Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20110610

house had dramatic news yesterday. ghannouchi rich survive as a political candidate after its staff -- can newt gingrich survive as a political candidates after its staff resigned in mass? we would like to know what you think. the numbers are on the screen. you can also e-mail us. and we are on twitter. let's take a look at "usa today" headlines. to give some information about this and shed some light on what is going on behind the scenes, we are joined by. wilson from "national journal." good morning. what have you found out about why his staff members left? guest: he had a rocky blowout a couple of weeks ago when he announced his campaign. he sort of announced and unannounced and then bree announced. it is probably the worst rollout we have seen niki 2012 -- we have seen in the 2012 run so far. then he promptly went on a vacation to breeze. -- greece. he did not look like he was going to be willing to go to iowa and at other places to woo voters. a lot of his staff had just come on to the campaign recently. i think it is most telling backed his spokesman rick tither and the south carolina advisor, kate dawson, left. they have both worked for him for a number of years and their departure signals a disapproval of the way he was going to run a presidential campaign. host: 16 of these lawmakers visor's left. -- and advisers left. how typical or a typical is this? guest: is not terribly usual rembert, ronald reagan left a remember,ber of -- brambl ronald reagan left a large number of staffers before he became president, but it is not normal. newt gingrich is not the force in need republican party that used to be. he does not rank among most people's idea of the top tier. we're talking about tim pawlenty and perhaps some candidates that have not gone into the race yet. one thing that newt gingrich really does is open the door for rick perry, the governor of texas. two of his top political advisers left to work for newt gingrich. now they have time on their hands and can go back to working for him. if anything, that realization that newt gingrich is not in the top tier of the presidential campaign means that rick perry can be. i would expect him to get into the race in short order. host: your p's for today -- the piece you wrote for today is titled "rick barry's moment." where are his people defecting to? guest: there not defecting to anywhere in particular just yet. yet.re not going anywhere and they do not have to. there is plenty of time left. there are other candidates. we will see michelle baachman jump in probably sometime before the end of the month. and perry is thinking about his own campaign. probably some others as well. not leaving to start somewhere at a new job on monday. but newt gingrich is no longer among and top tier of contenders. host: for those of us on the outside, we might hear of one staffer resigning, or a couple. how is it to go in one big block? what is the communication like? guest: fortunately, i have never had a lot of people quit on me and i have never been a part of a big group of people. i have had a happy career. but it is something that has been building for weeks. it does not happen overnight. he just left on vacation for two weeks and that set a bunch of his advisers. the same thing happened with the mccain campaign. a lot of folks had become discontented over a long time frame and a friendly end up leading. it is not some that just happens spontaneously. host: and finally, what do we expect to see from newt gingrich? who does he listen to right now and how do we see of his campaign survives or falters over the next couple of weeks? guest: has always listened to one person first and foremost, and that is newt gingrich. he keeps his own counsel very closely. he will participate in the presidential debate in new hampshire on monday. a lot of this strategy that his advisers disagreed with add to do with making a big impact in the early debates and setting himself apart in the field. he really has to go big or go home now. especially because the money is beginning to dry up. we heard some reports that as a part of these staff departures, he is having trouble made -- raising money. he is not able to tap into this network of large corporate contributors that everybody gave to that everyone jokingly inc.s to new tt, he has got to do something big to get back into this race to make it known that he is the candidates who still has the best, biggest, oldest ideas, just sort of newt gingrich being newt gingrich. if his back is against the wall, he may be up for it. host: rita wilson, thanks for joining us. eid wilson, thanks for joining us. here's a comment on twitter. you can join the conversation at these numbers. if you support newt gingrich or do not, the call -- the numbers are on the screen. let's go to tampa, fla., where it bluhm joins us. -- lou joins us. host: i am supporting rudy guiliani and i wish he would get into the race. i called the law firm that he is a part of the new york and i believe he is a viable candidate. i believe he could take on obama and defeating next year. host: what do you think about newt gingrich? caller: i think he will be smashed by mr. ryan. host: ok, next caller. what do you think? caller: i think it would be a mistake for new to to run for president because i do not think it is his time yet. i thinking you'll see a political fascination of some of the baggage that he might bring along with him. i like newt gingrich and i think he's a good man and i think he would do a good job, but i will support herman cain. i have been listening to what he has to say and i truly believe that he cares about the united states. bye-bye to go a little bit further. i would like to see a head to head african-american race for the presidency of the united states because i would like to see how the liberal democratic voters who will go in and just push the button for president obama -- i do not know how they can possibly vote for this guy because he has done absolutely nothing for this country. caller: -- host: let's go on to a democratic caller in illinois. what do you think about newt gingrich? caller: i am sad. i was hoping it would be newt gingrich against president obama because he would be incredibly easy to beat. he is typical of republican family values. he served his first wife divorced papers while she was suffering from cancer in a hospital. he got booted for at 6 shalit -- violations. -- ethics violations. he has been married three times. the is exactly what the burk radical republicans of today are. -- the above critical republicans of today are. when that is brought out, he would be defeated as much as obama would be reelected. host: let's go to sheila from carrollton, georgia. what do you think about newt gingrich? caller: i know we are not supposed to make this personal, but it was personal to me -- i am from carrollton, ga., in his hometown when he was my congressperson. it my husband and i owned a break free. he was supposed to come to our break free -- our bakery to get a photo op and wherever. and what he did it is he had somebody call me up the morning he was supposed to come and ask how many employees we have. well, it was summertime, so in the south bakeries do not do that well in the summertime. so, what happened was the next thing i know is i get a call saying that, yeah, he's coming to town and he's going to pass right by our bakery, but he is too busy to stop. host: so, that left a lingering impression for you, it sounds like. caller: oh, yeah, because my has been -- i have always been very political and my has been is not at all. in fact, i can remember in every been voting on anything. -- tichenor remember him even voting on anything. we always had this rift about my calling the white house and supporting the war and this kind of stuff. and when newt gingrich did that it caused a rift between me and my has been. host: ok, let's look at the "the new york times" story on what has happened with the departure. vivian rights on twitter -- to dallas, texas. john is supporting another republican candidate. so far, no pro-newt gingrich calls. what do you think? caller: i think he should get out of the race. i do not think he can survive. i think he would be better off being an idea man. and i could say the same thing about ron paul. both of them should be the successors to william f. buckley and milton friedman. neither one of them ever ran for president, but they were great for influencing the conservative movement. host: in san francisco, calif., doug is also calling in supporting a conservative candidates. caller: i am not a new gingrich supporter. however, i do support republicans who speak their mind. i do support ron paul. i wish newt gingrich would maintain his role as a voice as a voicerdancthe curtains of urging the movement forward, but not being its leader p [er se. host: if you support newt gingrich, there is a line for you. we have not had any of those calls yet. in fort worth, texas, betty joins us. good morning. what do you think about newt gingrich, as a democratic caller? caller: i personally have never considered him a very viable candidate. i have to agree with the person who said he was just promoting his book. i would stay here instead of going on vacation and do some actual work. as far as rick perry trying to move into his place, you might want to take a look at a star- telegram poll here in fort worth a couple of weeks ago. they did a straw poll with registered republicans and he got 4% who thought he would make a good president. that -- if most people realize that here in texas, the governor is really just a figurehead. i personally would never vote for mr. berry because i do not want four more or eight more years of george bush. host: and you're a democratic caller? caller: i sure am. host: "the new york times" reports that a senior strategist confronted new gingrich on thursday after he went on vacation with his wife, eccleston. host: toni writes on twitter -- and in dayton, ohio john calls up us, -- joined us, a democratic collar. what do you think? caller: i do not think that he ever had any prospect, but i think the independents out there should be watching this closely. in 2012, a lot of republicans will start backing away from health care plan and people should watch what they're doing to newt gingrich now because of the health care plan. host: what did you make of that? caller: i think they really want to dismantle medicare. they think it is a welfare policy. and during the campaign, a lot of them will back away from it to get votes, but that is what they want. look what they are doing to newt gingrich now. from let's go to a caller riverside, maryland. good morning. caller: i think people are counting out the new gingrich way too early in this. i draw your attention to the last presidential election in which john mccain had his entire staff quit during the election campaign. and i think it was even at a later date, and it was, of course, mccain who ended up being the republican nominee. newt gingrich is very intelligent. i will be does not have to get out of the race because it would be a terrible loss in terms of, at least ideas, even if he does not win. host: what do you think he brings to the race? caller: he is a towering intellect for my in my opinion, and he knows john so much from being involved in the process and -- he knows so much stress from being involved in the process. the has a real view of how things work. there are things about him that i do not agree with and things that i do not like in terms of his baggage here and there, but that is true of any candidate. host: let's take a look at this story in the "washington post" looking at some of his, one might say, errors in the last couple of weeks. let's go to our next caller in las cruces, new mexico. james, a democratic color. good morning. what do you think about newt gingrich? caller: i do not think very much of the man. iran and an older voters -- i am an older roeder and i do remember the situation with his wife and there's no way -- i am an older voter and i remember the situation with his wife and there's no way i would ever vote for him. i hope that he does not get elected. jeff, whos go to supports nuking rich in lake city -- newt gingrich in lake city, florida. caller: one of the reasons i support tedium is because he had the -- supported him is because he had the courage to go against paul ryan and medicare. he cannot put it all together, and that tells me that he is maybe not ready to pube a leade, but if he can get out there and put another team together quickly, just as obama needs to get out there and show that he can be a powerful president -- where has he been recently? that is one of my concerns. you have a lot of intelligent people in washington, but i do not know that intelligence makes for a good leader. host: let's look at some of his background and history. this comes to us from politico. in nevada, lentz joins us. you're an independent voter? caller: i am a democrat. host: what do you think about how this might change the race? caller: he is pretty good at p.r., but the republicans are forgetting that social security, medicaid, medicare, these programs work. and they can screech about them and calling obama care and disparage it anyway they want, but it has approval rating of 50%. obama pretty much ended up following the lead of what mr. romney got going there. i really miss the days of good, moderate thinking republicans where we did not have all of this gain calling -- name calling and this knee-jerk reaction to everything. i think republicans in general would be much better shape if they would find some walkabout type, some jarogerald ford people to run their party instead of these radicals host: all right, let's go to scott from oklahoma city. he is rich law -- a supporting another work by republican candidates. we in on this for us. caller: newt gingrich is in a long line of self-proclaimed conservatives. the does not have anything to say about ending the biggest headache in the country, the federal reserve. it is not want to do anything about abolishing the irs. several of the things that so- called conservatives just nibble on the edges on, he is right along there with him. -- with them. but ron paul is the only constitutionalist running for president and he was the only one running in 2008, even though there were some people's intentions in both years. ron paul wants to get rid of the federal reserve. he wants to do away with things that others are saying that you just need reform. he has realized they are unconstitutional. privatizing social security, getting rid of the cia, these things were not included in the constitution. at a commentook from twitter. a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment here. one of our viewers making a dig at sarah palin. this story in the ."he new york times these e-mails are coming out from 2006 through 2008. they were requested about a month after she joined the mccain campaign as the vice- presidential nominee. reporters are having to go to juneau, alaska to get their hands on them. summit -- some organizations will be of loading them and electronically to the web. lettingshington post" is doin and weighing about how they feel about it. at least initially, the documents can only be had by picking them out here in remote juno for having been shipped. let's go to some other political news right now relating to mitt romney. he is planning to skip the iowa straw poll this summer. the "washington post" reports that by skipping the august 13 poll, an important stop in the nominating contest, romney announce -- indicated the clearest signal yet that he may not compete vigorously in iowa. let's go to kentucky where a democratic caller joining us. georgia is weighing in on new to gingrich and whether or not he can -- george is weighing in on mute gingrich and whether or not he can survive politically. what do you think? caller: i do not know whether he can survive. it is all because of corporations. they do not get out and vote and they should do something about it. host: chicago, illinois, evelyn is supporting another republican candidate. good morning. caller: my comment is that our country is in dire need of everything right now. i am so tired of the media downplaying all of these immoral acts and i would like the politicians to stand up and say what they have done. it just covers all of the important issues and that we should be concerned about. and yes, that for better start voting. -- the poor better start voting. host: year is another headline. -- here is another headline. is's go to texas, bill intended to abandon collar. -- independent caller. caller: thank you for c-span. host: go head. caller: i feel like newt gingrich will not make it. we need a businessman like herman cain war donald trump or somebody. -- or donald trump or somebody. host: what do you think newt gingrich lacks? caller: he has too much baggage. i feel like he has no control of what needs to go on. i feel like he would be a drag on the election. host: ok, let's look at another story about mitt romney. the attacks coincide with the surge. he has delivered a widely panned defense of the health legislation he signed as governor of massachusetts. another comment on twitter. to dave in nashville, tennessee. caller: part of this has to do with the fact that a lot of new gingrich senior advisers were former staffers for rick perry. they just see rick barry as a stronger candidate. -- rick perry isaias robert kennedy. i have a question for you. host: go ahead. a caller: you have two lines from republicans and one line for democrats. you have had more democrats on the bad republicans. how does that happen? host: it depends on who calls in. a caller: i have called on both lines and could not get through, so they are backed out. more of your calls have been from democrats than republicans and you have two lines for republicans. host: thank you for your comments. let's move on. caller: if newt gingrich is the driving force behind his campaign, would be be fine with losing its staffers? didn't john mccain lose many of his staffers at a much more crucial time? host: what does that tell you? caller: i think it tells you that the campaign is run by the person with the brain are. i think newt gingrich as the brain power in the campaign. host: a gift -- a gingrich supporter, tom joins us from paxil, ky. caller: i have been a gingrich supporter during his days as speaker. he is an articulate republican. this year in 2012 more than any ther, they're wrong but -- republicans need a very articulate debater. it that is one thing that was lacking very much with mccain. obama was elected because of an economic catastrophe and we're in that kind of situation today. i do not know what effect this will have on gingrich. he may or may not survive. this will not help anything. it is a shame because he adds so much to the debate. this is the season, the primary season, where you test the candidates and you get to see what they would be like if elected president. as long as the republican candidates can win and should win if your she can hold their own with zero balad during the debates. -- with obama and during the debates. host: let's look at a headline from today. this is about congresswoman gabrielle giffords. looking at another story in the news. this one references c-span in the "washington post." the story is looking at what is happening in the senate and whether or not things are getting done. our question today is whether or not you can -- you think newt gingrich can survive losing his top aides yesterday. caller: good morning. i do not think newt gingrich is eventually going to be the nominee. he has too much baggage, as another caller said. and i agree that he is probably intellectually one of the leaders, but also proceed -- perceived as a professional politician. and in this election, people are just really sick and tired of professional politicians. host: north carolina, democratic collar, james. what city are you from? caller: i'm from north carolina. it is a city. host: good morning. caller: what do you -- i do not think that newt gingrich is right to survive. i think it is not just for show. -- is going to survive. i think it is just for show. host: all right, next caller, good morning. caller: i was an obama supporter, but i think now i will have to go for being rich because i do not think things are turning out -- for gingrich because i do not think things are turning out. it seems to be the republicans right now because they have a lot more to say to me believe that they will change when they get back into the seat. when they were in the seat it seems like things were going pretty well. now that obama is in the seat can i do not feel like things are going our way. i think he needs to make some changes in order for me to support the and again. right now, i am not supporting him because he is not taking the time to address the fact that people are suffering. people need jobs. he needs to address those things. if not, i will switch parties. host: a gop collar rights -- the "weekly standard" take on things. fred barnes writes -- in-lin it was a takeover by his wife, callista. sean, a gop color from orlando, fla.. good morning. what do you think? caller: i think a lot of us have been in his place. host: what do you mean? caller: been in a divorce, had an affair, had personal problems. we do not have to be in their marriages. host: is that why you think his campaign staffers left him? caller: no, i think the media is catering to every one that is right out of the box. gingrich made a mistake and he is paying for it. but we will see next week. the media wants gingrich. somebody like sarah palin will win. but knocking rich. they want romney. romney is a real choice. but somebody like gingrich or palin will win. host: here is an article about the cia director. let's go to blackwood, new jersey, independent callerr from new jersey, tony. caller: i want to bring up the fax that -- the fact that newt gingrich was involved in the planning of the iraq war, even though he was not an elected official at the time. it is amazing to me that he is allowed to run for president. there are a lot of things about this guy that we should know. host: in tennessee, by iran is not supporting nuking bridge, it looks. -- byron is not supporting new to gingrich, it looks. caller: initially, i was supporting donald trump. he gets into attack mode and that is what i want. i want someone to go after these folks. another caller said that a lot of these republican candidates are radicals. i do not know how. he says he supports progressives. evidently, they do not know what progressives are. progressives are either communist or socialist. if you want to get radical, that is radical to me. host: one person writes in -- in line -- let's go to another caller, lead. caller: first, let me say that is a shame where the republicans find themselves in a place where their candidates cannot speak their minds were speaking of the enemy without being punched. it seems as though republicans want you to speak a sternway and if you do not, you are punished for just speaking what you really think. i think that is exactly what newt gingrich did. and actually, he was correct. i would just like to see someone in the republican party stand up and be an independent and speak their mind and speak what they think. and finally, let me just say to the caller a few minutes ago that was thinking about switching parties because she feels that president obama is not doing any of -- is not doing enough, and i made president obama supporter by the way, i would like to ask her a question. exactly what are the republicans doing for her? look around the country at what is going on. the country being in the dire straits that it is, republicans are concerning themselves with things like abortion bills, making it harder for poor people to vote, stripping unions of their bargaining power. i would like to ask her to think, how will this kind of stuff benett vitter? the -- benefit her? host: ok, let's take a look at one story before we move on. secretary of state hillary clinton, her aide denied that she wants the world bank presidency. coming up on "washington journal" we will talk about immigration policy and women in the workplace. but first, jobs and how to greet them. we will have two roundtable guests next. connect with c-span on line with the latest scheduled updates and video on twitter, facebook, and political places in washington and beyond with four square. c-span and social media, connect today. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, more than 20 years after the cold war, a panel reflects on ronald reagan and mikheil gorbachev. and on american artifacts, photographer rick rhodes. to get the complete schedule act c-span.org/history, or press the alert button to get our schedule e-mailed directly to you. 2, this weekend on c-span to talking about the collapseconomc collapse and fannie and freddie mac. also, microsoft co-founder paul allen. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org. >> on this nomination the ayes are 72, the nays are 16, and the nomination is confirmed. wasn monday, donald everlverili confirmed. he is more than one of the -- he is just one of the more than 100,000 people you can research and watch in our c-span library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: robert greenstein is the founder and president of the center on budget and policy priorities. we're also joined by kevin hassett from the american enterprise institute, where he is the economic policy director. thank you both for coming to talk about jobs and job creation. bob greenstein, what is the of job stagnation? guest: we did not have a normal recession. we had a financial crisis. history suggests that when there are big financial crises it takes much longer to recover. basically, employment fell off a few years ago. we are now gaining jobs each month, but that such a slow rate that the unemployment rate is not coming down much. in addition, the housing market is still very weak. there are problems internationally. we're part an international economy and there are issues in europe and elsewhere. and the stimulus that was enacted in 2009, that is feeding how now. it is putting a drag on the economy. one other factor, state budgets have to be balanced even in a recession. they are laying off people right and left. in the last 18 months, 350,000 jobs lost in state and local government. those people lose their jobs and do not spend as much. it has a ripple effect. other people lose their jobs as well. host: what do you think, kevin hassett? guest: i think that bob is right. there is some work done that shows that you tend to have a really bad hangover for really almost a decade. there are a couple of wheat -- reasons why. the first thing is something that bob alluded to. you have the great recession, but then even with different pockets of americans to live like with the teenage community -- of americans, like the team community, or young adults. or even african-american community, it is often hard to reconnect them with the work force because of still level and things -- skill level and things like that. the financial institutions tend to have a lot of bad assets sitting in the back walls. those bad assets make them very risk averse. they're sitting on their cash and not investing a lot. with the challenge for policy is, is to try to find out a way to reconnect people to the labour force. it is kind of like major tom floating into our space. we have to send a lifeline now. they have the cash and could launch us into a strong growth. , -- into a strong time of growth, but they are sitting on a dashon aide. host: what could washington do? guest: i think that without making near-term cuts to government spending, which could throw us into another recession, we need to make our long run situation sustainable so that people have reason to be optimistic about the future. i think there's a lot of uncertainty about how it is going to work among the baby boomers retiring. i think if we could have a fiscal consolidation that shows everybody that the u.s. is on a sustainable path, that optimism could reignite. host: bob greenstein? guest: it is typical. kevin and i do agree on the long-term sustainable activities. we need to act on it. but that is that -- if that is all we do, it will not happen very immediately. if we start cutting government programs, medicare, medicaid, and others deeply right now while the economy is still weak, we will lose more jobs. the thing we need to do, i know i do not think it is politically feasible, we need a package where we do some jobs creation element on a temporary basis. i would provide some assistance says state and local government do not keep firing teachers and police. and probably we should extend through another year a reduction in the payroll tax, an additional bit of payroll benefits. but i would couple that with a long-term fiscal package that does not begin right away, but in a couple of years from now than you put some additional demand in the economy now. businesses need more customers and they are not gone up -- not going to hire more people. but i think you need both critics host: -- i think you need both. host: you just said you did not think it was politically feasible. how you balance that with what the white house wants? how do you move forward? guest: it is very difficult. we have a number of members of congress playing with fire by talking about not raising the debt limit, which would be catastrophic for the economy. we do have negotiations going on with the deficit. both parties are participating. like everybody else, i do not know how optimistic to be. hopefully they will come up with something. they will start meeting three times next week. i would like to see some broad discussion to talk to our immediate temporary measures to help with job creation. although, i expect republicans will not be too keen on that. host: we are talking about -- talking with bob greenstein and kevin hassett. you can join the conversation. the numbers are on the screen. let's go to bonnie, a democrat calling from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. we are still the wealthiest nation in the world, as far as my information goes, and i think the real issue here is the redistribution of wealth. without a manufacturing base we have no jobs. the essential thing is to bring manufacturing back to this country. it worked very well in my lifetime. izod and start to go where -- go away during reagan's time as president. the other thing is, the companies seem to be doing quite well. the profits are quite high. but they are investing in machinery rather than employees. and we are giving them tax incentives to do that. the machinery is not manufactured here. it is manufactured abroad i think we really do need to have a policy. again, i think the obstacle is what is going on in the house of representatives. that is where the budget starts and that is where no business is being done i would like to hear your thoughts on those issues. the host: let's start with kevin hassett. guest: firms are making money again. i think that the problem is that they content have real strong incentive right now to locate new activity in the united states. one of the reasons why is we have a poorly-designed tax code which is really like -- unlike any other tax code on earth where we are about to have the highest tax rate but we can locate offshore, so it gives firms a strong incentive to locate the factory in a place like ireland, which has a really low tax rate then transfer the money. there's been studies in the academic literature that find the responsiveness or scheme to locate is almost unbounded. that they are really, really responsive to these lower taxes, so what's going on in the u.s. is we've got an international tax code that just isn't up to the 2 isst century. it's not at all like those of our trading partners, and we're the highest-taxed place, so we are locating elsewhere, so when we think of things we can do to stimulate activity, we should look at the code and revise it so people have a strong incentive to locate activity here. it's the same kind of things, when b.m.w. announces they are going to build a plant, the u.s. makes up tax incentives toe lure them to their country. every other country is playing that game except the u.s. host: bob? guest: i agree with kevin that we need tax code reform but i don't think we'd be able to do it quickly and i don't think it's a very big factor in why the economy isn't recovering quickly. corporations have something on the order of $2 trillion in cash right now. the key reason, not the only reason but they are not hiring more workers because there isn't enough demand for their products. if you're running a business, you're not really meeting your responsibility to your shareholders if you hire workers to produce goods or services that will not be purchased we have rel8 had a big increase in the inquality and distribution of income in the united states in the last several decades and in the recovery that proceeded the recession, the family in the middle of the income spectrum actually didn't gain ground. almost all the gains went to the top. this adds to the squeeze on middle income families not buying more just to get back to their comfort tax code. so we have an interesting situation. kevin alluded to this. we have for every additional dollar they make for corporations there's something, but if you look at the -- it's not high relative to other countries, so we have a tax code with all sorts of corporate loop holes and tax breaks and a really high marginal rate. the only good thing is you could reform it without losing money. you could close a lot of these unproductive corporate tax rates and use the savings to lower the rate and then have a more competitive corporate tax code. >> bonnie hit on a story in "the new york times." companies spending on equipment not workers. it's reported companies looking for good deals aren't seeing one in new workers. workers are getting more expensive while equipment is getting cheaper. and the economy is encouraging companies to spend on machines rather than people. one says i want to have as few people touching our products as possible. everything should be as automated as it can be. we just can't aforward to compete with countries like china on labor costs, especially when workers are getting more expensive. two years into the recession, hireing is still painfully slow. 7 million fewer jobs. so bob greenstein what do you do about this idea of labor costs? guest: this is a very difficult issue. one thing maybe we should look at not on a permanent but temporary basis right now is the idea of tax incentives for a business that -- higher over some base level. there's some issues in designing to it figure out what the base level is. congress affected something years ago, but it was so tiny, it didn't do much good. i think it's worthy of consideration as something to look at. host: kevin hassett, in this story we hear about an combleer -- an employer about how hard it is to find new employees, weeding through all the applicants. guest: well, there are really long lines for jobs now. and there are a couple things i want to clarify. the first thing is i don't think there's as much substitutions for machines for people going on. if you look at investment in equipment that's going on in this cycle, something, as bob knows, i've been writing about for years. but this is disappointing. we're not seeing the normal liftoff of capital spending. so capital spending might be doing better than employment, which is just terrible, but it's not like i robot where we're buying robots to replace people. the thing i noticed about the labor sector that bob is an expert on is there's such a mismatch. you mention michigan. one of the things over time that would happen is people would go from places like michigan that have really high unemployment and move to other parts of the country where the unemployment rates are lower, and that would help us move towards having a higher rate of employment. but because of the housing crisis, it's really hard for people to move. perhaps the hardest it's ever been. so in my eyeballing of the data, it seems like there's a lot less mobility than we need to start get people moving around to where the jobs are. so there will be a lot of jobs but not a lot of applicants and then a place of large unemployment but they are stuck because they can't take that massive loss on their homes. >> we have a financial crisis. guest: we have a housing market problem. kevin's comments pointed me in this direction. i don't think we're in a situation where, if the economy really came back robustly, unemployment would stay at 8% or 9%. we really need the whole economy to move forward. if it does, it will ultimately bring the jobs back. but if it only continues to go as the rate it is and corporations content invest with all that cash they are sitting on. then unemployment will come down, but at a very slow rate. guest: can i add something? host: sure. guest: and i think we're kind of at a transition point in the materials of the policy debate in that basically if you have a big stimulus like president obama supported. essentially, you borrow some money and then lift spending today. when you lift spending today, you do make g.d.p. go higher today. there's a debate about how much, but it's just arith ma tick. but then maybe a year later, the government doesn't do that spending again. when the spending goes away, then g.d.p. goes back down and then you have, like, the hangover. we're starting to experience some of that. we got a boost from spending, but then the spending is going away. then tough third factor. the third factor is you have to pay for the spending. so you stop a panic, avert a crisis and spend then at some point we have to pay for it. so let's say we raise taxes, we get a negative transthat. so in the end when -- after you've done it, it's not clear that you're in a better spot. you've got this thing you've got to pay for and a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen next. so i think we're at that stage. we can't just do another one-year thing. i think what we need to do is give people a sense that we can put the country back on to a long-term trajectory. >> senior fellow at the american combps institute. he was a senior economic advisor to the mccain campaign and serveded as an economic advisor to george w. bush during the 2004 presidential campaign. our other guest, bob greenstein, is the founder and president of the center on budget and policy priorities. he also has spent time in the obama transition team where he headed a federal budget policy component of that asset and project and a pointed by president clinton in 1994 and also served under president carter in the food and nutrition services program at the department of agriculture as the administrator on that. let's go to bud who is a republican calling from bloomington, illinois. joining the conversation. hi, bud. caller: hello. seems we have both parties in denial about the cause of job loss which is lopsided trading. an op-ed calls for even more free -- so-called free trade agreements to be approved and their solution to the job losses is training programs as if training somehow magically leads to job creation. the problem isn't trade. it's the basis of trade. we have trade partners to block our exports, and who manufacture under completely different rules than we do. >> bob greenstein, what do you think? guest: well, i'm going to keep the trade part to kevin who is much more of an expert on that than i, but let me talk about the job training part. the core is right. the job training in and of itself doesn't create jobs. however, where job training programs work well. some work well, some content. but they do two important things. they increase the skills of workers so they can be more productive workers, which is good for the workers in the economy. but they can also help in areas where there's a mismatch between the skills of the workers in the area and the skills that the businesses in the area need if they are to fill their jobs. so good training programs are very important for the long-term. but just as one component of a larger set of things to do. but -- host: before we move on to kevin, what is your perspective on the obama administration's trade policies? the republicans have been critical of trade agreements that haven't been implemented with some countries that have been on the back burner for a while. >> i have to say trade is not an area i know very well. i wouldn't be able to give you a very informed opinion. i think the primary focus is to have the kind of trading regime where each country does what it can do best and most productively, and the whole international economy develops. but you get unfair trade practices and you have environmental concerns and you have to balance all these things, and of course there's all sorts of competing political pressures on the corporate and labor side that push one way or another on trade agreements. under any administration it's dot get a trade depeement through congress. host: from the hill, obama's -- content match the rhetoric and mitch of kyi -- of kentucky says relating to the trade issue, the president said he finalized a trade agreement with china yet five months later he sent his aids out to say he won't sign them into law unless congress approved much more in spending. kevin? guest: first of all, bob's right. the trade is the difficult one to list. pretty much the only president in my adult lifetime that's been really successful on trade was bill clinton who actually led with newt gingrich, the two of them agreed to cease-fire and do some positive stuff. but it's very odd and you end up with perverse things like the colombia free trade deal. that one is particularly heinous that it's not passing, because the u.s. lifted so the colombiaans could have free trade to crack down on the drug trade but that didn't happen. but getting anything through congress is almost impossible right now. because democrats have the support of organized labor plitly. so i think free trade is crazy, but free trade makes us better off. our firms are able to buy inputs from other countries they are able to produce and people are able to provide products at wal-marts that are cheaper, because you can buy them from a cheaper place. so you should recognize that you caught damage like some plant in the u.s. is going to close if a plant somewhere else is cheaper. but we can't just leave those people to hang. caller: the simplest and easiest and least expensive solution would be an immigration cutoff when we have over 1 million immigrants coming in every year. the bureau labor of statistics said out of the 1.2 million jobs created in 2010, 3/4 went to foreign-born workers. host: what do you think, bob greenstein? would that do anything in your book? >> this would not g a good idea. guest: when you look at why, private market forecasters, the office of management and management. congressional budget office. why do all of them project slower economic growth regardless of what policies we follow in future decades? the reason is economic growth -- i'll simplify it a little bit. but to a degree, it's some of the greater growth in productivity and labor growth. we have an aging population. when you look at the figures, the growth in the labor force is going to slow to a crawl as the population age it's. -- ages. that's going to hurt the whole economic thing. there are legitimate debates as to exactly which kinds of people should get preference and how you should determine who gets into the country. but cutting off immigration, while it might create a few more jobs in the short-term. in the long-term, it will create lower job opportunity. host: kevin hassett? guest: i agree with bob on this. with the exception of mexican immigrants who are thattistically different from im -- immigrants from around the world. people join our society quickly and the second generation has about the median income and wage. just two generations in. so one of the strengths of america is we can take people from all over the world of all different colors and languages and assimilate them and give them a place where they can succeed. that, going forward, if there's hope for america, i still believe we're the best country on earth at that and that's one of our strong advantages, and we need to leverage it better. so i think a revised immigration policy has to have lots more legal immigration and do a much better job at slowing down illegal immigration. host: let's get to a comment from twitter. monty wants to know:what manufacturing can we bring back or initiate to absorb the army of unemployed? guest: i think that one of the duties of a free market economy is one of the guys like me or bob doesn't know the answer. we know if we make a climate attractive to manufacturing, it will lure manufacturing here. exactly which manufacturing, if you try to pick, you'll pick wrong and waste taxpayer's money, but there's a background story, too. i think the importance of manufacturing in the u.s. economy has been declining pretty steadily for a really, really long time, in fact, the trend looks a lot like the trend foring aicalture years ago. with information technologies, we're becoming more and more of a kind of service economy. and that's not necessarily a bad thing. so there's perhaps a tone in monty's question that if we make a service job, that's terrible and manufacturing jobs are real stuff. that i'd like to object to. so i think we should make whatever jobs the world needs from america now. not just manufacturing jobs. guest: i would agree we have been good at being at the forefront of new economic areas that take off. information technologies. i think we have to be concerned about where we're going to be in the future on that. we really need to stay in the forefront of the information technology. the whole area of clean technology. no question this is going to be the clean growth area. it has to be. you're talking about the things that are unsustainable and will therefore have to change. sooner or later we'll have have to make changes in our climate. if we content invest in enough up front, and i do think there are things that the government has to help siege some of the basic development in key areas where sometimes in basic r & d corporations content necessarily recover all the costs, subsequently, so ye you need some additional work there. but we need to be in the forefront of the clean air technology. >> host: it was posted recently that it's not the size that matters but the age. he talks about a professor at the university of maryland, john, hope i'm pronouncing his name correctly. who looks at this idea of how jobs are created he starts out by noting in an economy with about 110 million private sector jobs, firms destroy 17 million a year. the creation and destruction process. this churning goes on in all industries in all sizes of firms and even within the same firm and what drives it is the constant shifting of work from the least productive to the most product i have. so there is this cycle that takes place, so what do you think, kevin hassett, should be done to create the best environment so that these new firms can take off and have that cycle? and can be more productive? guest: right. well, i think that new firms are part of the story in the creation and destruction conversation. but for me, i have been focusing over the last couple of years on the destruction side. and have the policy to discuss with bob that i agree -- but i think you're right. the growth flows under the back net tends to be larger. so the latest creation and destruction of jobs would be in the millions per month. so i think there's are hole in our policy that we're not doing enough to slow job destruction. and jean baker and bob and i have been working for a couple of years on a project where we basically allow firms to sort of spread the unemployment insurance out amongst workers who have their hours cut in a proposal we call work sharing. so the idea would be that if the firm lays you off, you get unemployment insurance, but if they reduce your hours to 20%, you get nothing. so why not if five people get a reduction of 20%, they can get that from their unemployment insurance. given these growth spurts are so large, if we could float job destruction by 100,000 or 200,000, instead of 155,000 created, it would chart as 255,000 jobs created. host: bob? guest: i think the job sharing idea, all these are much creative. kevin alluded to something in the end that i think is important. we sort of say the words small business. it's not even clear what the term means. you know? many of the definitions of small business, you've got launches, medical practices, hedge funds and wall street. not the corner store or the guy starting the small factory. it's a very emohr force term. it also indicates that the idea of vismly all job creation is in small business greatly overstates that. i'm not denigrating small business at all. but both parties on the hill run around distorting the economy to whatever the particular definition is in the bill of small business. to where as other sorts of policies, whether they are in tax reform or better education in training. whether they are in the kind of job sharing that kevin mentioned, there are a lot of other ideas that really need more attention rather than having members of both parties compete with each other to see who can give biggest new tax break to some group labeled small business. guest: and there's also this terrible self-fulfilling prophesy going on. but our large businesses are taxed just about more than everybody on earth. and so could be that the policies are so out of whack and to use it to justify a bigger subsidy for small business and eliminate that for big guys is not good. guest: and corporations are aggressive in using lots of tax loop holes. it's legal behavior. we ought to close the loop holes. but it is legal behavior. it is well known the single largest area of tax non-compliance, illegalal activity is in the small business sector where lots of income isn't reported at all. so whenever it is tried reduce non-compliance in the private sector, they go crazy and then talk about better taxes. new firms, old firms, as long as they are productive and effect i have, that's what you want. >> let's look at the numbers of national unemployment. back in december of last year, the rate was at 9.4%. that eased up a little in january to 9%. since then it went in february up toward 9% and hit the number in may. it was 9 -- jimmy from chicago, good morning. caller: good morning. i've got to tell you kevin and robert. y'all are terrific. i wish y'all had you're own talk show. i love the candor door and the way you're communicating the complex answers. it's breath taking to hear you two scolers articulate these issues in a simple way and with so much respect. this is how the discussions should go forward. you mentioned two years ago we were losing 800,000 jobs. that's empirical data. we've stopped some of that. the whole idea of cutting, cutting, cutting, is counterproductive. as you all suggested, we would end up putting more people trying to get government help to survive. it appears that we're coming to a point where we're going to have to accept a certain level of employment. typically unemployment was at 4%. i think because of all the competition that's going on globally, it's going to be difficult for us to maintain certain jobs in america. so the unemployment or whole idea of full employment may have to be changed. we're going to need more government assistance for those which appears won't change. but in terms of counter socialism is where dis-- the rhetoric and heat should stop. we're talking about competing with people who pay 20% of what we pay. there's going to have to be government help to help those who cannot maintain employment. host: well, let's get a response from kevin hassett. talking about the idea of using a socialist label. what do you think? guest: thank you for those kind words. i hope my teenage son, who has a different opinion about how i speak is watching right now. [laughter] guest: i agree there are words out there that get abused. socialism is one of them. the expansion of government that's occurred under president obama is something i wouldn't have supported or didn't support. and i opposed it. i think he sort of set us up now that -- to have a big problem that if he fixes it, i will agree with his ideas retrospective. and i know he's not a socialist. i think that poisons the con very -- to do so in a gradual way so that we content have a gradual immediate big recession due government spending. bob maybe doesn't agree with that, but i don't think that makes him a socialist. or i don't know, maybe he used to be. [laughter] guest: i think the problem in washington is people, over time, i kind of have been operating in this game for more than a decade. i think that sometimes people start to get really angry at the other guys, and to use them as evil. and then the rhetoric gets really heated. but for me, i always remember the words of frank wade was the director of the church here in washington where my family attends and once gave this sermon that said you should never ascribe to something in malice that could be easily ascribing to stupidty. i think the people who succeed in the long run in washington are the people that understand people can sometimes be mistaken but that they are not bad. i wish people would remember that when thinking about words like socialism. guest: plus americans strongly favor medicare and other things but didn't mean they are socialists. i'm actually going to disagree with some of the things that kevin said. i don't think it's acktroot say that president obama has greatly expanded government. government -- we're spending a lot of money on unemployment insurance. that will go away when the economy recovers. the one area where there is an expansion of particular note is in the health care area. but it ought to be noted if we're talking about terms like socialism, the obama health care goal that is now the health reform law, is actually very similar to the kinds of proposals that moderate republicans advanced years ago. similar to the bill the late john chafey, the republican senator at the time from road island advanced. and republican richard nixon proposed when he proposed mandated health coverage for the government workers. i also have to disagree with kevin on the idea that we really can get government 18% or 19% of the g.d.p. it was 22% on average under ronald reagan when yet no baby boomers had retired. we do have an aging population. the number of americans who are elderly will go up from 13% to 20% of the population. health care costs in the private and public sector are going up. we didn't used to spend money on homeland security. since 911, we do. you can't get spending down. no one i know of -- i don't think you'll find people in either party, including democrats, who are talking about having a government the size of almost any western european country. but i'm going to end by agreeing with the caller that particularly now in the economy is weak. it would be very counterproduct toif do the kind of budget cuts many mornse want to put into effect starting on october 1, that would run the risk of slowing growth more and maybe tipping us back into another recession. host: republican caller in richard, virginia, roy, good morning. caller: good morning. good discussion. the problem as i see it is people like mr. greenstein who want the government to do everything for everybody. he wants to force us to drive electric cars and high-speed trains and thinks the government should just expanned and expand. but you cannot have liberty without life and you can't pursue life without liberty. the average person who wants to be responsible and invest his money and pay his way through life, the average business is scared of the government. this government that wants to control everything we do, and it's a jimmy carter chicago mentality and they are telling the children in a school you can't even bring your lunch to school. host: going away to speaking about bob greenstein, he mispronounced your name a little bit. >> he was talking about some guy bernstein who is not on the set. because what he attributed to have my views actually actually aren't. in every area where the market is the better place to do it, i think we need public schools. i don't think -- you have to figure out what is the appropriate role for the public sector and private sector? the caller also indicated something else that i think is an issue in terms of many policymakers, people understandably have difficulty distinguishing short-term, especially during recessions. in the short term when the economy goes down and consumers aren't buying, you need the government to do more to help a recession from turning into a depression. you need a lot of that expansion to be temporary and go away when the economy recovers and in a long-term, we have fiscal payout and we need to raise more revenue primarily by closing unproductive tax breaks and subsidies that are in the tax code. whether you are closing unsubsidied things to taxpayers or you are retraining a government program, i think that will be necessary in areas. and you have to ask what are the things the government does best? what are the things the market does best? and what are the things boat of them do well together? host: we are joined this morning by bob greenstein and kevin hassett from the american enterprise institute where he directs the policies program. caller: good morning. i'm curious. i'm a real independent. libertarian. and i spent some time in washington, d.c. in the 1960's. so i know where a lot of our economic problems have come from. i was in vietnam. spent my 20th birthday there. a couple short comments then a very serious question. one, i remember the age quite well. i remember reagan dumping revenue into the government. but i also remember the democrats tripling spending. and i also remember that was a time during the 1980's up until about 1997 when they were red lined. of course we were a bunch of losers. that's understandible. we're baby killers to our peers. but in this country we are $15 trillion in debt. we have something in the neighborhood of $70 trillion in unfunded mandates coming up. we have regulatory nazism and health care is running amuck in this country. we have an illegal and unconstitutional drug war that's making the leaders not compete in the world. so my question to all you government thugs and lap dogs and people in the media, what are you going to do about it? host: well, we're talking about job creation. do you have a specific -- caller: i'm sorry? host: we're talking about job creation this morning. caller: so what are we going to do? because if we content have jobs, this country is going down. host: let's go to kevin hassett to get a response. guest: well, thanks, gary, for your service. i know the marines, a lot of serious action in the vietnam war, and we're very grateful for that. i think the debt and the zeft that you mentioned offer both an opportunity and a challenge. i think the opportunity is with things so out of whack, it's natural for people to be wary about the future of 4erk -- future of america. investors and such. because you content know exactly how it's going to work out and you content know how badly it's going to be. there's a recent warning about u.s. debt possibly being downgraded. it can lead to a spimplete because then your debt goes up and then u downgraded again. then the interest goes up. but we could be looking at a crisis and the here's the opportunity. our hope the they content want to fix it in the next crisis, but they want to fix it now. i agree with the tone that if we content get ahead of the curve with this, something really bad is going to happen in the median turn, and when that does, all bets are off on how low it could go. and i think right now since people are anxious about that potential, we're naturally growing slower than we could, if we can just be responsible adults. host: thank you. bob? guest: actually revenues didn't double in the 190's. spending didn't triple. and the big spending during reagan was on defense. reagan wanted a huge increase in the defense budget, which he got. as we've been saying throughout our show, here, a long-term fiscal fix is not sustainable. that doesn't mean in months we're going to face a greece-type problem. we're really in much better shape than that. no one really knows if we didn't do anything long-term about the fiscal picture, there's at some point a risk where there would be problems in the markets. would it be in four years? 15 years? no one really knows. and kevin and i agree that sooner is better than later to start taking action. although as i said, i wouldn't immediately cut programs or increase taxes right now while the economy is staffed. but you can enact the changes and schedule them to take effect. there is a bigger issue here, and that is we obviously -- we're a de mock can i, -- a democracy. but there's differences in power. some people have access. have lobbyists. made big campaign contradicts and the like. i think one of the big challenges is not only to 1/2 i gate our way to -- but to do it in a way that's fair that doesn't overly benefit people at the top of the income scale and aim the reduction at the people in the middle and the bottom. we really need equity and how we go about it, good economics add equitable choices. and it's going to take a number of years. because there's big issues here. we're going to have to be at this for a number of years. host: our democratic caller in georgia. hi, margy. caller: i'm perplexed by the fact that companies in other countries that make billions and billions less than ours seem to get by just fine with higher taxes than we do. and they pay their workers more. and these countries have a gross national product a quarter of ours, yet all their people are getting medical treatment. they don't have to sell their homes and live out in the street. but i'm not some poor down in the dumps person, but these people and him on tv and i've watched a lot of conferences. one lady was saying if they can get the same health care as me how does that make me feel? well, it ought to make her feel like crap, because she is. when you're sitting there making yourself feel lower because somebody gets the same health care, because all of america pays for y'all's health care and dental care and judges that strike down all these rules, and it's not right. and we're lied to every day by people who come on. because you have your meetings, and people are dying. do y'all know that people are dying? host: sounds like margy's mostly concerned about politicians and the like. but kevin hassett, you know, let's talk about what some of her concerns are. guest: well, whenever we have an event, we always bring people with different views, and the conversation we have been having is 'em ble matic to a conference so, there might be someone there that she disagrees with, but unless there's something going on there she disagrees with -- i think the yithes being a wealthy nation is true. the fact that we have or are about to have the highest tax on earth is harming not the rich guys but the poorer, blue collar people who need a job. so cutting the corporate rate wouldn't netsly reduce taxes for u.s. firms, because they are already paying low taxes abroad. but it would bring some business home. host: kevin hassett, what needs to happen in the next six months of time in order to create jobs? guest: fiscal consolidation. the big thing is we need to get our house in order. host: you think it can happen in six months? guest: it has to, or we'll have a really slow recovery. guest: i'd like to see a bipartisan agreement. i think we're going to need to continue the support we're now providing and unemployment insurance perhaps in a payroll tax deduction. these are both temporary. and i have to make sure we first do no harm, the hip cratic oath. be not further cutting education and make state and local governments lay off more teachers and police and things like that. if anything, we should be finding ways to ease the temporary pain state and local governments and businesses are experiencing now. because we need to have more hiring now. host: bob greenstein, the center on budget and policy priorities. also kevin hassett, thank you for being here from the american enterprise institute. thank you. coming up we'll talk about immigration policy but first women in the workplace with our guest, portia wu. we'll be right back. >> c-span's congressional directory. a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, new and returning house members and twitter addresses and district maps and committee assignments. and information on the white house, supreme court justices. order them online at c-span.org/shop. >> this weekend on book the on c-span 2. gretchen morganson and another talk about the role of fannie mae and freddie mac in the 2008 financial collapse. afterwards henry kissinger on whether it's possible to form a true partnership with china, he is interviewed by a fox contributor. look for the complete book tv schedule at book tv.org. and go to the schedule in your inbox. sign up for book tv alert. >> on this nomination, the ayes are 72 and nays are 16. >> deputy council was selected. donald verrilli is one of the persons you can search online. it's washington your way. the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public affairs, american policy books. all available on television, radio, online and social media networking sites. find our programs anytime. and we take it on the road. it's washington your way, the c-span networks. now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable. provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. >> portia wu is vice president of the national partnership for women and family. thank you for being here. your organization has said that there is basically a crisis, a care giving tsunami facing america. what does that mean and what does that mean for women in the workplace? guest: the numbers are startling. many people do not realize every day for the next 18 years there will be 8,000 americans turning 65. that's every single day. there are 40,000 or 50,000 americans caring for elderly often caring for children as well. and we have women -- 60% of women working full-time. 2/3 of children under 18 are in a household where all parents work. so we have a situation where parents need to work and they have a lot of people to take care of so unfortunately our workplace standards and health care and care giving standards have not changed. we need to make serious changes in order to meet this coming crisis. >> so we're talking about being able to take time off, sick leave to take care of your children. what would your group like to see become standard? >> i think we need paid sick days and family leave. many have heard of the family medical leave act. that's an important law passed 20 years ago. but it only provides unpaid leave and covers only about half of american workers. so we have situations, and this comes up in the lives of working families every day. you get a call from the school nurse. your son is running a fever. you turn to your boss and say i have to go pick him up and unfortunately 40 million americans do not have a single paid sick day at work so they not only lose pay but they also risk losing their jobs. and we all understand in this economy, that's a very tough choice for a parent or spouse or caregiver to have to make. >> let's talk about the wage gap between men and women. there's a graphic here that shows where the numbers stand. for every working woman in the u.s., they are paid over $10,000 less than their male counterparts and earn 70 cents to every dollar paid to a full-time working man. working women won't come close to equal pay until 2068. these numbers come to us from the national partnership. translate those for us. what do those mean to you? >> well, this is the anniversary of the equal pay act. what those numbers mean is really that american families are facing a tough time. the wage gap is not just something that affects women but it affects overall family security. working moms are 40% of the major bread winners in their homes today. what that wage gap means for women and women of color means months of rent or mortgage that can't be paid. it means groceries, gas in your car. it's very, very tough. and we see that wage gap across the board and across all industries, women are still lacking behind. >> we're talking to portia wu. you can join the conversation by calling these numbers. democrats call (202) 624-1111. republicans can call (202) 624-1115. and independent callers can call independent independent. -- (202) 624-0760. there was a recent piece in "the wall street journal" that looks at how this plays out. men's pay and women's pay. one says women are making choices themselves that lead to this differential end pay, because they are choosing to get more flexible jobs and it's more about their decisioner than a problem in the workplace and says it can actually be difficult for businesses to try to close that gap. >> i think there's a couple of responses to her. obviously there are big differences in pay between men and women. but our workplaces have not changed in decades, so the idea that women are choosing other jobs because they are more flexible may mean we need to look at why we can't keep women in business. the "wall street journal" did a huge insert on how the talent pipeline for business leaders is blocked because our workplaces haven't changed. they are not flexible. many lower-wage workers have no flexibility and face losing their job if they ask to leave and pick up a child from child care. and she needs to understand that even though that is the case, we still see discrimination in the workplace. discrimination charges are up and pregnancy discrimination continues to be on the rise for nearly 20 years, so even though choice is one piece, we see occupational segregation, discrimination and lack of change in workplace policies. host: joe asks on twitter, are women on average as productive workers as men? guest: i can't say i've seen any specific statistics on that. but certainly women have been forging ahead in all fields and women are outearning men in terms of college degrees and all higher degrees in education right now. so it's not that women are not seeking to get the skills but the pay does not reflect the higher skills. host: gwen joins us from memphis, tennessee. democratic caller. welcome. caller: hi. i'm calling, because i'm wondering, we have these temp agencies we have to go through in order to get employed. now the temp agencies here in memphis are keeping as a temp, like the company i work for -- only way i can get hired is i have to work there five years through a temp service. i'm wondering why isn't the government doing something to help us. why should we have toe stay with the temp agency for that long. if we're unemployible, get us out of that job. host: may i ask you, as a temp, do you get benefits from your employer? caller: no. and you're not even guaranteed 40 hours. guest: gwen, i think you raise a very important point. we have some labor protections that can be strengthened, but are you an employee of that company? if you are not, you have a big problem in terms of benefits or are you covered by family medical leave and how about protection from discrimination? all the laws that require you to be an employee. i know the department of labor under this administration is looking at guidance to clarify for workers that they know their status and customers get information on how they are being treated. there has been things calling permatemp problems, that is those working side-by-side with a permanent worker and they are not given equal treatment. you're right. policy should address these things. host: on our independent line, margarete, good morning. caller: good morning. i was listening earlier, and i was paying attention to the "wall street journal" article. about women and the income gap. a lot of it is that women are still being pushed into traditional roles. and some of it is that we need to learn and be taught how the negotiate. and i just think that they are going to offer us the same pay. men are still functioning from just working until -- women are still functioning from just working until she gets married. and coming from a single home that mothers are the primary breadwinners in a lot of homes. guest: that's an ex lent point. when we look at the polling, people who support the government doing something about making sure that women get equal pay in the workplace. it's not just women. it's men. men understand women's wages are a key part of their budget. you're absolutely right. the paycheck fairness act, which congress is considering and got some votes in the last congress not only includes the strength of maalot and closing loopholes, but also includes -- strengthening the law and closing loopholes the law also includes some sunshine provisions, which i think are really important. right now, a lot of workers can be retaliated against for talking about paid. it is hard to know if you are being paid fairly if you do not know what your core workers are making. -- coworkers are making. the national organization of business is pushing back on this sick leave mandate. on its website it says it's fighting this. it says that it would mandate new benefits, but not new responsibility. it directly interferes with an employer's ability to run the affairs of their businesses. what do you say? guest: this past week, connecticut became poised to be this -- the first state in the nation to pass the paid sick days bill. that means that workers can earn 5 to 729 days per year to take care of themselves or eight -- from 5 to 7 to 9 days a year to take care of themselves or a family member. other states have passed this law and have not seen the abuse. people are using just three or four days a year. also, for us to remember on paid sick days, if we are trying to control costs and not just going to the emergency room, we need to let them leave work to do that. and finally, with things like h1n1 or other flu pandemic, 80% of the workers that touch us and touch our food do not have paid vacation. that affects us. -- do not have paid days off. that affects us. host: let's go to a caller from florida. caller: i want to thank you for working for equality in the workspace. i want to tell you a bit about myself before i ask a question. miami's hinkle mother with a the military background -- i'm a single mother with a military background. i'm a student now. do you think we, as a society, should be more involved with each other instead of requiring the government or the workplace to give us paid sick days? shouldn't we be asking for help from our family, our friends, instead of requiring someone to do the fair or proper thing? i am just thinking about that we're born to put more a burden on businesses that we are supposed to -- going to put more of a burden on businesses that we are supposed to. the attitude is that i should be happy to have a job instead of asking people to give me more and more. guest: first of all, in all of these places where we have engaged in policy fights, americans overwhelming want basic things. they're saying at the basic level, people should not be discriminated against in the workplace, workers should know what they're making. companies are doing more, but asking for five or seven days of paid leave where your family member or you have a serious illness is not too much to ask. anders zandt the desire for -- i understand the desire for us to take care of each other, but a lot of us will be stuck in the sandwich generation. women my age will be caring for elderly parents as well as kids. if we face losing our jobs in order to do that, because remember, americans, many of them, do not have the coverage to do these things. we think at the national partnership and from everything we have seen with the general public, there is a role for breyer. there's plenty more for individuals and businesses to do on their own. but there is a role for government. host: what do you think about this? guest: i would disagree with that, but i think this person races that important. , which is, the states are often -- raises an important point, which is that the states are often playing an important role. state workers can buy insurance through a state system to cover the birth of a new child. it is not a freebie, but they can buy insurance to pay for a new child, a sick child, a sick parent or themselves. it can be more efficient for employers who may not operate in many states. -- who may operate in many states. by putting these things in place, it will enable workers, and women workers in particular, to stay in the workforce. for employers to attract and retain valuable employees. and that is the overall goal. host: here's a comment on twitter. speaking of the healthy families act, it was reintroduced in congress just last month from the democrat from connecticut and another from iowa. it would allow employees to earn up to seven paid sick days per year. what are the prospects of this bill? guest: we hope that it will move forward in this congress. there's a lot going on with discussions around the budget and the deficit and it is a crowded agenda, but we would like to see it move forward. we are hoping to have some hearings, and perhaps, even a vote in this congress. we're working in tandem with the states and a lot of states are considering very similar legislation. connecticut is being -- is one that the governor is about to sign that bill. we have some of these that have garnered support at the state and local level. and we have some that have not gotten there. host: let's go to mike in california. caller: caniglia me? host: we can come and go right ahead -- can't you hear me? host: we can, go right ahead. caller: we're talking about women in the workplace and i would have thought the american family was founded by a man and a woman and what we have now is two men in a household and two women in gay and lesbian household. that affects the core unit. it will not have enough studies on those -- we do not have enough studies on those two aspects and what is going on with our jobs. guest: i will say this. your right tomak families in america are more diverse than they have never been -- you are right. families in america are more diverse than they have ever been. there are grandparents caring for grandchildren and their stepfamilies as well that is who is going to be caring for our family members as they age and for our nation's children. we cannot ignore them. host: next call on the democratic line. caller: i would like to address equal pay for equal work. i am a union oil instructor. i have noticed that the union trades all paid the same for men and women, equal work for equal pay. and i would also like to comment that some of the best welders i have ever met in my entire life were women. when they are not paid equally, the employer is really take a huge advantage of them. -- taking huge advantage of them. guest: i think that is an excellent point. we sometimes hear people say that while the wages for women are lower, it is because they going to lower skilled, jobs and then going to hire skilled, higher paying jobs. but if you look at the numbers from the bureau of labor statistics, even in the same occupations, there's always a wage gap. even in the medical field. in the construction trade, the wage gap is smaller than in a lot of other fields and i think that is in part because in the past there has been a high level of unionization. your right. where we do see union contracts involve there is often a smaller wage gap, partly because there is a transparent scale. these are their roles. if you have this much seniority or this much experience, this is where your pay. a lot of the individual discretionary decisions where there can be a lot of discrimination do not agree been -- creep in. that being said, there have been barriers to women getting into the trade and aid to the traditional fields. but construction trade jobs, particularly the highly skilled ones, those are valuable jobs that can support families and we're excited to see women have the opportunity to take those jobs. host: the heritage foundation weighs in on the paycheck act. moving against it. do you have concerns it would increase the rates of lawsuits and things like that? guest: the first thing i would say that we do have an equal pay law on the books and it is obvious that it is not adequately enforced. it will take us another 40 or 50 years to get to equal pay for women. we need to do something differently. the paetec act is designed to allow people to exercise their -- the paycheck act is designed to allow people to exercise their rights. it will bring the full law -- the law for equal pay for women into the light. there is a -- an important class-action case going on now before the supreme court. however that comes out to my highlights the importance of women being able to band together to enforce our rights. it is not possible for a greeter and wal-mart to hire her own lawyer. she does not make enough money to do that. and if a man cannot stand together, we will have a problem with -- if women cannot stand together, live a problem with justice. host: it did pass in the last congress and failed by just a couple of votes in the senate. guest: it did pass by bipartisan votes come seibel. dach. it is very important not just for democrats, but for republicans, men and women. we will push hard for another vote i think it is hard for people to say no. host: stellate in new jersey, good morning. -- stella in new jersey, good morning. caller: i do not think we will ever be able to resolve fairness issues in the workplace with regard to women or any other issues that our nation faces today until we begin to clearly prioritize what the goal of work is all about. the first priority of work, whether it is a profession or vocation, is that it provides a person with a sense of personal satisfaction, a sense of achievement, a sense of self- respect and dignity. if that is at the top of our priority list, we as a nation will no longer be subjected to the kind of moral hazards and vulgarization of our culture that is so indicative now when we look at the behavior of those who are leading our public and private institutions. i cannot turn on the news anymore. i cannot respect our leaders day is abecause every gam constant vulgarization and a source of shame and disappointment. guest: i think you raise an important point about the need for dignity in work. that is why some basic labor standards and protections are very important for women and four men. earlier it was about job creation. they're increasingly low wage jobs. we cannot have economic growth if we have jobs being created that have lower and lower benefits, and have no paid sick days, that do not paid a decent wage to support a family. we talk about economic growth, but there's no one you can spend money in the economy besides workers. if they do not make enough to live on and have to worry about losing their jobs because somebody is sick, we will not have robust economic growth. we need to put dignity at the front of how we treat workers in this country. host: first lady michelle obama was on hand this week to celebrate the partnerships 40th anniversary. what did she bring to your discussion? guest: she is a wonderful speaker and she talked about many of the important things we are working on, paid sick days, paid leave. our campaign for better care and improving the lives of four all americans. but what is inspiring about her is that she really understands what it is like to be working woman and she understands the challenges that we face. she also understands what it means to motivate younger generation, whether it is better eating habits or standing up for themselves in school. she really energizes a crowd. it is wonderful to have someone in the white house that has lived a life that many people can identify with, and in so many ways has faced many of the same challenges that we all have. host: let's go to our next caller in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. how can we really have fairness in the workplace for women, or really, anybody, if they are starting to take our medical rights away? and the states are going after even birth control, and i think that's true be a woman's right to have died -- that should be a woman's right to have that. i do not think that we can never have equal pay, really, or equal justice. guest: you raise a very important. -- an important idea, which is, protecting women's healthcare rights and access to health care as well as reproductive care. they are related. if we do not have affordable health care and access to the services we need to might make sense that -- makes it difficult for us to have equal treatment not only in the workplace, but in our society at large. host: portia wu, thank you so much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: coming up next, we will talk about immigration with roy beck. we'll be right back. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, and american society panel reflects on ronald reagan and mikheil borgia. and john connally on the civil rights movement. and american photographer read, -- photographer, rick rhodes. >> connect with c-span on line with the latest scheduled updates and video on twitter. continuing conversations on facebook. political places in washington and beyond on four square. and highlights on our youtube channel. c-span and social media, connect today. >> you are watching c-span, bernier politics and public affairs. every morning, it is washington journal, our live call-in program about the news of the day. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house. and weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forms. also, supreme court arguments. on the weekends, signature programs. on saturdays, the communicators and sundays, q&a and prime minister's questions from the house of commons. you can watch any on line and it is all searchable an hour video library. -- on our video library. >> washington journal continues. host: roy beck, executive director of numbersusa, good morning. just this morning from reuters -- it could cause several states to crack down on immigration. what do you think about this? guest: the states are filled with illegal workers. that means they have thousands, tens of thousands of their own workers that are left unemployed. as far as school, it is for recorded -- reporting purposes only. they are trying to record the cost of illegal immigration to the school system. they are not going to keep children of illegal aliens from attending schools. they are tracking them for cross purposes. host: the alabama law would require police to detain someone if they cannot produce proper documentation when stopped for any reason. guest: right. and again, this is not something where they are going out and looking for illegal aliens, but in the normal process of their duties, when they ask for identification -- all of us have that where we are stopped for speeding or anything. when you're confronted with a -- you areicer, your last wit asked for identification. this requires the police into check further. host: what do you think about legal challenges, as resign arizona. -- as we saw in arizona? guest: i'm sure there will be legal challenges. illegal immigration has been wide open for several decades now and now we are seeing several states crack down. people are working hard and will challenge the laws in court. as we have seen recently, the supreme court has handed down two big decisions, and one of them was okaying the arizona law requiring businesses to keep illegal immigrants out of the work force. and just this week, the supreme court sent back a circuit court of appeals ruling that had been against hazleton, pa., same kind of thing. of course, we will see a lot more, but i think the trend of the supreme court is good toward enforcement. host: should this be done on the state level or the federal level? guest: we have always advocated for a national mandatory e- verify system. but congress has resisted doing that for 15 years. it is great that the states are doing it. for the most part, and immigration is a federal issue. but it does make sense for states and localities to help the federal government. there's a 287 g program, which the federal government has where local governments can train and help immigration agents. we do not need 50 different state immigration enforcement systems. but it does make sense for the states to help the feds. host: howard joined does come i republican caller from richmond, virginia. good morning. caller: i have a question about -- i'm sorry, barack obama -- host: let's move on to margaret. caller: i am a democrat and the liberal and i have tried to bring it up for 20 years. it is not immigration. it is labor. i am a nurse. there flooding year from places like the philippines and and they stay and have babies and then we're screwed. i cannot reform health care with illegal labor. we cannot reform. this becomes a huge problem for safety, for a homeland security. we are falling apart. guest: the caller makes a very good point. i would say, is not just illegal labor. she is actually referring to a lot of legal labour as well. this is not about the immigrants, but it is about immigration policy. why is our government bringing in at 1 million new foreign workers a year legally, allowing 7 million illegal aliens to keep their jobs when we have 22 million americans who want a job full time and cannot find one. all of this is about immigration policy. but i do think the caller should not be cynical or give up hope. i think we will see legislation passed this year that will help. i think we will see other legislation that will start to set things up for next year, and perhaps the year after that. for 15 years, congress has refused to act upon the recommendations of the bipartisan jordan commission. we were founded to carry out the recommendations. and barbara jordan said we must dramatically reduce immigration in order to create fairness for the underclasses of this country. that is what we're starting to see the states are doing and that is what congress, i think, will do something about this year. host: let's look at the total number of illegal immigrants living in the u.s. as of january 2010. let's go to our next caller on the independent line, hermine, joining us from hallberg, california. joining us from holbrook, california. caller: good morning. your population charts a few years ago it motivated me to join numberusa. the legal immigrants on your charts grieving quite astounding. according to your charts we are. to add another 96 million by the year 2015 -- we are going to add another 96 million by the year 2015. -- 2050. my question deals with the numbers and the cost. illegal immigration has averaged about 1 million people per year. females having babies out another million. those statistics count for an increase of 3.3 million per year. given the costs, for example, if we admit the majority of the people through the immigration policy are low income, then the tfr, is three children. that is a lot of prenatal care, hospital boards, prenataearly cd care, preschool lunches, social services, foreign language assistance, the government forms, interpreters in the government office and courts, government costs accounting for .ce., and border control. how are we supposed to account for this? guest: he has laid out a lot of were the costs come from. overall, it does not make sense to be importing large population growth at a time when we as a country are not able to keep up with the infrastructure for our current population. the census bureau suggests that if we can -- continue at the current immigration system, we will go from 300 million today, about 310 million today, to over 400 million by the end of this century. there is no polls that suggest we ought to double the population of this country. 70% of immigrant households with children are on welfare, meaning they are very costly. we should not be importing poverty. we should not be importing, in a sense, and employment labor -- unemployed labor. the costs are tremendous. we are talking with every part of congress to talk about how to cut spending, cut programs for american citizens. why would we import more people that require those public services themselves? host: in washington yesterday, foreign skill levels are on the rise. guest: it is a little misleading in the sense of the are talking about high school dropouts. those that are high-school educated -- those that have a degree are obviously high-school educated. the latest that i just get out from the first quarter and shows that -- the latest data just came out from the first quarter and shows that not only have college-educated americans more than doubled in the last few years, but among the young college grads, the 23-29-year- old college grads, it is now 29%, one out of every eight who want a job and cannot find one. it is interesting that we have a bit higher proportion. on the other hand, do we really need these foreign college grads? i would say no, given the terrible college graduate statistics for our own college graduates. to another call. caller: don't you think there's another way to approach the legal -- illegal immigration problem in the u.s.? employers in other countries recruit people and bring them over here to work for under minimum wage. then others say that illegal immigrants come to america to work the jobs that americans do not want. i think americans will take those jobs if the employers -- americans will not take those jobs employers do not pay at least minimum wage. guest: we still hear politicians say that immigrants are doing jobs that americans will not do, which is just amazing. 22 million americans want a full-time job and cannot find one. i think they're often talking about agriculture. only about 75% of illegal immigrants work in agriculture. it is probably true that wages have to be quite a bit higher to attract a native labor. however, i have to remind everybody that the government has an unlimited foreign worker, a guest worker program. but for 95% of foreign workers that work in agriculture in this economy, there is not a job that has opened up by immigration that is not immediately filled by an american worker. not in this economy. you have college grads, soccer moms, all kinds of people that show up to do a dollar per hour, $7.50 for our dishwasher jobs. -- $7.50 per hour dishwasher jobs. the majority of the workers in all but stoop labor and fingernail being, the majority of the workers are american workers. -- fingernail painting, the majority of the workers are american workers. those are the only jobs currently occupied by illegal avery -- illegally aliens that are non-agriculture. our government is giving out 1 million permanent work permits this year in this economy. they did last year and the year before and they will do it next year until congress cuts the emigration numbers. employersaren't hiring illegal workers rather than undocumented workers? guest: well, of course, they are. by host: you say? -- host: but you say that's americans are one in jobs that they do not have. guest: win a job opens up, the most likely person to fill that job is a cousin or somebody that you know. once you get immigrants working at your workplace, their network tends to work even faster in terms of getting people to apply for jobs. it is true that foreign workers tend to be more compliant. they're not used to working at american working standards, so they will work up -- put up with the working standards that are not an american levels. not just illegal immigrants, but legal immigrants as well will tend to put up with working in missions that are inferior to what americans are used to. some would say that americans are pampered or whatever. we have a culture in this country and we have certain things that we expect as americans. the real question is, should we be driving jobs into non- american working standards, or should we continue to maintain some of the highest working conditions in the world? host: let's go to the phone. annie, a caller from rhode island. caller: i'm calling because i am terribly thiconcerned. we hear the advocacy groups talking about not dividing families, not harming families by enforcing our laws, but we never hear anyone address the fact the real harm done to american families by the refusal to enforce our immigration laws. those laws, i might add, were put in place to protect the most vulnerable americans from discrimination. but we never hear anyone advocating because for the most part we do not have a $1 million lobby behind as making our case. we do not see reports on the news about these tent cities. i volunteer and i know about these families that have been displaced by illegal labor, and corrupt employers. and we are subsidizing this with our tax dollars. guest: you said a mouthful. thank you for your concern for the american victims of our immigration system. i would point out, these are not immigrant -- victims of the immigrants. these are victims of progress. congress is the one that has set the policy and has decided to victimize the american families. having said that, i have some sympathy for the legally million families -- the illegal alien families who were perhaps in a siege which were there was a mass raid. one of their parents gets arrested, separated comedy team, families are not sure where they are. this is pretty scary -- gets arrested, separated, the change, families are not sure where they are. this is pretty scary. frank the, this is what congress is looking at right now, not mass deportations or mass roundups, but giving jobs to american workers. it accomplishes putting millions of americans back to work and it just says, if we get a mandatory verified bill passed this summer, there will be a bill introduced that will start moving very quickly. i believe that can go through the president's desk this year. if that happens, the jobs dry up at the workplace. no one is arrested in this process. it is just that the illegal alien workers no longer have the work. that is why they came. without the work, they start to go home. if they can put their affairs in order, they have their own timetable and they can put their family in order. it works for the victims get jobs. the families with illegal aliens can put their affairs in order and in an orderly way leave the country. we have seen over 1.5 million illegal aliens leave the country during this jobs depression. we know they respond to a bad job situation. that is primarily because of the economy. but if congress passes a mandatory e-verify this year, we will see millions more leave. host: let's look at a story from the "the new york times" this week. what do you think? guest: as i said at the beginning, we are on the cusp of a major shift in policy you have a few states that want to be sanctuary states. they want to be welcoming to illegal immigration. they want to work against the unemployed in their state. you have a classic battle going on. we do praise president obama for a number of things that he has done. he has resisted efforts to totally dismantle immigration enforcement. he has insisted his agencies -- they have insisted on moving forward on this. when someone is arrested and put into jail, you run them through a system to see if they are wanted in other states, are they deadbeat dads, do they owe child support -- that is what they do. homeland security also find out. if they have fingerprints, is this person wanted as an abscond that has already been deported? the catch a lot of violent criminals kamal lot of non-arlin criminals, and maybe it -- a lot of violent criminals, a lot of non-ryland criminals, and maybe others that have no record before. -- non-violent criminals, and maybe others that have no record before. it makes sense to be catching people that are breaking the laws. i know some people say, well, these are non-violent criminals. they're not breaking big loss. that is a debate people can have. host: let me read this article, if i may. guest: that is always the canard that people throw out there. they are not reporting people to the system to have reported crimes. they are reporting people in the system that have been jailed. and they are totally wrong about it not doing what it is intended to do. violent criminals in the system are being deported. i think what they mean is that it is doing more than what they think it is intended to do because they think it should only be deporting violent criminals, and not just people more burglarizing your home. -- who are burglarizing your home. that is a classic debate. the news media will be very interested in it because it's a battle within the democratic party. it is the democratic administration basically fighting democratic governors. by the way, there are states -- new york, massachusetts, illinois, california -- these are essentially sanctuary states. as others get tougher on illegal immigration many of them will go back home and others will flee to the states. we will see how states like do with bearingan the cost of illegal immigrants fleeing from other states. host: here is a chart showing the growth through 2010. guest: that would suggest why they just passed such a tough law, wouldn't it? host: and in alabama, 2.5% of its population is illegal immigrants. the highest state -- the highest population was in nevada with 2.7%. let's go to maryland. caller: i just want to bring up two points. when they talk about amnesty, they never bring up the fact that usually they will allow them to bring in immediate family, which also increases the population. the second thing is, they talk about the latino minority being the largest by something like 2020 or something. but if you look at the pie chart, 65% of that is classified immigrant, which to me means, that is the their amnesty where the borders are broken and they are flooding in. -- that is an amnesty for the borders are broken and they are flooding in. guest: is a huge question in any kind of amnesty discussion. and by the way, there is not really any kind of amnesty discussion going on right now. there will not be an amnesty bill in the next two years. but even if you're going to have a small amnesty, we should at least do it by way of chain migration. it is our top priority to do away with chain migration. families should not bring in extended families traditionally bring in -- extended families. they should only bring in small children and the immediate family. our feeling is, and certainly the jordan commission cozy feeling is that concerns about race and ethnicity and -- the jordan commissions feeling is that concerns race and ethnicity, we do not think that should be in policy. there are people on both sides of this debate that think it should be. we do not think so. that is a result that happens, but basically, we should have a color blind and national-origin blind system, we think. host: if we cut the population of the u.s. in half, one person tweeds, -- guest: first of all, there are 7 million illegal aliens holding construction and transportation jobs. this is not agriculture. we have 22 million americans who want a full-time job and cannot find one. most of them are less educated, that is, they do not have a college degree. their high school graduates or high school dropouts. they have the same education level as the legal limit -- illegal immigrants. because they might not all be in the exact right places it might take three or four years to sort out. that is why the e-this space verify system is great. we would like to -- the e- verify system is great. we would like to see a moratorium. it would cut out about 600,000 illegal immigrants per year. do we have 600,000 americans ready to take those jobs this next year? absolutely. 22 million are sitting there. if miraculously in this country we stop dolly illegal immigration and all illegals left today -- stopped all illegal immigration and all illegals left today, we have plenty of americans who want those jobs. we would have been amazing transmit -- transition with our society and our economy. we would go back to the and of a level that we have in the 1950's and 1960's. host: there is a comment on twitter about cutting in half the population of the u.s. views see any difference there? -- do you see any difference there? guest: is is a hypothetical. we would go from 310 million to 303 million. it is not half. there is no way to do that. there is a possibility that in about 50 years we might get to a point where we have a slowly declining size of population and could we handle that? yes, of course. europe is doing that. even if we put immigration 20, the census bureau says the u.s. would still be growing at the end of this -- even if we took immigration to zero, the census bureau says the u.s. would still be growing. why? fertility level. 100% of long-term population growth in this country is due to federal immigration policy. from scott,hear democratic caller in plantation, fla., welcome. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. really, it is a bigger question than just physically immigration policy in individual states. if we do not start treating the problem other than the symptoms we will have a terminal illness. in other words, corporations who believe that the world is their worst year and they can farm out as many as american jobs as they care to to other countries, and then you have other countries who, due to lack of jobs are coming over the border as immigrants, and rightfully so. when are we going to start looking at because factors in our disease? corporations are determining where immigrants coming to the country and where they are giving these jobs away, getting pennies on the dollar to u.s. citizens because they -- giving pennies on the dollar to u.s. citizens because they can do that. any regards to -- and in regards to your corporation, do you ever crunch any of those type of numbers? guest: it is a very good point. what drives this? why would we do this? in most any country in the world, the citizens of the country think they have a government that is by the people, of the people, for the people. you would think there would be an immigration policy that serves the interests of the people of that country. why would we be importing 1 million new permanent workers every year? i think the caller is correct that one of the main reasons is that there are corporate lobbies who do believe in a global list, which means a non- democratic, view of labour. in the radical libertarian view, every person, every corporation should have the right to hire anybody in the world. and if you can undercut your competitor by bringing somebody in from another country, you should. obviously, that is not happening. even with our huge borders that we have now, they are not truly open. the we still have some limits. but that does create the desire to flood the market, which does not create cheaper labor. a drive which is down for all americans. we have had stagnant and declining real wages for most american workers. immigration has always been a policy fight about tight verses loose labor markets. our corporation has to start within a tight labor markets. we think we have a better solution with tight labor markets. they're the best friend of workers of any that they have ever had. corporations do capital investment, innovations, technical achievements in order to get more work out of each person because you have to pay more for each worker when they are hiring americans. that is the virtuous circle. but in this labor markets, as you are talking about, we have seen the vicious cycle. it is truly one of the big causes behind this symptom of high immigration policies you talk about. host: a comment on twitter -- what is our responsibility? guest: first, we have a refugee program and an asylum program. it is about 13% of our legal immigrants per year. 87% of our immigrants are not people who could claim that they are being fed back -- sent back to a situation where they would be persecuted or face harm. perhaps this person is thinking about mexico. there's no question. i think our hearts just go out to the people on the mexican/u.s. border with mexico has lost control of the drug cartel. it would be better if there was one drug cartel that actually controlled it, but you have these warring cartels. it is a very sad situation. but for most of mexico, is helpful to keep in mind that the institute's a run the world that study acting as, these are big academic institutes, amazingly, denmark shows up as the number- one happiest people in the world. the u.s. is the 20th. and mexico shows up as the second happiest people in the world. despite rampant government corruption, despite drug violence, in all areas of looking at what makes people happy, the mexican people because of their families, their religion, their cultural institutions, they report being the obvious in the world. the majority -- the happiest in the world. the majority of the people that we do send back, they go to the second half but it -- happiest place in the world. when i read that book, it is thrive," when we send them back to mexico, we're not sending them back to a terrible place. there is a culture in mexico in which communities take care of their own. the rich do not, but in this country, that is what we're talking about with immigration. we need to take care of our own. the black and hispanic and lower losses are the ones that are being hurt worst by this. -- class's are the ones that are being hurt by this the worst. one out of every five black college graduates under the age of 30 that once a full-time job cannot find one. that is what we're talking about. -- that want a full-time job cannot find one. that is what we're talking about. terry,et's go to republican caller in frederick, maryland. good morning. caller: i would like to thank you for having roy beck on the "washington journal" and i know you'll have him back soon. i have three questions and comments. i was hoping that mr. beck would discuss the green card work visas. because whenever the pro- democrats talk about comprehensive immigration reform an amnesty, they act like we do not allow people in this country. the u.s. is the most diverse country in the world, i believe. if we are very open and allow a lot of people to come in -- we are very open and allow a lot of people to come in. the second issue, the 287 g, and how the state working with the federal government is important. and finally, the violence on our southern border

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Alabama ,United States ,Nevada ,Balad ,Sala Ad Din ,Iraq ,China ,Carrollton ,Texas ,California ,New Mexico ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Connecticut ,San Francisco ,Mexico ,Arizona ,South Carolina ,Massachusetts ,Las Cruces ,Iowa ,Ireland ,Hampshire ,New York ,Greece ,Chicago ,Illinois ,Philippines ,Tampa ,Florida ,Dayton ,Ohio ,North Carolina ,Iran ,Kentucky ,Rhode Island ,Colombia ,Virginia ,Georgia ,Michigan ,Jordan ,Bloomington ,Tennessee ,Denmark ,New Jersey ,Chill Run ,Maryland ,Orlando ,Capitol Hill ,Dallas ,Americans ,America ,Mexican ,American ,A Jimmy Carter ,Donald Verrilli ,Jean Baker ,Gabrielle Giffords ,Henry Kissinger ,Mikheil Gorbachev ,Ron Paul ,Mikheil Borgia ,Ronald Reagan ,Paul Allen ,George Bush ,Frank Wade ,Rick Perry ,William F Buckley ,Herman Cain ,Robert Greenstein ,Rick Barry ,Tim Pawlenty ,Newt Gingrich ,Milton Friedman ,Fred Barnes ,Paul Ryan ,John Mccain ,Freddie Mac ,Miami Hinkle ,Rick Rhodes ,Kate Dawson ,John Connally ,Barack Obama ,George W Bush ,Michelle Obama ,Portia Wu ,Sarah Palin ,Anders Zandt ,Kevin Hassett ,Rita Wilson ,Richard Nixon ,Bob Greenstein ,Hillary Clinton ,Roy Beck ,