Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20111213

meanwhile, house and senate lawmakers continue their back and forth on how to extend the payroll tax holiday. that brings us to the question today. part of the house package includes an extension of unemployment benefits. republicans want to cut back and reform the insurance program. democrats say it is the wrong time with the economy still fragile. what is your take? if you are unemployed we want to hear from you as well -- 628- 0184. let me begin with "the washington times." legislation is expected on the floor today, and a vote is expected today. testifying was the chairman of the house ways and means committee and the ranking democrat as well. let me begin with the republican from michigan with his thoughts on cutting and reforming the unemployment insurance program. >> it is very important that the uninsured -- insurance program is not just writing checks but finding employment. paired with the reforms that are needed -- one, having a meaningful requirement to search for work. there is a patchwork quilt of responsibilities. my friends on the other side made it basically, after the average of 26 weeks, all the federal program in terms of benefits -- this was shared between state and federal. because it has become with stimulus call a federal program, it is important we have standardization in work requirements, searching for work. >> also, as i told you, the ranking democrat, house ways -- means house wayns and committee, he also testified. here is what he had to say about the efforts to reform and cut unemployment insurance. >> we don't have the final figures yet, but it is clear that well over a million people would be deprived of unemployment insurance. at the time -- at this time people looking for work, four people for every job, i find this to be, if i might say so, a heartless and i think a mindless and i think a reckless way to proceed. host: "the new york times" editorial page agrees with him, saying targeting the unemployed would inflicted needless pain on vulnerable americans. the editorial page goes on to say this -- so, we want to get your take on this. do you think it is time to cut or reform of unemployment insurance? kenny is a democrat from north carolina. caller: my name is kenny. i was recently laid off. i worked for a temp service for a year and a half. i have been in furniture for 30 years. the company i worked for, they had stopped coming in from china, part of their business coming in from china. i worked with no benefits and everything. i was basically laid off. i think after -- instead of going after the unemployment benefits, they should do something about the companies would get tax breaks having their goods made in china and then they take advantage of the workers, these temp services, where they can work you without any benefit and may you off -- without letting me know anything was going on. they laid me off days before i was supposed to get a vacation for thanksgiving. host: mary, a republican from ohio. caller: hi. i have been a republican four years. i voted for dole even, and this republican party is not the same party. it has changed, it has been kidnapped. i cannot believe some of the things going on. they want to go ahead and cut unemployment benefits but on the same token, even though some of the wealthiest people in this country have not paid taxes -- taxes. they will not do anything to raise the taxes. they are in favor of financing tax breaks for the wealthiest from china but fighting a tax holiday for payroll taxes for regular workers. it is not the same party. it is not what president reagan used to talk about, not what any of them talked about. look at what they are doing as far as oil, $50 billion of subsidies for oil companies making multiple billions of profits over the years, and yet they are going to go ahead and cut home heating for senior citizens. host: let me get your reaction to this tweet we just received from arnold -- what about that aspect? according to senator tom coburn and the labor statistics, in 2010, when the benefits peaked at $156 billion the program over paid $16.5 billion for an error rate of 10.6%, a full percentage point higher than 2009. caller: i absolutely agree. the government needs to be overhauled. i think it is ridiculous we are getting our money to china, and we are borrowing from china. absolutely it needs to be overhauled. duplications need to be addressed and tax loopholes need to be closed. host: but not take a look at the unemployment insurance program? caller: no, and a fraud and overpayments need to be taken a look at -- any fraud and overpayments need to be looked at. one other thing i do not believe -- the deregulation of wall street. we had the finished -- biggest financial crash that affected the entire world. now it seems as though most of the republicans are willing to go ahead and let wall street had its way and they want to revoke the dodd-frank bill. host: "the washington times" says -- "the new york times" editorial, however, says this about the program. they are talking about the republican bill -- john, independent in pennsylvania. what do you think? caller: i think they should not worry about the unemployment rate now. they tried austerity in great britain, ireland, portugal and greece, and it is not working. it makes the economic situation much worse. it makes the people livid who are involved in that but like the republican callers said -- if they want to go after fraud, they can go after wall street' from now until the next five years, and they can find plenty of fraud. voters have to remember what these republicans are doing. and they have to vote them out next election. host: have you ever voted for a republican? caller: no, i will go constitutional party or independent like ralph nader before i would vote republican. they are like a cancer. host: john, democrat from capitol heights, maryland. caller: that republican lady that was speaking earlier, she revived my faith in somebody who is republican who has an idea of what is going on and common sense on how to put it forward. i wish there regular republicans would listen to what she had to say and understand she is on the money. they are talking about fraud -- those congressmen and senators go up there to make sure that by -- that type of stuff is not going on. if it is happening, they are too sorry to do their job. i was listening to c-span, i'll hastings was talking about a congressman or senator worked $300 million. -- is worth $300 million. at the same time they can talk about cutting benefits for the underprivileged and poor people when they are not dealing with the contractors who rip off america? i just wish the people would play the lead once again and republicans hear what she had to say. host: another republican -- mark from wichita, kansas. good morning, marc. caller: how are you doing? host: you are on the air. caller: my question is, will they pass two federal extensions for people out for a year and a half or two years who cannot find any work, or is that going to be cut, too? host: the bill that is coming to the floor would reduce from 99 weeks to nearly half of that amount, that you are eligible for unemployment benefits. caller: what if you already had all the federal and state? host: i am not sure about the details but we will be joined a look at later by two members of congress. a republican and democrat. we can ask them about the details of the legislation before it comes to a vote on the house floor today. but a little bit about how it works so far. this is from "the new york times" editorial. and john, independent from texas. caller: i have been unemployed for about eight and a half months, and this situation is just ridiculous. they claim the economy is better here in texas, it is a bold face life. the few jobs that are available are part time walmart-type jobs. i've got a college degree. i graduated from college 16 years ago. i am getting $828 a month in unemployment. and these republicans want you to think people are sponging? try sponging off of 829 -- $820 a month in a high-cost area. the local chamber of commerce brag about how great it is to live here in the valley. if you are making $80,000, it is reasonable cost of living. but if you are barely scraping by at 20,000, it is barely. and perry greeting somebody jobs, that is upsurged. the jobs are just not here. let me tell you this, my last job was working at the local work force office. we are the ones who are supposed to help people find jobs. i can tell you the real honest unemployment rate is much higher than what they are reporting and has been for years. it has not been -- it is not a recent phenomenon. the global economy has destroyed us. and i used to be a republican 20 years ago and i left the republican party about 15 years ago because they are nothing but lying thieves who work for wall street. i am a mainstream conservative and wall street has destroyed main street and have gotten away with it. none of them have gone to jail. it just infuriates me. and my friends and family, we are livid with what is going on. a furious. host: kelly, a republican from indiana. caller: wow, i am furious, too. but you tell you what. you are correct, sir, we need to focus and get the jobs of those who are leaving the house, get them passed in the senate. people in indiana, the extensions of the unemployment are killing our state. laying off 26 workers -- these people are not going out looking for jobs, not because -- in indiana we are doing great here, thanks to our great governor and legislature. but these people are enjoying it. they are enjoying it. one fellow lives in kentucky, drawing from indiana and working in kentucky. so, yes, there are a fact some people who deserve it and need it in their local environment who cannot find a job. but there are people who are sponging, and that is an issue. what we need to do is pass these jobs bills who are leaving the house, passed them in the senate, and get our country -- not the global economy -- get our country going and cut out all of these regulators -- regulations that are tying up our company. host: kelly, a republican in jeffersonville, indiana. we will keep taking your phone calls and we will also post comments -- you can also pose, facebook. we have a reporter from "the hill" newspaper and he has this headline. julianne, what is the senate looking into? -- julian. guest: they are basically looking into whether the reporting requirements are sufficient. this is directly tied, obviously, it to the gerry sandusky scandal at penn state. there -- jerry sandusky scandal at penn state. and there are other scandals that have also brought headlines recently. so, they are going to be looking at that. the panels include not only people who have personally suffered from sexual abuse, from coaches and the like, but also experts who will be talking about the laws and whether they are good enough to keep our children safe. host: there are currently laws on the books dealing with this? guest: every state requires reporting to authorities if teachers, for example, commits sexual abuse. one of the issues is civil liability. the people doing the direct reporting are under the child abuse prevention and treatment act, they are protected towards lawsuits. but some of the people who are part of the process of reporting might not so protected. some of these allegations, especially if for the list, can destroy a person's career. -- especially if they are for the less, can the story a person's career. that is one of the issues they are looking at. are the laws sufficient to protect people going reporting from potentially really costly lawsuits. host: who will be testifying today? guest: the star witness is former nhl hockey player sheldon kennedy. he came out in 1996 and accused his coach when he was in the minor leagues of sexually abusing him. coach gramm james -- the coach eventually pleaded guilty to 350 sexual assault counts. he served a 3.5 years and actively due to be sentenced in canada next year on new allegations. sheldon kennedy's story will be very interesting. there also experts from the american association of pediatrics, national center for missing and exploited children, support center for child advocates. there is a minnesota department of human services expert as well who is going to be coming in. that will give more of a state governments kind of -- host: is congress considering new laws? guest: congress has intervened since the scandal started. we have the two senators from pennsylvania who withdrew their support for joe paterno getting the medal of freedom, for example. house of democrat bobby rush has called for an investigation into the n.c.a.a., so that is one thing going on. and sheila jackson lee of texas, another democrat, said she would introduce legislation that would block funding for any institution found love covered up sexual abuse against children. she said that last month. she has not introduced a bill yet. we are expecting her to do so later this year or early next year. host: that was a preview of the hearing will be covering today on our website, c-span.org, 10:15 a.m. as the start time for that hearing. back to your comments and bought on unemployment insurance. it -- is it time to cut and reform the program? that is what was included in a house gop bill that would also extend the payroll tax cut holiday into 2012, a debate that will be happening on the floor today and a vote is expected. michael, democrat, baton rouge. caller: i think you should not have to cut and reform -- yes, we have fraud and every organization, and even in the government, so you deal with the fraud. and not let the good supper with the bad. and this is not about democrat or republican, it is all about who our president is. the main part of this is to have the president be a failure and the office, at least for the first -- they did not even want to raise the debt ceiling, something all presidents do, even ronald reagan, clinton -- every president raise the debt ceiling, so this is about our president and they did not care who they hurt, whether they are republican or democrat, the matter what race they are, they just want him to fail. host: got your point on that. here is joseph ramirez with this tweet -- independent in oregon. the morning, sir. you are on the air. sorry, san diego, off -- san diego, california. caller: did i mihear something -- are we asking congress to do something about the sex scandal and penn state? the congressman continually get mixed up in things that quite frankly they should not. they should be making laws and passing budgets for the betterment of our country. leave that up to the legal division of our country to deal with the penn state scandal. host: michael, republican and oregon. caller: thank you for taking my call. i go with the gop on this one. i have been unemployed for some time now and collecting unemployment. you had the gentleman who called that a said he had a college degree. think before you speak. if you had a college degree you can obviously make a wage greater net than $868 a month -- please. people get used to this money grab. it turns out to be not a lot of money versus your paycheck, but over time you get used to it and people are not looking for jobs. if you look for a job and you get a job because it pays -- does not pay what you wanted to pay for it does not work out, it screws up your unemployment so people are not encouraged to go out to work. you have handout throughout the country and the world, but when you have foreign countries looking at americans as lazy -- we have a high unemployment rate -- cut unemployment -- raise the unemployment -- if you make 100,000 year, you get more than $900 a month but cut the time that you get it for. not unemployment permanent. host: "the new york times" has this story. this is "the new york times" on this issue of whether millionaires should get unemployment benefits and whether they do get those. so, the extension of unemployment benefits is part of a larger package we have been talking about. the house will vote today on whether or not to extend the payroll tax holiday into 2012. they folded in the unemployment benefits extension as well as legislation on the keystone pipeline. and all of that will be taking a vote. we will ask two members of congress coming up here their take on this legislation. but i want to give you some of the news. this is on the ap wire out of his lombok. -- out of islamabad. and a front-page news many of you heard yesterday, late morning -- supreme court justices step into the arizona debate. and on the issue of that case, this is "usa today" this morning with the headline -- the front page of "the new york times on iraq. many of you know the iraq president was here yesterday meeting with president obama. it says -- that is their front-page story. and then "the washington post" says -- back to your phone calls. christopher, a democrat in south bend, indiana. what you make of this effort to cut and reform the unemployment insurance? caller: thank you for taking my call. first-time caller. i just don't understand us indian government. they deny you your unemployment because of medical problems, but yet you go to get your social security disability, and they say there are jobs out there. unemployment told me that i am unemployable. and that lady from indiana -- you may be doing good down there but here in the upper part of indiana, we are jobless. our jobs have been shipped out of town, out of the country. it is just unbelievable. you get denied -- my injury was work related can this government shut me out. i have proof of this dr. falsifying medical records, and they don't care. host: this is on our facebook page -- by the way, if you want to post a comment. caller: i think that is wrong because they're just ain't no jobs up here, and nine weeks is not enough time. i just don't understand. it still took me a while to find a job and it has been six years. i have been unemployed for six years. when from $50,000 a year to nothing. and it hurt. it really took a mental toll on me, not to count the physical aspect that i can't get no help here in indiana. host: a familiar emailer says -- let's go to liz from texas, independent. caller: not passing a jobs bill is what is putting a drag on the economy. you remember now, you must have a job in order to qualify for unemployment. so, these people had work, and had been either laid off or been let go because of the 9% unemployment in this country. i mean, it is considered a recession to have 5% unemployment. i am a school teacher. i am employed. i have a college degree, and to the gentleman who says to think before you speak -- i am with the guy in bryan, texas, i am just north and west of him. an average waitress gets paid $2.17 an hour -- how is that legal? and then you multiplied that -- those are the jobs governor kerrey has created -- perry created. i would like to of people consider they are working people lost their jobs, who are collecting unemployment, because the job outlook has not improved and are no jobs for them to go and get. host: "the washington post" this morning. the headline in -- and this is part of the to do list in congress before they leave for the end of the year. they are scheduled to leave by the end of this week. the they will be rushing to meet the deadline into the weekend, and maybe even next week. here is congress's year-end deadline, the things they say they want to accomplish before they leave. here is the headline from "the washington post." it says -- let's go to chapel hill, north carolina. and the tat, republican caller. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment about the congress talking about the abuse of, you know -- anyway. what i wanted to say is, it is very important that congress overlook what is going on with because non-sex consensual sex is a problem, especially when it comes to having a relationship to a child. host: we will leave it there because we need to stick to our topic. carol, independent from pennsylvania. unemployment insurance -- is it time to cut and reform? caller: no, because i will say that because i have seen it in my whole family, entire families are unemployed. industries are changing and people have already bought their homes and in some cases -- lost their homes and in some cases their possessions. as far as the stability, i had an accident while i was unemployed. i was overcome accidentally by carbon monoxide. i had to quit accepting the unemployment because i became unemployable after the accident. i am in my third year of disability -- i started in october -- and i am still waiting for my social security kits will be held. i do not think i will be able to work again because of the brain issues that were affected. prior to that, i was giving have my unemployment to my daughter and son-in-law and their five children because they were an employee. my son-in-law was a printed -- he will not be able to work as a printer again after 18 years. now making instead of $18 an hour, he is down, with my daughter working, he is still at home, at $8 an hour with their five children. they became homeless, lived in texas in a tent in a broken-down van. we got back home. he went down there looking for work. we got him back home and bought a foreclosed house for them and really reestablished their life, including furnishings. two of my grandchildren lost a year of school and had to repeat the school year. it is not the time to cut it. the environment has not changed. i would like to ask congress one thing -- back in the 1980's, and that went through that recession, we saw about 500 bankers going to jail for cleaning the recession in the 1980's. we have not seen a single one being prosecuted through this justice department. nothing has been clawed back and no assets seized. host: here is a tweet from one of our viewers -- let's go next to become a democrat in oakland, california, and get your thoughts. caller: thank you for accepting my call. i would like to say unemployment -- for the medical benefits, and for saving their homes. but we need to take a wider view of the people in charge, especially those over 65. they vote to not allow this kind of miniscule money to be forwarded to people who are unemployed but they are getting their checks from the senate and house, they are getting subsidies, they are getting social security. we need to look at these people's income and take a look at that broadly, and we need to do it as people who vote and we need to vote some of these old people out of office. they are receiving those kind of monies. host: this is "the washington post" continuing their series this week looking at leading gop presidential candidates. today is michele bachmann. on sunday, the paper started with mitt romney, on monday, rick perry, tomorrow will be newt gingrich, thursday, ron paul, then on friday, rick santorum and jon huntsman will get profiles and the paper. "usa today" front page on 2012 politics. resurgent republicans close the gap in key states the poll shows republicans more enthusiastic heading into the 2012 race. also in 2012 politics this morning, here is "the daily news" -- ha also, more on newt gingrich -- his tax plan did a closer look, and this is from "the wall street journal." john mccann in writing in "the wall street journal" -- "john mckinnon"writing. and the lincoln-douglas debates between newt gingrich and jon huntsman. a gop voters found it -- said they sounded more like a ticket than a debate. if you would more, go to c- span.org. andrew, republican from texas -- talking about reforming and cutting unemployment insurance. caller: i have been listening for 40 minutes. it amazes me, one person called in talking about the constitutional party. this is my point that was not mentioned by any of your callers. i am talking about the federal government digging i know -- it there are people out of work and i have a good job and i am happy to have it. while out of work, do something. go to the internet, go to the library, get a history book and find out where in the constitution of federal government has any role in unemployment insurance or job creation or bring anything else. i can talk all day about obama or bush or whatever. where do you think the federal government role is in this discussion? the federal government is the problem -- not government -- but the federal government is the problem. host: democrat from kankakee, illinois. caller: i 47. i have been unemployed all my life. i graduated from a local business college and at that time it was enough to get by on. single mother, who raised two kids. i have not worked in over a year. i do income tax seasonally. i found out i will not able to go back to that job. but i did something different -- i am a student. so i did change my life in that aspect. but it is still hard for me. i was receiving unemployment and it ran out of but i was determined to get my degree. i want to get my degree in business management and business marketing -- i have been retail all my life but without a degree i was not able to get a decent job. but we have no jobs. so, i think they should not cut out unemployment. i got one more year of school. if i could finish one more year of school i would be employable again. h., a 2012, michael savage, radio host, offered newt gingrich $1 million to drop out of the race. he said he will go over the specific terms during his radio show on monday. he posted this yesterday. conservative radio host michael savige. and here is "wall street journal" -- and in iowa, republican of putting boots on the ground and that she -- in that state. newt gingrich putting little effort in that state, which could give him poor performance in iowa which could take air out of his tires. one last phone call with your thoughts on cutting and reforming unemployment insurance -- steve, independent in ohio. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, greta. i hear so much negativity. if you really look at what is going on, this is a global -- i have been out of work over a year now. but it does not matter. i am not in the unemployment -- on unemployment, either -- thank god i have a little trust. if any of you people out there have a better idea of how to keep a global economy going, feel free to go up to d.c. and explain it to them. american politicians are doing the best thing they can. host: all right, steve. and we will talk to two of them. in 45 minutes, democrat of california, karen bass, but of next, a discussion with congressman tom cole, republican from oklahoma on this debate about whether to extend the payroll tax holiday into 2012. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> for the past month on c-span will examine the political lives of contenders, 14 men who vied for the office of president but lost but had a lasting impact on american politics. this friday we will talk to american history professor, bureau -- a real clear politics editor, and a presidential historian. to watch video and review the episode, visit c-span.org /thecontenders. >> today i am proud to welcome prime minister al-maliki, the elected leader of a sovereign self-reliance and a democratic iraq. we are here to mark the end of this war, to honor the sacrifices of all of those who made this day possible, and to turn the page to begin a new chapter in history between our two countries. a normal relationship between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. >> as american troops prepare to leave iraq this month, a look back at the key people and events of the nearly nine-year war on line at the c-span video library. archived and searchable, it is watched -- washington your way. >> there is much more to the newly designed c-span.org -- more video with 11 video choices, making it easy to watch today's events, live and recorded. more features -- our online schedule has a three-network layouts a week and quickly scroll through all of the programs and the networks and even received an e-mail alert. or access to our most popular series of programs like "washington journal," "campaign and use our finder to find out where the networks are available on cable and satellite across the country and for gift ideas, click on c-span products for dvd's and books and more. the all new c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congressman tom cole, republican of oklahoma. here is "the washington post." how you plan to vote? guest: i will vote for it. i think it is a good plan. it does the president wants us to do -- extends the payroll tax reduction for a year, it actually takes care of the doc fix for two years, and it extends but at the same time reforms the extension and it is all paid for. this is where we disagree -- it is paid for through spending cuts spread out as opposed to a tax increase. look, i think it actually represents a pretty reasonable compromise and it is a product that can groove. -- moved. we have been watching this and not able to move any plan and we think it is important to get momentum going to get something through a chamber, and hopefully the senate can do something and sit down in conference and do something. host: on the issue of how to pay for an extension of the payroll tax holiday, senator dick durbin came to the floor and here is what he had to say. >> should we ask the wealthiest in america to pay a little more in taxes so that we can provide a payroll tax cut for almost 160 million americans? that is it. what we hear from the other side of the aisle over and over again is, no, you cannot impose a new burden on the wealthiest in america, you cannot ask any more sacrifice from people who are already earning at least, at least $1 million a year. guest: well, you begin to wonder how many times the democrats want to use this particular tax increase. they were going to use it for the jobs program, they tell us it is going to run out in a year because the president is not going to renew the attack as for anybody making above $200,000 a year, should he be reelected, and franklin -- frankly, if not. they keep using this same thing. we think it is far more important to look at spending cuts. we think we did not have a revenue problem as much as a spending problem. but regardless of our disagreements, isn't the important thing about extending the payroll tax, extending doc 6, making sure we can continue on and on the benefits? we think it is important. we laid a plan on the table and we will pass it today. it is nice to hear what senator dick durbin has to say, but until we can actually -- he can move a bill through a chamber his party controls -- i think he should work with us and said of throwing stones. host: the senate democratic leadership said the house gop bill will not get a vote on the floor of the senate because it includes the language to approve the keystone pipe line. guest: that is up to them. but i think it is very shortsighted. the keystone pipeline is popular. we all know it was postponed largely for political reasons by the white house until after the election. it has been the wink and nod, once we get past the election, we should approve it. we should not be waiting. plus, we will have a provision of the legislation that would allow the president if he thought there was a national security issue, could veto 60 days after the passage. if they really want to do it, they could still agree to the bill and the president could still stop construction of the pipeline. i actually thought that was a generous concession on our part. but politically -- and looks like they would be vetoing american jobs. host: on the payroll tax holiday extension, the republican party appeared divided on the issue of whether or not even to extend into 2012. some questioning whether or not this work the first time around. guest: i think there is a genuine debate within the republican party, and without any hesitation, i have some trepidation about this myself. because when you suspend payroll taxes, at some point you always need to reinstate them because we do need to fund social security system. but i think the reason why it has gotten such broad republican support is the speaker put together a package that paid for this extension. but i think we all agreed this is probably the last time. the economy is still struggling. there is a strong case to be made. somewhere around $120 billion or $140 billion purchasing power. let us get it passed and paid for and see where we are next year. host: does it mean the money goes back into the social -- guest: absolutely. our conference was insistent. host: does it keep it at the current level. guest: it keeps it at the current level. does not go as far as the president might have liked, does not give employers any special break. it sort of keeps the status quo in place for another year. host: what is your prediction on the vote? guest: -- i am a whip, so anything above 218 i am happy with. we will pick up some democratic votes. my colleague from oklahoma came out yesterday, and i think there will be others. i would expect it to be passed comfortably, someplace in the 230's. host: how many republican votes you think you will lose? guest: there are some members struggling with it, honestly, for the best of reasons, because they are concerned about that deficit but i do not think it will be enough to keep us from 218. there was an awful lot of enthusiasm for the package. and the keystone pipeline is an important part. a lot of our people believe strongly in energy independence, a source of jobs in a time we need jobs and this is a reliable foreign suppliers -- canada is one of our best friends and not an environmentally insensitive country itself. . . i think if senator harry reid bottom-up floor we would have unified supported the package. host: if the senate were to come back to the house and say we will give you a package that does not include the keystone language, but we will include the payroll tax cut extension that is paid for by spending cuts, things that republicans like -- but it excludes the keystone pipeline language. would you have the votes to pass that? guest: not without democratic help. if you start taking the packages -- taking it apart and taking out the elements that through your majority together you start losing votes. the democrats want to tamper, singing would not get through the senate, they would have to provide votes and house as well. again, this is a majority in the senate that does not seem to get much done. 1000 days without having written a budget. 26 bills stacked up there and not moving. the house has done a lot of things. you could agree or disagree. ryan budget, repeal of obamacare, but the reality is the senate just as not seem to work very well under the current leadership. host: a democrat from florida. caller: yes, i have somewhat of a question and and also a statement. and it is, as we are looking at the economy, people losing their homes and literally we are talking children being homeless and without food. it is more profitable to allow the 1% of america to continue have their boats and mansions and yet we do not have a hard for people who are just for good for the basic necessities? guest: first of all, i think your caller stated very well -- this is a tough time for the country. no doubt about it. a lot of people are in tough circumstances. on the other hand, we think the answer is economic growth. what are the things that can stimulate growth -- create jobs and wealth and put people back to work and let people keep their homes? things like the keystone pipeline are one of those things. letting people keep more money in their pockets to spend, keep the economy moving. so, again, i think both sides actually understand we have a serious problem. we obviously have differences on how to approach it. what we are offering today i think is a reasonable compromise, something that achieves the president's objectives and gives him some victories, and at the same time consistent with our principles. we hope we can get it passed and it -- put people to work. host: walter, a republican from columbia, south carolina pity caller: what are they going to do for the unemployed? i am actually unemployed and south carolina. -- in south carolina. i have worked with a company that had depression -- discriminated against -- actually i think they need to revamp the tax systems and look at the tax systems in each state and kind of do a restructuring and put tariffs -- host: how long have you been unemployed? caller: going through my fourth year and was denied benefits, which should not have been denied. host: what will happen to walter? guest: obviously i did not know the details of an individual case. the bill would extend unemployment benefits again. we have done it several times, actually on a bipartisan basis. the difference is, this time we are paying for it. host: but not for 99 weeks. guest: 59. but there also variations, depending on the unemployment rate. we will try to give states a little bit more flexibility in applying the rules, if they want to use drug test or things like we want you working for a high- school degree. i think the chairman of ways and means has put together a pretty sound package. we all know this is a program that needs to be changed. but the key thing for the caller's point is to just get people back to work. and i think the way to do that is, again, things like keystone, trying to keep taxes low and purchasing power as plentiful as we can. we are working to try to do that. we passed 26 bills this year that we think will do that. we worked with the president of some of those things -- the free trade agreement, both sides believe will create jobs. host: on the issue of purchasing power "the new york times" editorial says this about your efforts. the guest: we disagree, obviously. i'm not surprised that republicans and "the new york times" editorial-page have a different point of field. we think this has been stretched out so long that it has kept people out of the workforce and discourage them to move out of opportunities. it needs to be reformed. if that is something we can talk about. at the end of the day we would like to see a proposal they could pass in the chamber they control. host: joe, a democratic caller in oklahoma. caller: congressman, it is a joke. guest: good to talk with you. caller: we have a lot of philosophical differences. thank you for your service. i have to tell you i can not get past this bundling of everything that comes on garrett i have a seat -- solution to the situation. i will transport 536 congressman and president obama to guantanamo bay, and when you make two or three decisions, you will come back for a vacation. guest: you ought to include vice president joe biden on the trip as well. i understand the point of view. fair to the president. they made a huge compromise on the extension of the bush tax cuts, unemployed, on up in -- and the payroll tax. in april, we reduced domestic spending less than what republicans wanted, more than what we -- democrats wanted. we did not default on america's obligation. i think we are in that situation again. if you look at things like the free trade agreement, the bipartisan vote we had just less than a month ago on veterans hiring tax credits, the elimination of 3% withholding of federal contracts -- thought there has been a little bit more going on here. the problem from the country put posted point is it always seems to be at the last minute. people do not need more drama here. i understand the frustration, but that is part of the turmoil of democracy, and the challenge of having a divided government. the american people give us a split decision. it is difficult when you have a republican house, democratic senate, a democratic president. host: delaware, good morning. caller: i have a couple of issues i want to talk about. you have people coming out of jail, coming out of college, and people coming back from overseas. all these three groups are looking for jobs, yet you give tax cuts that hire people from armed forces. that puts the other two below. in the small areas, you do not have any buses. how can people get to jobs if they do not have any buses? then you have corporations like mcdonald's, they should not be paying anyone under $10 an hour. and i am working to be a millionaire. i kind of agree that was to become a millionaire, and i am working hard, i do not want people in my pocket because i am doing this work, and i commend people that work hard to earn money if they do it legally. i called the other day and they said the small corner stores do not have to report their income. do you know how many shoes, white t-shirt, blue jeans they sell? guest: quite a few points. on the veterans question, there is a consensus dead people who put -- that people who put themselves in harm's way to defend us, when they come home they deserve an extra break. there was broad agreement on that. i think that is a good thing, not a bad thing. i think most americans would support that. on the question about buses, that is a a local matter generally. if we have a robust world transit system in my area, this is tough when you do not have an urban population to sustain these things if economically, and typically the population does not have enough money. in terms of corporations, i think free markets generate wealth, and this country has been incredibly prosperous, incredibly successful, and even a difficult time like this americans live better than almost anyone in the world and more opportunity. if i did not think punishing people that are putting people to work is generally a good idea. last, i hope you make it on being a millionaire. one of the things that has been interesting to me in the course of debates because i think the president has spent time trying to divide americans for political purposes -- high income people are very blessed, and very fortunate, but do -- do paid disproportionately high taxes compared to other groups. the idea that somehow people that make money do not pay a lot of money in texas, that is simply not true. the average man in their pay is 25% of their income to the federal government. -- the average millionaire pays 25% of their income to the federal government. i think most people would be shocked about how much people that actually earn money make. you have different questions on capital gains and dividends. host: a number of our viewers follow loss on twitter. here is one from cindy. guest: [laughter] if that is what it takes to get the job done, i am prepared to do it. there are a lot of people that work very hard the staff, the security, this interferes with their christmas. at the sydney to of the day we need to get the job done. -- at the end of the day, we need to get the job done. we have actually worked pretty well with our democratic friends in the senate on the appropriations process. we basically have the bill, broadly down, there is some hesitation right now in the senate to move it, and that is silly. we should get appropriations for mixture finished. -- for next year finished. host: just to be clear, we're talking about the spending bills that have not been approved for nine federal agencies to keep them running next year. guest: sure. we spent the limit -- set the limit on how much we would spend. we lived within that. we worked hard with democratic friends the differences of opinion and i think it would help to get that done relatively quickly. host: there are votes of republican side? guest: i think it will be bipartisan. we have 135 republicans, 160 democrats. i would anticipate maybe not those numbers, but because this is been a negotiated settlement, there will be a lot of votes from both sides. that will be a major success. we are restoring what is called a regular order and moving things as we should. host: what is your prediction? are you here test this week? guest: that depends on people way above my pay grade. why wouldn't be surprised if we are. that is unfortunate. the senate moves more slowly than we'd do. i understand that. we can get our work done in the house by friday. the real question is can they get the work done in the senate? if host: is your flight is scheduled for? guest: my last flight is scheduled for the 23rd. host: bob, a republican in greenville, south carolina. caller: the government budget is stuck at $4.60 trillion. where is the extra $1 trillion going? is it going to bail out democratic states like new york and california, union bodies? now that the stimulus is gone, and we have spent $700 billion there, wears a rest of this money going? if every year we are spending and another $1 trillion a year. can you tell us where this money is the blocks to go? guest: it is being cut, but not as rapid -- nearly rapid enough. that would change if we had a republican president. we might be a majority in the house, but are still a minority in the legislative process. i am not sure i agree with your numbers on four $0.60 trillion. you're absolutely right about the size of the deficit. it has not come down route rapid. -- as rapid as it should. in terms of spending, the obama administration ran up spending. it was not just stimulus. almost every part of carbon went up. bringing back down is tough, because we end up compromising with the senator, you have to move legislation through there. the president does not have to sign a bill just because you passed it. people think no one would veto a bill because it did not spend enough money, and they have forgotten the bill clinton years. what you need to bring down the spending is long-term, structural entitlement reform. if that is what the rise in budget represents, and that is what it will take -- that is what the paul ryan budget represents and that is what it will take. discretionary spending is going to come down, but the big drivers are medicare, medicaid, social security to a lesser extent, but it still has a terrific reserves on its own. it is not in any immediate danger. if we do not tackle those pride budget problems in a serious way, we are going to run big deficits for a long time. host: this e-mail for you. guest: actually, the current tax cut, remember, the president asked for. president obama could have let every single bush tax cuts run out, and he has already accepted 85% of those cut its. on the last portion, he made the decision last december to make these run another two years, and then probably not do it again. he was very clear of that. that is why it is difficult when you make a deal for two years, it wants to change it. you want to raise taxes for a jobs program or the payroll tax extension. if the president has made a deal, and is leaning in on it. -- remaking on it. you have to look at when the tax cuts began, there was quite a bit of job growth, and we were coming out of a recession that began in 2011, compounded by 9/11, which was a disaster for the economy. we had a financial crisis and no one saw coming, and i think both parties, regulators, and private industry have a lot to answer for. host: scott, a democrat in the state of maine. caller: thank you. i wanted to test about the entitlement cuts. why it is nobody talking about taking a where their federal retirement and bled in bed in with social security and medicare? -- blending that in with social security and medicare? second of all, the pipeline, by the time that pipeline gets to a state border, another company is going to pick up for the people digging that pipeline in one state will be unemployed in three months. guest: there are temporary and permanent jobs. if that is true for any construction jobs -- job. the reality is they move on to another job. if anything that creates work and wealth is a good thing. anything that enhances the energy security of this country is a good thing. i'm from oklahoma. we do not think this is unusual. there are literally billions of dollars worth of pipeline across the midwest. this is not unusual. we ought to go ahead work. the real debate is not about the pipeline itself, is really about the long-term debate over global warming. we will use carbon-based energy as long as anyone who is doing this program is allies. it will be developed energy,, south through america, where the canadians will build their own pipeline. i think it is a tragedy not to use the resources available. the second question, i forgot. i apologize. host: let me give you tell me on twitter . guest: i did, and taxes are not the lowest levels, but income is. there is a time when the top rate was lower than it is today, and i was there in the reagan years in the 1980's. the rates are not as low, but until you can get the economy moving again, and i do not know of any economist who thinks raising taxes in a down economy is a good idea. president obama could have raised tax rates on every american. after the last election, remember, there was still democratic majorities until january. we would not have been able to repeal that. i think you are disingenuous to argue in december we need to extend these tax cuts for the economy, and in addition, i want a payroll tax cut and an extension of unemployment. he did that deal, and here we are one year later, and the president has done the last six months trying to get out of the deal. staff host: congressman tom cole is our guest. he serves on the appropriation and budget committee, and is a deputy whip. surely, a republican in texas. good morning. caller: there are two really big problems in this country right now. anyone who as old as i am, and titled, those that for the last 30 years yet gone into this international trade, and i would love to hear the republicans say we are going to revisit every trade agreement, and if it is not beneficial, we are out of it. we is ratified the treaty with colombia, which is a failed state, still giving us drugs and fogs. -- thugs. all of these need to be revisited and changed. guest: i will disagree on columbia. i have been to columbia recently. it has been one of the great bipartisan success stories in the hemisphere, and one of the few places where americans are genuinely popular, and where we run a trade surplus. there is domestic opposition, having -- as there was in korea, because it thought it was too favorable to the united states. it was a heavy lift in south korea for the government to get it through. this idea that we always lose in trade agreements, i frankly find questionable. these are good agreements. all economists tell us it will create up to one-quarter of 1 million jobs. the other thing we ought to think about is the drug market, who is the market? that is us. i spent a lot of time in colombia, guatemala, panama, mexico, and they're not selling those drugs to their own people. we ought to look in the mirror a little bit, and i actually had a wonderful discussion with president felipe calderón in mexico, and he made a point that i would always be against this, but why don't you legalize drugs in the united states because you are killing us down here. that is not something i support, but something from our standpoint that we ought to take joint responsibility on. we'll work well with the colombians. they have made a lot of progress. if you go, it is not clear and present danger anymore. they have done it at a considerable sacrifice and cost to themselves. we live in a global economy, and the idea that we will be prosperous when 95% of the consumers are outside of the border is a mistake. japan is not a third world country. life is pretty good there. they run a surplus. germany is not a third world country. runs a big surplus. we need to be in those markets. host: and independent in dayton, ohio. caller: i agree, and basically i called because it is a revenue problem. i'm made of $11 an hour 35 years ago. people are working for that money now. this is what free trade agreements have done for america. i heard bill clinton asked a question about free trade and his comment was a it has helped millions of people across the world, not america. it is a revenue problem because you have people making $10 an hour, and they're paying medical, and insurance. i never had to do that 30 years ago. debtoes to these ceo's ved most -- that have mos their jobs outside of the country. guest: i did not think you can isolate america. the world changes. other people are smart, worked hard, and are trying to have a better life for themselves as well. you are either going to compete with them, or they will pass you by. in a place like oklahoma, a long way from the coast, 80% of the wheat we grow we export beyond the borders. we build all kinds of oil exploration things. we export that well beyond the borders of the united states. i think we are intertwined inevitably in the global economy. are there challenges? absolutely. i would argue we have been slow to embrace that. president clinton and i probably disagree with a lot of things, but he was one of the great free traders. he argued the prosperity of the 1990's had to do with free trade policies. this president, why disagree with, and made exactly the same judgment. my experience in the economy and everything else is you either compete -- you cannot protect yourselves from competition. other people will build your products. other people will go into marketplaces. we saw that in the american auto industry. its failure to adopt, compete, particularly with relatively- low-priced japanese cars three decades ago are part of the problems now. they are changing. they have a real future, but they were slow to recognize international realities. host: greg, a democrat in ohio. caller: i want to talk about the fair tax. we are bickering with this payroll tax. let's eliminate the income tax altogether, and go to a consumption-based tax. it would eliminate all of this nonsense that we go through every year. how do you feel about the fair tax, and why has it not come up for debate in the congress and the senate? guest: i have given it a pretty hard luck. i prefer anything to our current tax code. i think most americans feel that way. on the upside, you are exactly right about the advantages of it. as a consumption tax, if it does not hit investment, income, everyone pays. it brings the underground economy, and people who try to evade taxes -- there is a lot of merit. the trade situation you can drop the tax off. it makes american goods more competitive. the downside is we have to start all over. that is one thing. the problem with a fair tax is it comes in at 23%, and that is on everything. what will that do? we have studies that suggest that once sales tax gets above 10% you have a black market problems that develops. number 3, there are exemptions and protections of to the poverty wage, but it is theoretically a regressive tax. if you are warren buffett and getting most of your income to capital gains and dividends, if it is a great deal for you. you cannot consume that much. it is a debate we ought to have. when we have a democratic congress, there are almost no democrats to support the fair tax. if you could not get it through the united states senate today, but dave camp is holding hearings. there is a guy from georgia who is the successor to the father of a fair tax in the political sense. they're working hard. there are over 80 co--sponsor's care and i think it will get a serious look. host: a republican in california. an early morning to you. go ahead. caller: i have a comment. i am a republican, and i am appalled at the actions going on. i work for companies and individuals that make high salaries that have loopholes to where they do not pay their taxes, such as writing off their second home because they have an office in there. they create offices outside of their corporate office. host: we are running out of time. i need you to get to your question. caller: my question being that you say i want a handout i'm selling off all belongings. i want to know what he and congress is going to do to keep my vote as a republican. guest: i would like you to look a key paul ryan budget, which does away with a lot of these things. it does not have the built-in loopholes and credits. it lowers the overall tax rate, and the idea is investment will move to where it ought to rationally to create wealth. i think there is general consensus on that. i think that is an area of bipartisan agreement, potentially. republicans put revenue on the table both in the august discussions over the debt ceiling, and then later to the super committee, and doing except those kinds of things. i would expect you will see out of the ways and means committee a major effort at tax reform. we have not done that since 1986. to your point about holmes, tom cole warned -- tom coburn has an interesting proposal. one of the proposals as too limited deductions for second homes. i agree. that would save $187 billion. there is no particular reason people should get deductions on second and third homes, let alone fly-by-night deductions like the caller mentioned. host: one last question from twitter parent -- twitter. guest: i am actually neutral in the race. i tell them all to you want to be endorsed by anyone in congress given their 9% approval rating? we of more debates and we have ever had. there is a wide variety of candidates, and i think it will go on for awhile. host: any concerns with the former speaker newt gingrich? guest: everyone will have concerns over everybody, and by the time they get to the general election, the democrats will go after whoever we have come and find a character flaw, and pound away. i did not think the president can run on his record and win, and that is why we get a lot of the anti-congress when rhetoric -- rhetoric. i expect a difficult campaign. we will end up with a great debate. host: how was it looking for 2012 in republican seats in the house? guest: i think very good. a president running for reelection very seldom changes control. i think the congressional majority we have will stay there. this is a very good clefs in terms of being able to hold onto seats' tearing at the republican the tuesday as ms. ipad host: will you pick up -- in terms of being able to hold onto seats. host: will you pick up seats? guest: who wins and loses in terms of numbers is hard to tell today. i think republicans will be in control of the house next year. host: congressman tom cole, thank you for talking to our viewers. we will continue this conversation about whether or not to extend the payroll tax holiday in 2012 with congresswoman karen bass, a democrat of california. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] sphe >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? if that is our question in our competition open to middle and high school students. make a documentary, entellus the part of the constitution that is important to you, and why. be sure to include more than one of point -- 1 digit more than one point of view. there is a grand prize of $5,000. >> today i am proud to welcome prime minister maliki, the elected leader of a sovereign, self-lined, and democratic iraq. if we are here to honor the end of this war, honor the sacrifices of those that made this possible, and to turn a page in a new chapter in the history between our countries, a normal relationship between sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. >> as american troops prepare to leave iraq this month, look back at keep people and events at the nearly nine-year war of mind that this is dan video library. it is washington, your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congresswoman karen bass. let's begin with the vote to extend the payroll tax in 2012, and language on the keystone pipeline. where do you stand on it? guest: i cannot imagine voting on it at all. it is unfortunate. i was listening to one of the previous callers explaining her situation, and it is not good enough to say we want to fast forward a pipeline, yes, bringing jobs, but that will need immediate relief. to me, it should be clean, extend unemployment and the payroll tax holiday. it should not be filled with a bunch of policy riders, some of which your last guest talked about. host: what is your view of the keystone pipeline? guest: i think the president of the decision to hold an offer more extensive review is where we should stand. it is a false issue to add that in. if you looked at the bill that is point to come before the house today, it has a number of provisions. it is almost like you're marks are banned, but we have here our policy earmarks. why would you tell someone who needs unemployment they need a drug test first? tell someone they need to enroll in a day ged program? why would you hold unemployment check hostage to policies like that? host: we want to show you the leader in the senate mitch mcconnell talking about this debate yesterday. >> so far, the only reason democrats have given in proposing this bill is they would rather extend the payroll tax cut on its own without adding language on a pipeline many of them say they support anyway. so, evidently, they would vote for both of these things separately, but not together. that makes absolutely no sense. look, you're either for this pipeline project and the jobs that would come with it, or you are not. if you are for it, there is no reason to oppose it, just because it is not offered as a stand-alone measure. host: are you for the jobs would come out of this keystone pipeline? guest: there needs to be a more extensive environmental review. sure, i am for the jobs, but what the president decided is to have it go through more review. there is no relationship between extended on in plymouth insurance and the payroll tax cut -- on in plymouth insurance and the payroll tax cut. to add a number of issues to get republicans to vote is not -- does not make sense. host: here is "the washington times" -- host: why not reform it? guest: maybe it should be reformed, but the way republicans are talking about it, saying we should reduce the number of weeks someone should be eligible, i do not think that is a reform. if there had been over payments, the stakes, maybe we need to tighten up accountability, but i would not call reducing the and almost cutting in half the week's individual would be eligible -- what kind of reform is that? host: bob, a republican in eleanor is -- illinois. caller: "the financial times" find -- found a correlation between a trade deficit and weak economies. basically, to think of the economy as a stimulatory system, it needs money to get to all of its parts, to be healthy. our problem is we do not have enough money getting to all of the parts. the reason we do not is because we are bleeding money, and that is reflected in our trade deficit. why aren't you folks not addressing the trade deficit? guest: the idea that we are going to vote today on the unemployed insurance, and extending unemployment puts money directly into the economy, and that is something we need to do. if people have money to buy food, for their bills, you are talking about an immediate boost in the economy, and that is what we should be doing right now. eight strokes on extending the payroll tax talks -- host: on e- guest: well, first of all, that is giving an argument for why we need to extend unemployed insurance for people. you are right. helps those that are working, which is why we need to do both before we break for the holidays. host: what about the argument that economic theory shows that people do not spend a tax cut when they think it is temporary, only when it is permanent? guest: economists say different things. there are economists that say if we extend the payroll tax benefit it will lead to increasing jobs, and if we do not, we will lose additional jobs. there are different economic theories. host: if this is extended for another year, when and how does it go back up to 6.2%? should it be gradual? guest: it could be gradual, and that would be to be decided next year. when of the things we need to look at, but not one we are facing a deadline like this, his overall tax reform. we will be faced with a decision to let the bush tax cuts and expire, but there might be an opportunity in 2012 for us to take a step back, take time, not do it based on a deadline, and lifted overall tax reform. if there are a number of things that need to be done. when need to look at all the loopholes we have. host: joe is a democrat in amsterdam, new york. caller: do you think -- -- didn't the republicans in their pledge to america pledged to pass clean bills? -- elks that is why i described it as -- guest: that is why i described it as earmarks. this bill does look like a christmas tree, with all the ornaments, and to have an ornament at christmas time that says if you are going to get an unemployment check that it first is really an example of scrooge in my opinion. host: phyllis, you are next. a businesswoman, 73- years-old. number one, why are we going down to the golf with the oil with one of the largest refineries in the united states is right here in longmont, illinois? 70% of the refinery is shut down because of a lack of oil. texas? how broad an import tax that would equalize $20 an hour in american dollars, like china, 37% on all exports? that money coming in on their imports would pay a lot of bills. once that happens, you will see how many jobs will be coming back here that our big corporations are overseas. guest: well, first of all, what she said about the pipeline, is another reason why you should not attached the pipeline for a discussion right now when we are facing a deadline, a new should not hold -- and you should not hold the payroll tax extension hostage with the pipeline. host: any thoughts on her last comment? i am blanking. we will come back. mike, a republican in florida. caller: good morning. this argument of adding this on to this bill -- we need jobs. guest: exactly. caller: there have been three epa studies on this over five years, and all three have passed this on recommendations to the president to sign it. this that we need more epa studies is absolutely ludicrous. if we take 20,000 people that would be the minimum hired to do this, we take them off the extended benefits they use a must be passed. number 3 is use a the most important thing is to get this on and clement past and the social security thing. you did not count on the fact that you are taking money out of my payroll tax, which means it is taking out of my social security, which means when i retire i get less in return. you are taking it out of individual pockets. this has to stop. guest: the caller mentioned that we need is jobs, and i absolutely agree with him. frankly, we have 320 days of congress, and the republicans have put forward adopted in terms of jobs. the president put forward a comprehensive plan for jobs, and that is something that has not even been brought up in a serious way within the house. when he talked about the jobs and the need for the pipeline, there is a variety of different ways we can bring jobs. we need to have more environmental review of the pipeline. when he was talking about the other issues, i think there are other ways for us to deal with it. the payroll tax, for example, is concerned about the money coming out of social security, well, both sides of the aisle have a way to pay for them. the democrats are proposing pay in for it with a surtax on incomes who have more than $1 million. he is right, it was not paid for, but both sides are proposing paying for it. host: is there a compromise on the payroll tax extension? guest: there should be, but as long as republicans are going to end on policy issues that have nothing to do with the payroll tax extension or on the planet insurance, there will not be a compromise. host: could you vote on an extension if it was based on spending cuts, and did not include this other language? guest: there are a number of cuts that could be acceptable. i think there would be ways to pay for it that would not require us having all of these policy riders. host: and also not include a tax on those making more than $1 million? guest: that is possible. host: louisiana. caller: the only reason some republicans want to add this pipeline is because they are looking at pockets, and they're not concerned about the people. consider how much time they spent trying to keep them signing this bill. the president has come up with legislation that they refuse to sign, and all the sudden they refuse they want to sign. guest: the reason they are raising the pipeline is to create a wedge between the president and the environmental community. there is support on both sides of the aisle for the pipeline, but the differences are when, and whether or not more extensive environmental review is needed. host: this from twitter. guest: i think that is a false argument. i do not know people on unemployment who enjoyed being on unemployed. if people realize how much money on the point is, that keeps people from being off the streets. it is hard to support yourself on a check like that. it is disingenuous to say that for somebody to be on of the employment it is a disincentive for them to work. people want jobs. dignity comes with work. host: a republican, roger, you're on with karen bass. caller: i disagree with your last comment. there is an underclass we have developed that have to have the government to live and do not go out and try to find a job. when you talk about the medical you get, the housing, there is a disincentive to work, and we need to have a policy that says you have to move yourself forward in life. i think what i'm hearing you say here is that everyone is in one basket, and they are really not. guest: there are always exceptions to the role, but there is a general view that people who are on the unemployed are barely making it -- people that are unemployed are barely making it. i do not know what housing you are talking about. nobody has free rent. if people want to get back to work and live a decent lifestyle. having said that, there are people completely discouraged from working, that believe they are not would find a job again, and there is almost an hour of all -- always an element that does not want to work. we are in an economic crisis. we have high unemployed rates. if we were in a situation where the economy was booming, and you were talking about people that do not want to find a job, that is one issue. we are trying to come out of this economic crisis. it has been slow for the unemployed rate to drop. i think we need to do everything we can to help folks. when you were talking about stimulating the economy, when you give people food stamps and a check, that goes back into the economy. host: congresswoman karen bass represents california's 33rd district, which includes los angeles. schuster's of the budget and the foreign affairs committees. donna. caller: you should extend payroll tax cuts and of unemployment benefits indefinitely until you deal with our real problem. because bullish jr., -- george bush jr., bill clinton, and a few republicans got nafta with china, we lost millions of jobs. host: with a couple of phone calls on free trade. where do you stand of the issue? guest: i did not supports the agreement because i was concerned about the economy and the loss of jobs, but if we look to the economic crisis we have been experiencing, it is hard for me to see that being the reason. i lifted the regulation in the financial industry, problems in the housing market. neither of those issues have to do with trade. when we are looking at the economy, we did make some investments in the last congress. we have the dodd-frank act that will hopefully get the financial industry under better control. host: james is a democrat in bradford, tennessee. caller: republicans say a tax break for the rich is going to create jobs, whether they going to start creating some instead of making obama look bad? guest: we have had tax breaks for the 1%, as everyone is familiar with now, and we have been relighted a trickle down economy, but it rarely gets to the streets. i would agree, it has not helped. for a party very concerned about the deficit, we all know with the bush tax cuts were and did, it would make a serious dent in the deficit. host: are you in favor of ending the bush tax cuts for everyone? guest: the top, and we need to examine whether we end them for everyone. next year, at this time, depending and where the economy is, it will impact my decision. host: uniontown, pa., jimmy on the republican line. you are on the air. caller: my question is why can't everyone call this a payroll tax cut, when we know it is coming out of social security? if they wanted to do a tax cut, fitch had come out of the federal income tax -- it should come out of the federal income tax. i think it is time to leave social security alone. host: our guest was marked kirk, on the "newsmakers" and he said it is wrong to call it a payroll tax holiday, and we should be calling the reduction to social security contributions. guest: it would be a reduction if we were not paying for, and it is called a holiday because it is meant to be temporary. host: houston texas. independent color. caller: i agree that if we allow this to go forward, it would become permanent, and this is a problem to roll the social security administration. if congress allows this to go on, what did it with the patriot act, they passed the patriot act without putting up a fight. if they pass this bill, it would be another black eye, along with this war bill. they need to be proactive, or they need to get another job. host: he is concerned that this becomes permanent, the congress keeps extending it. guest: i do not believe it will become permanent. the reason we are doing it now, and why it is important to extend it is because our economic recovery has been slow. i'm hopeful that by next year at this time we would not need to extend it. we would be paid for it. my concern about social security is some colleagues of the other side of the aisle want to move towards privatizing social security. no more concerned when people are talking of a fundamental -- i am more concerned when people are talking about fundamental reforms. host: timothy, a democratic caller id eleanor it. -- in illinois. caller: you were talking about extending the unemployed benefits. i've exhausted my benefits in august at what i qualify for that? guest: whether you want as an individual, i do not bill, because i did not know what your circumstances are, but it is very important that we extend unemployment insurance benefits. unfortunately, i will vote against the bill today because it is calling for a fundamental reform that would cut the number of weeks an individual would be eligible almost by half. i think we need to extend it right now. the recovery is slow. i'm sure our economy will turn around. if there needs to be changes like you described, problems with fraud or overpayment, that needs to be addressed, but the way to a dress it is not to cut it in half. the other way it -- address it is not to cut it in half. the other way not to address it is with a drug test. host: what about education and training. elizabeth has this from twitter. guest: i always support education in training. if we would pass a jobs bill, it calls exactly for that. but then would you tell someone i will then give you your honor included check unless you would role in training? where is the training going to come from? free, someone that is on unemployment, but frankly, some of that is on unemployment, i want them out looking for a job. we need to pass on in plymouth extension in a jobs bill. -- unemployed extension, but in a jobs bill. where will they did the educational treaty? to tell someone they are supposed -- supposed to pay for it? what are you supposed to do? host: roy is next. a republican in boulder, colorado. caller: i am terrace about unemployed. -- ibm curious about on a point. -- i am curious about on a point. i refuse to take on the planet. i worked as a janitor. -- unemployed. i do not think anyone should be given anything free. people do not look for work after about 3 or four months. they might look a day or two zero week. -- or two a week. they should give back to us during the time they are unemployed. they should do something for their money. guest: why are we assuming that people who are unemployed are doing nothing? i do not accept that. i remember the carter years, too. the cost of living was cheaper then. somebody on the unemployment that will be looked for a job for a couple of months -- unemployed insurance does not cover most people's right. it is a question of being homeless. host: you are a no vote today. how many democrats do you think will be voting no? guest: the overwhelming majority of our caucus will be voting no. i do not know how you could vote yes on a bill that would cut the number of weeks a person would be eligible for unemployment. host: cincinnati, ohio. caller: i was injured by a trucking company. i got onto disability in 1998. and this has caused other problems -- as was presented to the attorney firms and one to force them to settle. my knowing of my quality of the life that i had and i have been done so wrong. mike claims -- my claims to the funds that this accident has caused to be refunded and medicaid, and they are withholding the case over five years and of not plated to proper handling. the concerns are -- they talk about the economy weakening. these insurance companies are fighting against the public to replace the funds that have been send to that should be replaced. the client feels this should be done. host: what about her situation? guest: i'm sorry for your injury and dealing with multiple sclerosis is very difficult. it is difficult for me to comment on your specific situation. i'm glad we do have health care reform. to have a longstanding ella's like you do, what you would have faced before -- to lead the long standing illness like to do, you have faced a cap. the idea that you would be covered again would be impossible prior to health care reform. it is difficult to know her specific situation. host: john in new york, a democrat. caller: thank you for c-span. this social security holiday -- why can they just say that retirement, these years whether taking out only a portion and people are saying they will get less and retirement. pass a bill so they get their full share retirement. guest: there isn't anything we're considering that would compromise you getting your full share at retirement. there is misunderstanding about what we're doing. it is extending the payroll tax holiday, a cut, and that is money that goes to pay social security. we're talking about paying for that. at the end of the line, it would not lead to a reduction in your benefits. host: are you still there? do you want to follow-up/ caller: on the pipeline -- you cannot get the republicans to say that this oil -- it will be untaxed oil. i have a feeling that this is going to be shipped overseas and we're not going to get any tax from it or any use or benefit out of it. guest: i do not know if the oil would be shipped overseas. it raises the point that we should not be talking about the pipeline in this discussion. it has nothing to do with extending unemployment and the payroll tax cut. host: we have a comment on twitter. guest: i think it would be good for us to examine the job training programs that we have. are the updated? -- are they updated? we have a new economy that is emerging, a greek economy. there are different -- there are opportunities for different types. -- a green economy. some places will of training for free. but what about where they do not? host: the debate will start this morning on the floor. guest: i think the vote will come at the end of the day, probably 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. host: james in new jersey. caller: good morning. three calls before you, a johnson spoke up -- a gentleman spoke up about doing any job that came up. so did i. i'm disabled right now. i have gone to motions, raises, over time -- i've got promotions. there's money to be made if you take any job out there. guest: good. however, i would not make the assumption that the majority of people on unemployment are refusing to accept certain types of jobs. i think that's a myth and a cynical way to the people who are unemployed and does not it calls the fact that we're coming out of an economic crisis. this is the biggest economic crisis with that since the great depression. i've done everything -- i waited tables and i've been a nurse. i have done a lot of different things. i know people would be willing to take a job but there are not enough jobs right now. host: this is from "the washington post" this morning on how to extend the payroll tax holiday. host: would you agree to that proposal? guest: yes. it is difficult for me to say without knowing what the cuts would be. the super committee came up with a variety of cuts that were acceptable to both sides. perhaps they are preferring -- referring to the same thing. i do not know. house speaker john boehner also supports cuts. host: patrick from maryland. caller: good morning. about's been talk on blogs republicans being obstructionists. do you agree with that? guest: i do have to acknowledge that the head of the senate said in january, his number one goal was to make the work that president obama was only a one- term presidents. i would hate to think that my republican colleagues would hold up the economy to defeat president obama. i do not want to believe in conspiracies and net it is intentional to impact the economy, but policy wise, extending unemployment and raising the debt ceiling and the continuing resolution to fund the government -- to hold it hostage on issues that have nothing to do with this -- we spent a good part of the year voting numerous times to is essentially rollback regulations in the environmental protection agency and in the food and drug administration, a tax on women's of billy to choose -- a variety of policy issues that have been added on -- attacks on women's ability to choose. i cannot accept that it is a conspiracy by my republican colleagues to intentionally compromise the economy of the united states in order to have barack obama be defeated next year. host: diane in springfield, massachusetts. caller: good morning. lostted to tell you, i've my job almost 15 months ago. i have been looking. i send out 10 to 12, 15 resumes a week. i'm 67 years old. most of the jobs, they want to know my age. i went to one employer for an interview and they had to make an application after they already had my resume and ask me for my date of birth and asked if i had any health issue and what you're graduated high school. i disagree with some of the callers and say people out of work are not interested in working. i have been out there. there is nothing out there for me. guest: have you been offered jobs that you refused to accept? caller: i have not. guest: mr. any kind of work you would refuse to do -- is there any kind of work you would refuse to do? caller: no. i was planning to work until i was 72. i have $100,000 mortgage and i need this extension. i am on my third tier now. guest: is receiving an unemployment check date disincentive for you to find a job? caller: i have a $100,000 mortgage. i would like to get a job. i like to work until i'm age 70 to 72. i feel i'm being somewhat discriminated against. guest: it is my understanding that it is not legal to ask your age or the year he graduated high school. i hope that we are able to extend unemployment benefits. i think there is a lot of work that would be to do in our country to deal with the misperception of people who are unemployed right now. caller: yes. host: could you tell us how much you get in unemployment a month or a week? caller: $360 a week and i'm paying taxes on that, so i'm getting $305 a week. guest: your mortgage? caller: i took a social security early because i felt i had to. host: because you cannot find a job? caller: i was thinking of collecting social security and working full-time. those plans -- life happens when you're making other plans. guest: do you get food stamps? caller: no. i'm paying for my own food. i'm ok with unemployment. i am sending resumes out. i do not know what else to do. i'm thinking about going back to school in january. guest: thank you for your call. host: 1 last phone call. george, a republican from michigan. go ahead, george. i think we lost george. let me ask you about one other part of the package. i believe includes the doc-fix. guest: i think that is important to do. if we do not do not, a number of doctors in the system will choose not to do that. they are not paid enough as it is now. host: how can we continue to do the doc-fix, which congress has done over the past 10 years -- how can the country continue to afford it? guest: it is end of topper -- it is an opportunity. host: congresswoman karen bass, thank you for being with us. what is the issue and why does it need to be fixed? that is our next topic. we will be right back. >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that's our question in this year's studentcam competition, open to middle and high school students. make a video documentary five to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the consititution that's important to you, and why. be sure to include more than one point of view and video of c- span programming. entries are due by january 20, 2012. there is $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000. for all the details, go to studentcam.org. >> today i'm proud to welcome prime minister maliki, the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant, and democratic iraq. we're here to mark the end of this war, to honor the sacrifices of all those who made this day possible, and to turn the page, begin a new chapter in the history between our countries, a normal relationship between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. >> as american troops prepare to leave iraq this month, look back at key people and events of the nearly nine-year war, online, at the c-span video library, archived and searchable. it's washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with sarah kliff to talk about this january 1 deadline for the doc-fix. what is the problem? guest: congress decided how much to pay medicare doctors. they decided on a formal. health care has outpaced any other kind of growth. the formula does not get us enough money to pay medicare doctors will we pay them now. so we call this a day doc-fix to fix the funding formula. if we don't do that, medicare doctors will drop by 27% beginning january 1. host: what is the cost of doing the doc-fix to the treasury? guest: $39 billion for the two- year fixed. that is part of a larger bill that republicans have proposed. the senate has not put together a package yeah. everybody in congress wants to fix the doc-fix. the question becomes how to pay for it. howe waiting to see democrats would pay for their version of the doc-fix. host: we have a chart that shows the cost of long-term solution has grown 600% and will double by 2016. here is the cost in billions. this is the formula. this is what doctors pay for medicare reimbursement. there is a big gap in what costs them. networking. is everyone from the president to medical groups have called to start again. it is proven politically and impossible. host: it would be three under billion dollars to -- $300 billion to fix it. guest: two-year fix would be a long term fix compared to what we've seen recently. host: the former what is called it sustainable growth rate -- the formula. guest: there is a fee for service schedule. doctors get a fee for service. there is a scheduled that the government sets. there is a private plan. that works on the same kind of fee schedule. there are certain prices set for certain procedures. host: is there a bipartisan agreement in the house and the senate to do this doc-fix? guest: there is bipartisan agreement to do a "washington journdoc-fix. everybody agrees it is a problem. you come down to the problem of how much in cuts can we agree on at how far that will get them in extending the doctor payments. host: in the latest proposal, how do they pay for the doc-fix? guest: this is part of a larger proposal. there are a few things they touched on in other packages. they will make some changes to how insurance gets subsidized. under the affordable care act, this would lower incomes. they would tweak the foremost a labatt and talking about cutting the prevention fund. they're looking at some changes to hospitals. fix --why hasn't this doc- has the doc-fix ever not been patched? guest: they have run late worthy doc-fix expired and they did not come up with a solution. it is a pretty hectic solution. everybody is under the assumption the doc-fix will get fixed and passed. they said to hold off for a week. it is a big cash flow problem for the doctors. it cost a lot for the background claims and to -- it has missed its deadline before. it is never not done fix. we've never seen a 27% drop. host: who are the players advocating for a doc-fix? guest: the big west would be to get a permanent doc-fix -- the big wish would be to get a permanent doc-fix. the super committee did not tackle that issue. aarp has many medical beneficiaries. just about every medical group that deals with medicare payments is going to be pushing for this. they do not want to see a specialty doctor group. host: who opposes the doc-fix? guest: salaries drop by 27%. udc opposition about how to pay you do see opposition about how to pay for it. host: what did the bowles- simpson committee say about the doc-fix? guest: they -- i do not remember what they're pay for formula was. representative schwartz -- there are about five or six proposals on the table. bowles-simpson is one among them. host: mayor is a republican in a mexico -- mary. what do you think? caller: i wish you would of had a congressman address this issue, too. i am disabled. i have private insurance for my husband's employer. i also of medicare as a backup because of the pre-existing condition. here is what i found out. my private insurance has to abide by the medicare regulations. so my contract with by private insurance is null and void because i have medicare. maybe if they would change that regulation, some of these doctors would get the payments they are due and maybe they would see patients. host: do you know what she is speaking about? guest: i do not know that specific issue. that is below complicated where you have the spouse's private insurance and medicare. there could be some conflicts coming up. there might be one issue that they might be looking at. host: is there a compromise being talked about between the house and the senate? guest: once we get there we can see how the two lineup and which kind of compromises are possible. hopefully we're getting down to the deadline. last year they pass the doc-fix on december 9. host: john is next from texas. caller: hi. i agree that some doctors do deserve what they get. i am a disabled and on medicare and it has been about a month ago i had a hospital stay and i had one main physician. she was only in there for three minutes at the most. that was one that was listed on my board and i never saw her again. i disagree with what medicare charges are. i received a different doctor the next day. and was there may be two minutes and listen to my heart. on my final day, i have a great doctor who explained -- i had an intestinal virus -- he explained to me what was going on. what medicare is paying, i would dispute what they are getting paid for because they did not service may as much as the final doctor. my main physician, he deserves what he gets because he is good and he understands my disability. host: sarah kliff, kind of echoes in this tweet what this caller was saying. any effort on capitol to tie the doc-fix without doctors do their practice? guest: the health reform law passed. there is a lot of problems with working in a fee-for-service way to pay doctors. most of us do not want to go to the hospital multiple times. we would rather get health the with the least amount of medical care possible. moving away from the fee for service where patients would be healthy. right now there is no incentive to get patients healthy. when theyaid one daandwhen come in. host: when the this payment models go into place? guest: there is a big one and that is getting ramped up right now. applications are coming in for these hospitals that want to instead of getting eight fee-for-service -- instead of getting a fee-for service. they will try to do in the most efficient way possible. host: steve in california. caller: hi. i have had insurance, a great insurance for the last 15 years. i've been blessed with that. recently i have come to light going to the doctor quite a bit for a couple of things. we need an across-the-board fix or should i say -- we have to look at the prices when it comes to doctors, procedures, and pharmaceutical products. every aspect of each component that you need to get well, the doctor, the procedure and the pharmacy are all inflated hundreds and hundreds of%. that is a point fact. host: does the data show what steve is saying? guest: american doctors do get paid more than their counterparts in other countries. inflated it is hard to -- health care costs are rising than anything else in the economy. maybe there is a case that doctors could be paid less. that is not something that congress is looking into. there will stop providing if they cut their salaries. there's a lot more in other countries. host: brooklyn, new york, erica. caller: there's a shortage of doctors. one reason can be blamed on the rich and the doctors who want to be rich. there is a company which only the rich can afford that because they pay high premiums and they get access to a doctor 24/7. doctors join these programs because they treat fewer patients and get paid more money. the secretary of health became a partner in one of these companies after he left office. something to think about. host: have you heard about these programs? guest: the doctor shortage is something that is facing this country. millions of americans gain insurance. who will be the doctors who see them? that is something congress is thinking about. salaries, aretors' doctors don't to be participating in the program? baby boomers are starting to age on to the medicare program. losing that program there may not be enough doctors to see all the medicare patients. host: anything congress doing to address the shortfall? guest: creating more residency slots -- a bit of a challenge to do this in a speedy way. you're going through undergrad, medical school and residency is such a long education. it is difficult to do in the fast term. nursing is another crucial part of the health-care system. they could be playing in e thanmports roll theant role they do now. there is some debate within medicare about how home care experts get reimbursed and there is a growing demand for them. more folks seem to be looking at that kind of care instead of traditional hospital care. host: bob from florida. caller: hello. greetings. the 14th of december in the second world war, 1944 -- host: is related to medicare? caller: the battle of the bulge and the day that my mother deliver me into this world. i turned 67 tomorrow. i have never had anything wrong with me. i had the extraction of my tonsils as a child. i went into the army so i had some medical attention but i was never sick. i was entitled to stuff i never use and i'm still very healthy. i am not familiar with the payment of insurance. i was offered that and i could never afford it to my own payments. we've gone into this quagmire not so much because of the doctors, but don't the insurance companies set the rates that the doctors can charge yo? the partner is the most greedy here. host: happy early birthday to you. guest: in medicare, the insurers are not set. the rates are set by congress in d.c. so many millions of americans in medicare are seeing their prices being emulated in the private markets. in terms of the insurers being greedy, it tends to run around 4% profit margins. haven,guchris in new connecticut. caller: thank you for taking my call. what happens to my physical therapist? he is being run out of business. he had to get a new computer program, which is extremely expensive. it is forcing him to having his practice absorbed by some larger organization. i do not understand why they are not doing anything about the other people besides dr octors. guest: that is an excellent question. hugecost of that is a few one for doctors are now to use medical records -- electronic medical records. it is expensive. if you're one doctor doing this on your own, it costs a lot of money. the recovery act would put incentive payments in place. you would get money to help set up electronic records. a fair number of doctors getting involved with that. in terms of setting rates for other folks, the medicare doc- fix deals with part b, the physicians and doctors. hospitals and prescriptions are not part of this. that is why you don't see them talk about these other groups. host: on the electronic records, where are we with that? guest: one of the big challenges in individual offices going digital -- the problem is getting everything to work together. getting my doctor to talk to my hospital. that's the part that is crucial and that makes electronic medical records effective. but do want to share my data with all the other doctors? if you're my patient, i would rather you stay at my place. it is better for the patient to have better inner opera ability. to talk to the records of the other hospital andacross the country. caller: good morning. i'm a physician and a member of the baby boomer generation. i've been out this for about 30 years. my career in medicine. i'm seeing this is just a continuing encroachment on the practice of medicine. there was a time when doctors were more entrepreneurs and business owners. the financial transaction was between the doctor and patient so that we were able to adjust our fees according to a patients' needs. medicare was passed in 1965. that was one of the early interpositions of a third-party into a patient's best position relationship -- a patient- physician relationship. putting off to the next congress -- eventually they will not fix it. there is going to be a government takeover of 20% of the economy. this is what i think. host: what is the solution? caller: get out of the patient- doctor relationship. host: government. caller: yes. host: what is a like for you to treat a medicare patient? give me an example of how much it costs and when you get back and reimbursement. caller: this whole thing about what you charge and what you get paid, there is no relationship. you could charge whatever you want and there will pay what they thindecide they will pay. you have to accept as payment in full. it doesn't keep up with your cost of keeping an office, paying staff, keeping the lights on and buying the electronic health records. from what i've read in the literature is that medicare payments are barely keeping up with overhead. if they go below overhead, that means you're losing money when you see patients. you can only do that so long and stay in business. host: how do you make up the shortfall? the charge other patients more? -- do you charge other patients more? caller: you cannot charge other people different fees. the government said if you waive it for them, we want you to with it for us. if you do that, we'll charge you with fraud and abuse and send it to the federal penitentiary. professional courtesy is long gone. host: how do you make up the shortfall? caller: you do not. you keep plugging away. host: see more patients. caller: like the five minutes people are always complaining about. host: have you refuse to see medicare patients? caller: i still see them. i worry about that later. that is not my style. next to allen in michigan. caller: hello. i address this before in hospitals. i have blue cross, blue shield. i went up there one time and i have a physical done, supposedly. the physical was never done. i got charge for it. i know these doctors that work beaucoup hours. i don't understand that truckdrivers only works so many hours. we have doctors that turnaround and work beaucoup hours, they are seeing one patient to the next. a doctor cannot get a proper diagnosis of a problem. guest: it speaks lot to the challenges. nobody discuss the service the doctors provide. there is an incentive to provide as many services as possible. he complained about the five minutes. there are challenges seeing patients. we do not know whether this will work or respond well to those. it is a big problem and one we have not figured out the solution to yet. host: lee has this tweet. guest: i think he is referring to the independent advisory board, a pretty controversial part of the law. to date set to start in a few years, though there are some challenges to repeal the part of the law. that would make recommendations to congress about where to set provider rates. their charge would be to keep medicare costs grow. that is the same thing with the sustainable formula, where we keep patching yet. 535 membersoup of of congress who gets to decide how the rates are being set for medicare providers. host: do we know what kind of person will serve on this board? guest: they have to be nominated and go through congress. it is difficult for president obama to get any kind of nominate. we saw that with the financial reform law. the idea of getting those 50 members on to the board and through the senate for confirmation is a big if. host: speaking of confirmation, the former administrator for medicaid services stepped down, was not confirmed in the senate. who might replace him? guest: basically his second-in- command. she may have medicare -- she may head medicaid. it doesn't look like it right now. we do not have any hearings set on the confirmation. so far she has a much more positive than needed reaction from republicans. republicans seized on comments he made about the british health-care service. they pounced right away. you have not seen that with the current nominee. she has written a lot. her career has been in the private service. you have not seen republicans seize on her record. she probably will get a confirmation hearing. it is unclear whether any nominee that president obama sends up to the hilt will make it to the process -- up to the hill. caller: i came back to ohio from texas and i went to see a doctor. i call for an apartment. weeks. about six weetwo i went to see another doctor. on the medicare taking care of people in nursing homes. doing therapy and things such as that. they charge you an enormous fee for people who do not need therapy. i work for a company in texas. the owner work within five minutes and she charged the normal 45 minutes. working in a nursing home, and that was wrong so i quit. the electronics health record. i think that's great. all you have to do is pull up and use of a person's health record right in front of you and you didn't have to send for records and the doctor can treat you. my son-in-law teaches people how to use that. it is great. if you fall down and you get hurt, you don't have to do all these tests, which cost money. thank you for your comments. host: what did you hear there? guest: she points out the v.a. has done a great job integrating everything. the question is whether you can take the medical records from ohio to texas or to the idea of billing for more medicaid services than they provide. the health reform what exists in medicare to try to tackle that. there's always this talk of, let's cut down on medicare fraud and let's not pay for things we should not be paying for. that is one of the things the administration and congress has been looking at, those anti- fraud measures. host: we have this idea on twitter. susan in texas, independent caller. caller: hello. i feel like this is another example of where the government gets involved in something and then passed to create ways for it to work. if we think about the electric cars, we subsidize the people who are making them -- host: we're getting feedback. we'll let you go. sorry about that. jeff in new york. caller: i appreciate the conversation. i want to follow-up on the woman from texas who was speaking. this seems to be a misunderstanding in regards to accepting medicare and medicaid patients. if you would except medicare patients and bill for medicare patients, the rate the huge charge a medicare patient is to be the same for the rate for an insurance patient as well as a cash patient. that is driving up the cost of care. the physician was stating -- if you're break even on a patient to cover your overhead is $50 and you'll charging $100 and medicare is paying you $45, that one under dollars-- $100 -- they are paying $65 and your charge $100 to a cash patient and you are a paying $100. to somebody who doesn't have insurance paying cash, they will accept $65 to help you out. that creates an increased cost. now the visit has to go back and say, and eat to charge $120 because medicare is only paying me $45. that is out there making up the difference and how they are able to stay in business. the cash patient was a been charged even more and this creates an issue on the service side of the physicians and also on the side of pharmaceuticals and the overall cost of insurance. is there any conversation to be had about decoupling the reimbursements for medicare and the ability to charge different rates based upon a person's ability or the other insurance relationships? guest: the conversation i hear the most is not necessarily about the ability to pay or about reforming the way we pay medicare doctors to make more sense. getting away from our current fee-for-service system where you pay each doctor for each service they provide. you pay a doctor of every patient they are seeing. this is called -- you get conditions and care for specific payment. one global how that might not work and what we can do differently in the future. i do agree there are issues about cost shifting and hospital if a doctor is not making enough. you see some moving around in terms of filling those shortfalls. so there is a lot of folks in various ways -- they do end up bearing the brunt if some are too high or some are too low. host: north carolina. go ahead. caller: i may psychotherapist and i'm calling because i work with traumatized children and adolescents. i have been working with children and adolescents and providing psycho education to their parents so we provide systemic work for the child's trauma. we are already overextended ourselves for what we're being given. the cuts make it prohibitive for us to do the work. it is a struggle. my colleagues are now so discouraged that they are deciding to no longer take medicaid patients. host: is the medicaid? -- guest: there is more involvement and you see across- the-board cuts this year as states continue to face tough economic times. they pare back how much they are paying doctors come with it will cover. about half the states will cut their medicaid provider rates and that is a big concern to yourself as a medicaid provider and other medicaid providers out there. how they will keep seeing patients. if more americans are falling on tough times, and they are seeing more patients but being paid less, which patients they are seeing. host: we have a tweet. guest: i am not familiar with that. it could be out there but that is not something i'm familiar with. host: kevin from massachusetts. caller: i got a call recently about my diabetes. i got a letter from a previous primary care provider. they tell me i had to notify my health care that i changed primary care providers because it is the health-care people send them a letter telling me when i'm ready for my blood work. i thought that was unusual. why does the health provider tell them when i'm due for anything? i did not understand what that is all about. if i could get some enlightenment. host: he is gone. guest: you do see health plans try to take a more active role in managing care. there is an incentive to keep costs down to stay on time for things like blood or for diabetes. you do sometimes see them in terms of case management and making sure folks are on schedule for the various parts of the care so -- the end up with a lower bill -- they end up with a lower bill. host: what should viewers be watching for when the debate kicks off over this payroll tax cut extension holiday? what should people be watching for? guest: what democrats are saying about and how republicans proposed paying for the doc-fix. i'm sure you'll see it democrats said they wanted -- but maybe the best way to pay for it. watch to see how they are reacting. host: we're expecting that representative-- republicans are saying they have the votes to pass this package today. what happens with the medicare doc-fix? guest: you go to this each time. you have the republican proposal that will not make it to the senate. they say, this is the life we want to do a doc-fix for. generally it is two years. then there are negotiations between senate and house on how long they will do that and how long -- host: who might come to the floor if our viewers are watching this debate today? guest: this concerns every member of congress. this is not any one issue that affects every district. in general, there is no one medicare offender. every member of congress has to be a defender of medicare. host: sarah kliff, thank you for your time. coming up tomorrow, our spot on magazines series continues. we're talking with a columnist for the american

Related Keywords

Louisiana ,United States ,Brooklyn ,New York ,Delaware ,Minnesota ,China ,California ,Portugal ,San Diego ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Connecticut ,Amsterdam ,Noord Holland ,Netherlands ,Mexico ,Wichita ,Kansas ,Arizona ,South Carolina ,Massachusetts ,Iowa ,Longmont ,Colorado ,South Korea ,Greece ,Kankakee ,Illinois ,Canada ,Japan ,North Carolina ,Dayton ,Ohio ,Germany ,Oakland ,Texas ,Islamabad ,Pakistan ,Kentucky ,Florida ,Indiana ,Colombia ,Georgia ,Oregon ,Guatemala ,Michigan ,Chapel Hill ,Cincinnati ,Greenville ,United Kingdom ,Oklahoma ,Maine ,Tennessee ,Iraq ,New Jersey ,Sydney ,New South Wales ,Australia ,New Haven ,Maryland ,Springfield ,Pennsylvania ,Americans ,America ,Colombians ,Greek ,British ,Japanese ,American ,Britain ,Canadians ,Sheldon Kennedy ,Gramm James ,Dick Durbin ,Warren Buffett ,Uniontown Pa ,Jon Huntsman ,Ralph Nader ,Joe Biden ,Ron Paul ,Ronald Reagan ,Jon Corzine ,Los Angeles ,Jerry Sandusky ,Rick Perry ,Michele Bachmann ,Tom Coburn ,Joseph Ramirez ,Harry Reid ,John Mccann ,John Boehner ,Rick Santorum ,Gerry Sandusky ,John Mckinnon ,George Bush Jr ,Joe Paterno ,Newt Gingrich ,Sheila Jackson Lee ,Tom Cole ,Paul Ryan ,