ring -- it became obvious that it was a good idea to tell people when their information was at risk. one of the issues in washington is if we have a national standard, do we rely on state standard. host: in addition to a notification, to states like california have a second option of remediation? guest: i am not familiar with the various states methods of collecting information. at this point, the high-tech act and its provision to establish a base line, but states have the ability to establish stronger safeguards for medical record information. host: so if you received notice that you have been compromised, what do you do? guest: in the financial context, if you learn your bank information has been improperly disclosed, consumers are to be advised to sign up for credit monitoring service so you are notified, have the opportunity to see if someone has been using your credit report in an improper way. it is less clear with medical information, what people should do. if you go to the hhs website, for example, they will post the names of all companies that have been required to provide these notices. for the companies, it creates a real incentive to do it better job on the private front. host: van nuys, california. good morning and welcome to the conversation. >> -- caller: i just wanted to make a comment for the benefit of someone who called in on the idea of what the big deal is that our records would be out there. i am a woman advocate of sorts, where medical issues are concerned. to me, the importance of congress pulling back on what was discussed earlier on our medical records, i wanted to let anyone listening no that there are groups and on their brew will take this intermission, -- out there that will take this information, and whether it is any category, there are people who will take this information and publish it, like they did in the immigration situation. it was social-service intermission where women were in the system. host: thank you. an example of what could happen. guest: in some context, you might say there is a political risk to individuals who seek certain medical procedures. in that case, the importance of medical records privacy is particularly strong. host: in your -- a viewer tweets this -- for example, some and not revealing that had an std. guest: of there is a larger debate in washington about what type of information health care providers feel comfortable disclosing. it is one of the reasons these privacy rules are so important. if they do not disclose the information, it means they will get less comprehensive care. host: nancy tweets -- guest: that is also a good question. a good system of electronic health records will provide the health care provider with a more detailed information, timely information, one hopes more accurate, for better diagnosis and treatment. that is clearly the goal, as well as some cost reduction, but there are privacy risks. the privacy risk has become a big challenge. host: next question comes from michigan. dianne, republican line. caller: good morning, susan, c- span. un and a first-time caller. my question is in regards to privacy of medical records. where can individuals maintain their own individual records, if anything had been given to the medical information bureau, law firms, medical practitioners? as consumers, where can we go to get our information without having something disclosed to us. this information is being used by insurance underwriters to give you a policy. it is also used for employment. basically, trying to get information as to where one can go to know what is out there for the individual. guest: one of the goals of the privacy provision in high-tech was the ability to give patients the chance to access their records. it is something that the states have been legislating for. clearly, privacy is not only limiting broken to your information, but also your ability to get access to your information. there are a number of ways to exercise this right. first, you can go to your provider and get access to your medical information. most will be required to provide that information to you. there is information on the hhs website on how to exercise your privacy rights under the high- tech act. under the medical bureau, they keep a central repository of records. that has been available to insurers. those records should be available to you as well. host: personasks on twitter -- guest: i completely agree with that person. that is an argument that we have made for some time. we understand your information needs to be used by others to provide the service, but to the point where it is being sold, particularly in the medical industry, where there is data mining of information taking place to identify new consumers for new products, we think the patient has a strong interest in limiting some of that activity. . guest: when we do testify in congress, the focus is always on how to get more control so people can control their information. host: next call from atlanta. page on the independent line. caller: this is an area i have a passion for. so much for that i would like to write a script to address this problem. i have used it in my focus study to help reduce the time of diagnosis of the management of my illness from a week today. that is how powerful it is. the problem with privacy is can be built by the same privacy as someone accessing your credit. it sounds simple, but we do have an electronic systems for notification. the biggest problem i see in this is the hospital does have the accessibility to information by having it in data form, but as the previous caller mentioned, when he tried to get one system to communicate with another system, there was a failure. currently i am involved -- where i and they are implementing as it. what i currently see is the problem is what you slightly mentioned is the basic ground rules for structure. there is problems in communication. in creating the structure whereby houses -- hospitals can communicate their systems to other hospitals. we should create basic ground rules of this communication can " properly. right now it seems as we are putting the cart before the horse. guest: it is a good question actually. and has been one of the big 10 -- challenges in the medical information technology fields. this has been ongoing for probably three decades. the reason to do this is so that you can move information between systems and make sure it can be read and updated on different platforms. at the same time you have a lot of innovation. you have new companies that are offering internet-based medical services. they are taking advantage of new particles and standards that are not necessarily compatible with what have been used in the past. part of the challenge will be maintaining a common standard so that information can move between the systems while taking advantage of some of the new innovations. host: has anyone mention the real hero rush limbaugh who sued palm beach and 1? -- and one? guest: he certainly has raised questions about pharmaceutical records. in fact, there are a lot of people who have done very important work protecting our metal record privacy. i have in mind dr. debra kileil that has really led the charge in washington on behalf of patients to safeguard their medical and permission. she and many others have done a lot to help strengthen medical record privacy in the united states. host: celebrities are particularly vulnerable. there is a market for the information. guest: yes, there is. a lot of systems at hospitals are actually decided to flag record access to celebrities, politicians, and other people where it might ask is this person accessing the record for inappropriate purpose, or is this someone snooping around to find interesting information? there was a case a couple of years ago at the state department involving passport records of senator obama and senator clinton and senator mccain. people were trying to figure out if there was something interesting in the government records that might be interesting in the campaign. that began the issue. i actually think in that case the contractor who have lost that to happen for the state department face pretty severe sanctions, which is the way it should be. information is sensitive and the agencies that take on these responsibilities really do have to do a lot to safeguard it. host: lafayette, pennsylvania. , on the democrats' line. -- tom who on the democrats' line. caller: i have been subjected to letters from law firms concerning medications that are recently in the news because of their ill effects. a friend of mine, he and i were talking about it, and i mentioned to him that ander mission has to be coming from -- how do they know that medication was prescribed to me? my answer was, it has to be sold by either your doctor or your medical provider or your prescription plan? is anything in the laws of that prevents the selling of such information to law firms? host: there is lots of information where that information is known. guest: it is possible the law firm got the access -- information directly from the party they are suing as part of some discovery motion. in other words, if they have alleged that the product cause some harm to consumers, they would then get some access to those consumers who may have been harmed. it was not necessarily sold to them. but it could have been. i think it is an interesting question whether or not a hint hippa would restrict those closures. why single the likelihood it was sold is not great, but they're probably are ways that information can be obtained. -- i think the likelihood it was sold is not great, but there are probably ways that information can be obtained. but there is always a sense we have addressed this and now we can move on and do other things. all of a sudden it seems to explode, because the people said the breach notification rule threatens medical record privacy because people will not be told about their risk to the personal privacy, and did you get members of congress acted involved and you see very good stories in the press about the issue and then people have to take another look and say maybe we did not adequately assess the privacy problem. this happens a lot in washington. it is currently happening with the internet. several congressional committees are bucking that legislation. the back story is that lawmakers tend to underestimate how strongly people do feel about this issue. all it takes is a couple of news stories and one or two revelations and then there is a lot of attention. host: it did break down of bound -- it did not break down along partisan lines it seems like. guest: no, it did not. congressman waxman, a leading democrat, and a leading republican working together to get hhs to put in place some better rules to protect medical privacy, and i think that is a great thing about the privacy issue. it tends to bring people together. host: carol on the line. go ahead, please. caller: mike questions regard the legal system where many times we have attorneys in different cases contacting the medical providers to work with them for their side. and i have a situation where if you have a medical provider or we even have people that go to prison and different things for crimes they did not commit and later on their vindicated through dna processes. the damage is done by the medical provider putting something on someone's record. this could really affect the person forever in their life. in regards to the loss in itself, my question is are different people not held accountable for those particular violations? the surrounds the personal situation for me where there is a medical provider that falsified information, perjury was committed, and then it was used in an illegal system by a mediator, who i was told through the legal system they did not have any -- this person was against the law because he did not have a category in the lock. host: i apologize, i cut her off at the end. guest: this is also a very interesting question. the law is quite complicated. it covers a lot of organizations and individuals and the medical records whirled, but not all. one of the problem is that if an entity is not considered covered, it does not have obligations. another key term in act is protective health records. some parts of the medical record can be considered part of the protective health record, and other parts might not be. the practical consequences begins to look a little bit like swiss cheese of legislation. in other words, you to find holes. -- you do find holes. host: surely on the democrats' line. good morning. -- shirley on the democrats' line. and caller: there's no reason an insurance company for employer cannot get your records. when you look at the lock you go into the doctor and they say your family cannot give it, but everyone else can get it. and in our technology age, why isn't why we have been cards where we can go to any bank in the universe and get money, why can't we have all of our records on a card where you carry your own medical records with you that way it will cut out on the duplicates of testing? to go to the doctor and had to go there and fill out forms for each doctor. sometimes you forget things that are important to put on those records. if we run one central station, one card which you carried it with your numbers on it that could be accessed only in your presence. is that possible? guest: this is a great idea. a number of high-tech firms are exploring something almost exactly as you described, which is to allow the patient to be able to carry her medical records stored in electronic formats on some type of card they would carry in their wallets, probably protected by a password or code. this would be done as a way to limit access to your personal information and give you greater control. you do run into the problem of being able to make sure that people can get access to your information when you want them to. and that is another challenge. i think it is a very good idea and may be an effective way to give people more control over the medical information. host: our final call from jacksonville, florida. caller: i wanted to find out when you have your blood drawn at a hospital, why they cannot give you your blood counts. when i have given blood and was out of state for six weeks in minnesota, and when i went to the hospital to have my blood drawn to see if i needed to have a shot, they would not give me my blood counts. host: another example of the central record of your medical records. let me close, even though you told us earlier -- we have been talking about medical records. what is next about the privacy regulations? guest: but we are anticipating that kathleen sebelius will issue a new rule, one that creates a clear breach of notification or hospitals and doctors. assuming there is no big controversy, that replaces the interim rule in place next year predict last year and that becomes the basis for notifying people when they'rir medical information is improperly disclosed. dot it is a good outcome. ho-- it is a good outcome. host: into for being with us. we are born to take a quick break. our final segment we will continue to week-long discussion about military spending and programs. this morning hour focuses on military personnel. we will be right back. >> in the headlines, as you heard at the beginning of this segment, new requests for unemployment benefits fell sharply last week after rising in the past three weeks. still, analysts say claims remain much higher than it would be unhealthy economy. the labor department says new claims dropped by 31,000 to a seasonally adjusted 473,000. the total unemployment benefit rolls are still climbing. more people are joining the extended jobless aid programs for news -- renewed last month by congress. president biden is in his new hampshire home to announce that after a slow start, stakes are on track to weatherize 600,000 homes by march of 2012. he is expected to say that total has jumped to 200,000 in the what the recession assistance program. a muslim taxi driver blamed on an interfaith group of volunteer is going to new york city hall to meet the mayor today. the cabdriver says a college student held his cap on tuesday and asked if he was a muslim. he said when he replied yes, she attacked him. the suspect work with a group that promotes interest rates -- inter-faith tolerance. michael bloomberg also supports the moskow project. glenn beck's speech on the same day of the martin luther king anniversary speech is drawing criticism. and sarah palin will speak. he says the timing of the events is merely a coincidence. the rally will be live saturday starting at 10:00 eastern on c- span television and radio. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> we are all pawns of from the chess board and we're playing our part in the drama that is nearly fiction nor unemployment -- unimportant. >> i come before the body to again express my sincere regrets in my encounter with the capitol hill police. >> current and former members to delivering apologies and explanations directly to their colleagues on the floor of the house. watch more on line and read about them at c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> we now have a generation coming up that to not have offspring and did not have parts and the public schools certainly. these are now the 20-year olds. i am very concerned about that group of people, because it is not clear to me when they get to be 45 or 50 that there will come to the arts. michael cage are heads the kennedy center for the performing arts. -- michael kaiser heads by the kennedy center for the performing arts. he will speak sunday night on c- span today at 8:00. host: we're looking at bigger issues concerning the military issues. we have been looking at military spending or policy. today we're looking at the military personnel. let me introduce you to the gas. bill carr is a decade the veis s recruiting human management for the 1.4 million active duty military personnel. >> what is the biggest challenge to have right now? guest: the biggest is to be ready for a solid course, solid retention to keep the nation's focus on the need for effective recruiting, and i think the troops focus on just how much their leadership is concerned about them, their welfare, and that of their families. if all of that work to work, it would be sustained. that is really dropped one. -- job 2. -- job one. host: we are adding a fourth line for military personnel. it is your chance to talk to the boss affectively. we will put the phone numbers on the bottom of your screen. i want to start with breaking down the 1.4 million that i gave as a figure among the various services. the army is at 548,000. the marine corps 200,000 plus. in the navy 332,000. just to clarify, the 850,000 reserve officers do not fall under your purview? guest: they do not. dennis mccarthy oversees the reserve components. host: among the branches of the military, to the issues. ? guest: they do. -- do the issues vary? guest: 4 army does not have fixed-winged jets. let's say strength was being a just and more strongly support or downward in one service, and that affected service will have to have special programs to carry it out effectively. to that extent they differ. ihost: overall, it is essentially a standard grade that you follow. it would seem that companies need tools to be able to recruit certain people entirand higher incentives. guest: there is an enormous number of incentives for the people who might enter. host: that is what i meant, do the recruiters have the tools? guest: yes, they do. of all the reports that come in at a given year, 20% would receive an enlistment bonus. that would average about $6,000. some are much larger. they can be as high as $40,000 by law. some are more interested in the training and technical training. others are more interested in student loan paybacks, particularly if they're coming from college. the recruiters have a tool to address just about everyone's need. host: let's stay with recruiting before we get to calls. 17 to 35 years of age. u.s. citizen or legal residents, although that is true for the army and airports. it says the marine corps has someone different policies. guest: no, they do not. the standard is you must be a u.s. citizen or have entered from all lawful permanent residents. the short term for that is a green card. those are the minimums. we do have a program for which people on visas could enter the military. that is limited to doctors and nurses. host: high-school diploma is desirable. the branches are very proud of their high-school graduation rate. talk to us about the trends in that area. guest: the trends have been terrific. three years ago in take was 82%. in 2009 and 2010 and is about 95%. to put that in perspective, it represents an american youth in that age group have that control. for the military is 95%. we'd like a high-school diploma not because as anything to do with the quality of education relative to adult education or ged, but instead as a group which can be certain to a scientific fact that 80% will complete their first pitch, where s g.d. would be lower at 65%. it is a proxy for sticking with it. host: with his aptitude tests designed to measure? >> opera it is made up of math and verbal- -- it is made of upf math and verbal. it predicts performance. we did a study a number of years ago at the national academy of science and the question is why are you bringing in so many at such high quality when it is so expensive to recruit? that effort proved to a scientific certainty that if you score higher than average, you will perform better than average in the hands-on test. how many radios come in? direct find faults and fix them correctly? -- do i find the faults and fix them correctly? host: good medical condition. guest: this is one of the criteria. it is a challenge that has grown in past years. host: because of obesity. guest: obesity is growing. and almost always refers to the standards of the centers for disease control. obesity, if i look at the standards, i am looking at a big halfback. i am not looking at left defensive tackle. sometimes the work can can carry connotations that are beyond what it really is. if you look at height, weight tables. it is certainly true that put a growing number of american youth have gained weight and you carry extra weight on a more delicate frame and you are more prone to injuries. those are some things we have to work with. host: give us the statistics. what percent of the population doesn't automatically disqualify? -- does it automatically disqualify? guest: all the applicants that would come to us, and for those that disqualify it would be about one-third would disqualify medically for obesity. that is close to orthopedic conditions. host: the last is a good moral character. what are the components their? guest: the components are that ideally would not have any offender record. but young people make mistakes and sell about one in five enter the military with a waiver that includes the medical, a sizable portion of those are for conduct labor. sometimes a felony comes up, major misconduct. that is about one or two for pe by congressional district. the controls are very tight. if the community says they would like to bring someone in, we do it. if we have a meeting with courtnall and it that d.o.t. had the best employer practices going, because if i take a job at home depot and have had a a shoplifting charge, there is unemployment hazard and i do not get the job and that follows me forever. you are with the military, there is a chance if you have other strong qualities you cancer. -- can serve. host: this has to do with the homosexual policy. how is this the final four people that are recording right now? -- how is this defined for people that are recruited right now. guest: homosexual conduct would be disqualified. homosexual conduct would not be eligible to enlist. host: i want to get to phone calls. this is such a big topic. before we go to calls, the same with recruitment -- today at big opinion piece. the piece suggesting that few americans today have a personal connection to the military because of the segment of society with which recruitment today happens. in more southern than big cities. soldiers come from a narrow segment of society geographically and culturally than ever before. half of all army recruits come from families. this addressing the military should be diverse as we are. guest: i think it is. as far as the geographical and earnings of the parents, bills come up often times. the military is firmly middle- class. the group that is underrepresented it is not the wealthiest. they are the share one board expect. -- one would accept. the group that is under represented are those from the bottom income groups where the parents are from the bottom income groups. that may correlate with health or a number of reasons. that is 0.1. the military across the strata of parents' earnings, we reflect everything in america accept the poorest where they are over represented a little bit, and that carries into the middle class. on geography it has always been the case in my lifetime that the northeast would be less enthusiastic about joining the military. and i think that dates back to the revolution and the fear of a large standing militias and so forth. there are different parts of the areas put that are the toughest period in the northeast river get three-quarters of a fair distribution, if everyone were behaving the same as nationally. in the twosouth it is about twi. the geographic diversity is working just fine. host: secretary carr on the job for about eight years. let's get to phone calls. beginning with waterloo, iowa. beginning with ted on the democrats' line. caller: i see now why susan is saying you have been on the job for eight years, because you certainly sound like a republican to me. i would like to see the numbers instead of what you are saying about the rich being represented. when i was in vietnam i was drafted, and i will tell you they had to get around all of the protests after that debacle the cold way called a war, and r to do that they want to an all- volunteer military so they could start the legal wars you have going on to protect big business. we need to reinstitute the draft to get the people involved, because until the people are involved in these phony worsars- host: here is a tweed we received. guest: let me think the caller for his service. i was around in the same time. with regard to the draft, it comes up from time to time let's say we're walking through the atlanta airport in 1969. four out of five soldiers we pass would be in their first year of service. today half of the people you see are going to be surgeons. why is that? because during the draft one in eight remain, but since all- volunteer force it is one in two. your experience profiles built, and then you have people with enough seasoning and experience to handle the complex weapons systems we have. vietnam, lots of labor's and carrying around guns, but today we have multiple launch rocket systems, a drop of pawed and an operator dropping this. we have defined -- designed the weapon system for much older force. not only will the amendments go down, but the performance of the weapon systems will go down. frankly, we are giving pretty darn good representation of america now. it is a military debt represents america probably better than it ever did, certainly better than it did during vietnam. it is a highly effective force of the nation has given us and supported us. host: 20 year military career. performed in military management. he is a graduate of the u.s. military academy holding a master of science and system management from the university of southern california and post graduate work at the kennedy school at harvard. i read that very early on you felt this was the direction you want to spend your professional life. what is this that appeals to you? guest: it was personal. what i found really made the troops very happy or sad was when personnel went bad. when it did not go as it should have, there was real depression and unhappiness. you could have an immediate effect, and that felt that and felt like i would do it every day of my professional life. for that reason, that attracted me. i served a career in its end and still serving in it. you make a difference in people's lives and directly. that i'd like. -- that i like. host: the next call is tom. caller: this is an extension of an earlier call. with the current public perception of the disregard for the safety of those in the military, which was magnified by the foc bogus iraq war, how i am wondering how this is affecting your recruitment goals. the truth is, and if you talk to people in the street, they have very little confidence in the regard of the elite of our society for the safety and security of the lower ranks. guest: i think many draw a distinction between a war and warrior. this goes to your point of talking about recruiting, and america, if you ask them in a poll, and you said what institution do you have the most confident and, at the answer for the past 10 years has been that the u.s. military. other choices were small businesses, big business, organized religion. i think america has stressed in the military and what it does, and certainly supports its four years. for that reason recruiting is continuing to be very strong. host: armed services are a 12% in their goals. the next call on the air. caller: i am a lieutenant in the navy. thank you for speaking with us today. as far as i know, the naval officers and the marine corps officers that deployed with us are the only personnel who pay for their meals while we are deployed. i know all the sailors that deployed with us, all of their meals are paid for. ours has not stopped, we do collect that. but the food we pay for on the ship and up costing us more than we received in the meal stipends. i was wondering if you could speak to any plans to change that or any plans to make that more in line with other services. guest: i promise to check on that. the military receives basic pay and housing allowance and finally they received a relatively modest food allowance. in the case of the deployed and naval officers the caller mentioned, they would receive their food allowance, but then aboard ship expected to pay for the meal. i regret i am not familiar enough with that. i promise that i will be and i will look into it. i think you for the question. -- thank you for the question. host: numbers suggest that pegg has gone up 42% sen. housing has increased 83%. subsistence is 40%. what should we interpret from these numbers? guest: the thing to interpret it that the president and congress put a premium on military pay, and i do not howl they were suppression, but they have certainly got it right, because that is an important underpinning of the retention we had. it is tough work to be in the military these days. it is fulfilling work as well. unless you are attentive to the needs person in uniform and their family, and sometimes that translates to pay, then you will have retention problems. our retention is the strongest it has been probably in history. that speaks to our commitment to the member and family and their commitment to us, but it also talks about the way the nation has been attentive to their compensation. so in fact that probably gives us the stability and retention and high retention we are enjoying today thanks to the american people underwriting that important investment. host: the competition budget for the military is on this graphic. $55.8 billion for basic pegg and 6.5 billion allocated for special incentive pay. that is in the 2011 budget. there is a debate going on about the percentage of pay increase for the next cycle. the white house opposes 1.4 increase. the house of representatives said we want more. 1.9%. the senate is yet to act. guest: that is correct. i lock the intent is unless there was an intervention to the contrary, the military raise would equal the rise in private sector wages, which was 1.4% for the period of measurement that matter. the president's budget fully under wrote that at 1.4. the house, not unlike congress in the past, which led to a favorable circumstances i mentioned earlier would opt for a higher amount. the department really believes the pay is solid now. it is at the 70th percentile of comparable american workers and the same work experience and education as the military. if you're in the 70th percentile in the nation is where it is in tough times in the military where to receive the pay raise that isn't due proportion to all of their fellow citizens while operating in that deposition, and that is probably the right thing to do, and that is what the president advanced. host: steve of the democrats' line. caller: thank you for c-span. long time you are. -- long-time viewer. i work in the mental health field. i meet a lot of men and women who are struggling. i think we should consider bringing back the draft. i keep reading pieces that americans are not bringing their fair share because the higher- and folks do not join the military. guest: again, on close inspection, and i will be sure it is out on defense plant if it is not already -- defense link it is not already by late today, there is a craft of what the distribution is by a household income. from actual investments we know what the code they came from. you can draw an inference from that whether you are recruiting from middle class or another class. you would find that it is a very close approximation of all across, except that it is lower among the lowest burners and higher in the middle class. -- lowest earner and higher in the middle class. other than that, it was more level than what you would think. more level then i will stop before i looked at the data. that is the way america is behaving in the volunteer force. that is pretty representative of america. host: another component is recruiting campuses. there is a piece that is talking about this. host: as you well know that rotc program on the harvard campus became a piece of much discussion. what are the statistics about elite schools and the presence of our otc? >-- of rotc? guest: i will tell you what i have heard, and that is rotc is now at about 250 colleges. there are 420 detachments. let's take carver. it is in boston. a short metro ride away. -- a short metro ride away from m.i.t. given the demands on military manpower, if i were to ask army if they would be interested in opening a unit and all of the associated manpower to sustain its when you have won a short ride away, the army would say no. that is what i have said. -- that is what i have heard. harvard support has been quite good. president summers i remember very well taking the time to come to the rotc commissioning ceremony. it happens at harvard yard and a prominent place. he was consistently there. that meant a lot. the rest of the faculty might not have been there, but he was. the department's relationship with harvard is strong. they are terrific young people. they go to school on the metro and it is a 20 minute ride. that is the reason you would not set up the second school. those who argue ignore the fact that there is another unit right nearby. in tight times he would not necessarily open up a branch in a place where you already have to read it coverage. host: yesterday were discussed unmanned aerial vehicles. i am not going to ask you to comment on that. today our focus is on military personnel. let's take our next call from michigan. donald on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. a very short biography. i am going to say something' th about military service that is in disagreement with your guess. i thank him for his military service. i volunteered for the correa draft. i had a student deferment. back in those days you would serve. once you receive a student deferment, it was literally that until you basically did not perform academically and or you graduated, you served. michigan state still has that requirement that you graduate from michigan state and you are going to serve it. i am in favor of a draft. i do not know how females would be involved in that situation, but i will tell you why i am in favor of the draft. i am in favor of a citizen force. our politicians are starting wars every 15 years. it is breaking this country. host: thank you. another caller made a similar argument. guest: i think the program we have now does call upon citizens and their young people to serve. subscription orders them to serve for prairie brief times -- for very brief period. given the sophisticated systems that the military has procured to cut manpower so that we can afford the weapon system and not put lives address, given that calculation, we cannot have the 80% turnover that is associated with the draft and still expect the military to perform anywhere near where it does today or the weapons systems to perform in any proximity of their performance today. the draft is attemptin tempting, but it is a huge turnover and low performance, not because of the people, but because they only have a brief time to learn their job and apply it before they are gone. host: this is illustrated on the front page of "the washington times" today. we're talking with bill carr. a big title. remini he is responsible for all of the policies regarding the 1.4 active military in this country. -- it means he is responsible for all of the policies regarding the 1.4 active military and this country. caller: i very much supports the draft. my son is highly qualified deep sea diver and under water wilder. they have various categories of weller's, and he is at the highest. i do not even know what it is, but he is not limited in any way in any underwater work. i am a navy veteran. at that time there was still the korean war and world war ii men in it. it was built up rapidly by recruiting people in the construction trade and given this fight the qualification. i wanted my son to go into the navy, but they cannot give him any credit for his qualifications. i told the navy recruiter who will not get him. physicians and dennitists went in a j-g's and were promoted to lieutenant roeder tracks immediately. hopefully their level of experience and expertise are not sent similarly. guest: that is a great question. i think the point is exactly on point. military rank has to do with your contribution to the military, and the caller mentions that his son is a very advanced skilled wilder. i would and do believe there will be a program that might be applicable to give a more stripes for more skill. i promise to when i go back today i will check welder in the navy to ascertain what the connection is because you are entirely right that there are different degrees of skill in that trade and different degrees of skill should be compensated. we do that by their pay grade. i understand the point and it is valid. i will check into it. host: related to that is retention. a lot of debate in this town about the increased use of cost factors. we hear some areas of army personnel who are fighting side- by-side with former colleagues and former colleagues are making a premium on their salaries. what does that do for recruitment efforts or retention efforts? guest: if a contractor can perform a function that is performed by the military, then there can be an attraction. we found that encases and special operations in particular. -- we found that in cases with special operations in particular. just as commercial airlines are hiring heavily with air force officers, respond to that with what ever it takes to maintain the manning we're looking for. in either case, an incentive would be applied to keep those things in balance. host: sherman, texas, mike on the democrats' line. caller: first of all, our recruits given any type of psychological profile to see their medical suitability for the military? the second question is, when they failed -- would a failed drug tests prevailed getting into the military? thank you. guest: as far as psychological profiling, no, there's no such test entering the military. to be clear, there would be a baseline assessment if they were to deploy so that we could detect post-traumatic stress or brain injury. those are not in case of psychological testing and certainly no such thing required to join the military. failing the drug test you will disqualify. you could return after a protracted period, but you are disqualified on that day. you could request a waiver on it. if you have an enormous number of people speaking in favor of view, that could be considered, but the chances are slim. for a convicted felon, they could come in. about 24 corr per congressional district come in each year. the felonies i am talking about are ones that did not result in an incarceration. more like i saidset a bee hive n fire and it caught a shed on fire. the community will have to stand with you. you would have to pass specific review with no less than a general slide officer or general. if you can pass all of those and get the community behind you, we will look at you. that is a pretty reasonable deal in terms of what we should do. it is refreshing, at least to the people to a number of major corporations that the military they cheered out a way to grant absolution but also to be sure that those they were granting it to work good ones. it is measured by performance ahead of the persons who came in without a waiver. that is how the operation works well. it is hard to get in with any of the factors you mentioned, but not impossible. there are different shades of gray on the felony. if it is a favorable felony, if you can imagine such a combination of force, and some will look closely at it. -- if you can imagine such a combination theof words, we will look closely at its. host: last question. caller: my father served in vietnam and world

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Elizabethtown ,New York ,Alabama ,Anchorage ,Alaska ,Connecticut ,West Virginia ,Mexico ,Kennedy School ,Iowa ,Middletown ,Massachusetts ,Cambridge ,Cambridgeshire ,United Kingdom ,Chicago ,Illinois ,Japan ,Afghanistan ,Hiroshima ,Clarksville ,Tennessee ,Virginia ,Georgia ,Michigan ,Fayetteville ,North Carolina ,Iraq ,Jackson Hole ,Wyoming ,New Jersey ,Maryland ,Capitol Hill ,District Of Columbia ,Alexandria ,Al Iskandariyah ,Egypt ,Odenton ,Texas ,Kennedy Center ,New Hampshire ,China ,Minnesota ,California ,Russia ,Washington ,Princeton University ,Harvard Yard ,Manila ,Philippines ,South Carolina ,Sacramento ,Switzerland , ,Gulf Shores ,Iran ,Kentucky ,Boston ,Florida ,Mississippi ,Virginia Beach ,Baghdad ,Israel ,Phoenix ,Arizona ,Pennsylvania ,Ohio ,Italy ,Italian ,Americans ,America ,Alaskans ,Iraqi ,British ,Swiss ,Japanese ,American ,Chinese ,Russian ,Serbs ,Warren Buffett ,Kathleen Sebelius ,Martin Luther King ,Ron Paul ,Naomi Klein ,Marc Rotenberg ,Dennis Mccarthy ,Michael Bloomberg ,Prescott Bush Jr ,Gail Collins ,Booz Allen Jonathan Bush ,Gail Collin ,Joe Miller ,Ben Bernanke ,Michael Kaiser ,Mikhail Gorbachev ,Susan Matt Ridley ,Alan Greenspan ,Robbie Brown ,Lisa Marc Rotenberg ,Sarah Palin ,Rachel Maddow ,Keith Olbermann ,Lisa Murkowski ,Glenn Beck ,Matt Ridley ,