♪ host: today is sunday, may 1, and welcome to "washington journal." congress comes back to work tomorrow. they have been working at home in their various states and districts for the past few weeks. merely at the top of everyone's list is fixing the budget. we want to talk about that for the first 45 minutes of the program. we will be looking at a poll released by "usa today." id is in this morning's "baltimore sun." first, we want to let you know what the numbers are. who is best suited to deal with the federal budget? republicans or democrats? the numbers, for democrats, 202- 737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. if you are calling from outside the u.s. this morning, 202-628- 0184. if you have called within the last 30 days, but down the phone and send us a message electronically. our e-mail, journal@c-span.org, or if you are on twitter, twitter.com/c-spanwj. this is the story the way that it appears this morning in "the baltimore sun." we are going to talk about the budget to begin with and get to the other areas later on in the program. host: that is in this morning's open quote baltimore -- "baltimore sun." we want to find out from you who is more capable of fixing the budget in congress. we want to take a look at the way it was reported on got through. "americans favor republicans handling the budget" according to the poll. host: for the first 40 minutes or so in the program, we will talk about the budget fix. republicans or democrats, who is better equipped to fix the budget crisis? first up, a democrat, illinois, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i would like to say that i am 78 years old. i have seen many administrations. and honestly, i know that the democrats are better, from my experience. host: why do you say that to know that they are better? caller: because of my experience. when we have democratic administrations, we do not like to admit it, but we know that they are more for the average american, which is more than the rich. that is, we number more they make better laws and allow better things to happen for us. we who are working, actually, that is one of the reasons the middle class is disappearing from our country, because we have worked so hard to have a middle-class. i remember when there was no middle class, in that old. all of the problems that we had with unions that people went through, people died, that has been done away with. host: bill, california, who is better equipped to fix the federal budget? republicans or democrats? caller: i do not think that it really matters anymore. they all get funds from lobbyists and are beholden to the corporate autocracy and plutocracy of major industries that are finding them and basically running the countries. just a back-and-forth of bickering between the two. host: if you had a choice, but would you like to see from your representative or senator coming back this week? caller: i wish that i had that sort of power at my hands. there is a lot i would like to see but it will not happen that way, because the system is rigged. host: phillis, an independent line, north carolina. caller: good morning. host: who is better equipped, republicans or democrats? caller: i would certainly like to see them work together. i do not know, from the last administration it seems that they are not willing to work together. host: what kinds of concessions or compromise do you think it will take from each side? caller: recently i saw congressman going back home to see their constituents, finding out that they are unhappy with what they are trying to do. i think they need to listen to the people back home a little bit more instead of so much hiding amongst themselves. it seems to me that a major thing they might be doing well and is constantly threatening to cut everything from the middle class and not taking away anything from the upper class or corporations done, such as giving money to the oil companies and corporate farmers, tax breaks. if you are going to take some much away from the middle class , show us that she will be giving us something from the other side as well. that puts a bad light on at all of the time. host: phillis was talking about the reaction that house and senate members got when they went back home. we would like to show you some footage of an angry constituents regarding the vote on representative brian's budget. we will take a look at what happened in pennsylvania. >> [unintelligible] [angry voices] host: we are talking about the federal budget and getting it fixed. republicans or democrats? st. louis, you are on "washington journal." caller: by a lifelong democrat, but i will tell you right now -- i am a lifelong democrat, but i will tell you right now that the way the democrats are going after small businesses -- we are right on the threshold of $250,000, but 33% of our money goes to federal, 10% goes to the state, not to mention what we have to pay for employees. i am with republicans on this. you cannot demonize businesses and expect to have a prosperous country. these people need to watch the business channels. president obama took most of the money from the biggest corporations in this country, and wall street. you cannot just label republicans evil for taking money from corporations, they all do it. i will tell you, if this budget does not like it under control, we will all face major problems. thank you and please use common sense when talking about the budget. host: we are talking about the federal budget into is better equipped to fix it, republicans or democrats. according to a poll just released, americans favor republicans to fix the budget by a margin of 48%. tennessee, on the line for republicans. dave, you are on "washington journal." >> i can echo the comments that your last caller made. we have got something in the neighborhood of 35% of our net income don, i literally have to go to the federal government to beg for an extension. it becomes a line-item expense for me. it gets passed to the consumers. i could have taken that 35% and hired another employee. instead i am paying the government. they are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar. i cannot do that as a business and i know the federal government cannot by there. in five years the democrats have run up a $14 trillion debt. 100% of the gdp. our currency is losing value and that is where we are going. host: who is your daschle rep? dave is gone. let's go to round rock, texas, on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am not a democrat or republican. never have been either. i have been looking at the federal budget for years. i have been a businessman. historically history tells a story, and c-span has the resources to look this up, republicans have never been good with the budget. it started with reagan, when he would cut taxes and close hospitals, blowing holes in the budget. historically, when you look at the record, democrats have a better track record for budget constraint. yes, they are liberal on social programs, but on the budget they have done a very good job. or at least a better job, let's put it that way. we have cut taxes and cut taxes and expected to run a country without revenues ended just love happen. host: bling, sunrise, florida, do you think that the republicans or democrats will do a better job in congress? caller: democrats. host: how have they proven that? caller: republicans have run up the deficit for 10 years. eight years. six years. republicans were charged with running up the budget and have done a good job of convincing the american people that democrats of done that, which is outrageous. president bill clinton proved that democrats can put the budget in order, put a surplus of us. republicans just spent it all up. it is outrageous what i am hearing from people in america. republicans of the worst on the budget. thank you. host: thank you. this is from gallup.com. "neither party has the edge on major issues." it goes into a bill but more detail. -- a little bit more detail. host: back to the phones. oklahoma, on the republican line. steven, you are on "the washington journal." stephen, one out turndown your television and it will make this process work smoother. all right, we are going to put you on hold and go to the atlanta, georgia. sarah, independent line. caller: good morning. host: who is better equipped to fix the budget? caller: the democrats. my reason for this, the last administration did not put the wars on the tab, prescription drugs on the tab. just like a woman who knows she is under water with her house, she buys stuff and hides it in the closet from our husband. finally the bill comes due. this is what obama had. the bill came due. everything was put on the budget and now we know where we stand. america cannot stand it. as far as small business people, i agree, they have taxes. instead of fighting for the republicans to maintain these subsidies for corporations, you want to be fighting for them to get rid of input so that we can close those tax loopholes that allow this to happen so that everyone's taxes can go down. especially small business. host: stephen, good morning. keep the audio down on your television. caller: i do not know what they are drinking in illinois, but in a truck driver. -- i am a truck driver. i had to buy something and it cost me more by an illinois because of the taxes. i think the republicans are better. republican states run by republican governors and senators have but -- balanced budgets. -california, illinois, new york, 80% run by the democrats. host: we are going to take a break on this discussion to check in with simon, a "washington post" correspondent, reporting from libya this morning to talk to us about the lead story from "the washington post." "nato airstrike kills son of gaddafi." what is the latest? caller -- caller: we were taken back to the house that was struck, people filing, members of the public filing through the ruins. we just had a crowd of women chanting pro-gaddafi slogans. all kinds of things. we were just in the kitchen. meals that were being prepared last night. pasta, rice, fish. the clock stopped at 8:09 p.m. it appeared to be a residential house. if there was a duel usage, we do not know. dare is no evidence of that host: was there any evidence that gaddafi himself was there? caller: there was none. i have to say that that is something you have to take in. he was supposed to have been there and supposed to have escaped completely unscathed. one of the buildings is completely destroyed. two buildings are a jason leigh damaged. something that definitely remains -- adjacently damaged. something that definitely remains. host: you reported that u.s. intelligence agencies had not been able to confirm the report, while nato said that it had carried out a precision strike against unknown command and control building. is there any kind of update from nato? did they know that this was a civilian domiciled? closely monitoring all of the communications coming out. i would imagine that they would have intersected some kind of signal coming from the building. . the government says they must have had intelligence that gaddafi was there. whether or not it was satellite tracking. clearly, that is a mystery, why they chose this house. nato perhaps picked up some radio signals -- signals. host: what kind of neighborhood is the home in? have you had a chance to talk to the people lived close by? caller: not yet. to be are just literally being taken back. it is a residential neighborhood. clearly, there are the houses of rich people. this is not a military neighborhood. everything that we have seen suggests that this is a residential property. host: are there any neighbors or anything walking around the streets today? caller: we are walking around to see if we can find some neighbors. there are 3 e missiles that apparently struck that may have been unexploded or designed not to cause shrapnel. there were explosions from the hotel that we felt, as well as heard. host: i understand that he is the youngest son of muammar gaddafi. caller: that has been corrected by the government, he is the second youngest. he is not very high profile. he was caught up in a scandal in germany when he got into a fight outside of a nightclub, the bouncer tried to throw out the woman he was dancing with. the libyan embassy tried to cover that up and became a wrangle between libya and germany. probably a bigger story than it actually was. other than that, a bit of a party here. but not someone who has had a high-profile regime, as his older brothers have. host: has anything been seen or heard from muammar gaddafi in the past 24 hours? caller: there has not. we are expecting that he may make some kind of public appearance. whether or not it will be something in state television remains to be seeing. -- remains to be seen. his names have not yet been released by the family. hopefully they will release them later today. host: simon denyer, correspondent for "the washington post," co writing the headline this morning, thank you for being on the phone with us. caller: pleasure. host: the bill go back to our topic this morning, -- we will go back to our topic this morning, fixing the federal budget, republicans or democrats, who is better equipped for the problem? you can read more about the pole from gallup in "the baltimore sun." host: we will get to more of that in a few seconds. back to the phones. thank you to c-span. -- caller: thank-you to c-span. i think that democrats would do a better job. the lady from georgia had a good point. there were bills and now they are concerned about the deficit. it looks like republicans will be in charge of the budget. they do not want to close the polls or nothing, cut defense or anything. host: who is your representative in sarasota? caller: [unintelligible] host: ok. will the performance of congress affect whether or not he is reelected in november? caller that -- caller: a stronger presence there, i do not know if more people pay attention to the news, and do they know what these people are trying to do? they would see that the income deficits of the average citizen benefits the rich corporations. host: john, asheboro, go ahead. caller: my family has always been republican. predominantly republican. i have to say, over the last several years, since we have received internet, i have received neighbors and co- workers that have encouraged me to do research. i find out that the people that we voted for have run up terrible deficits. where does host: some one. and out to me -- someone -- caller: someone pointed out to me, vice president cheney, it looks like bill clinton was the last person to get the budget under control. in rethinking this whole thing. -- i am rethinking this whole thing. the very, very wealthy people need to be paying their fair share. it is a shame that the oil companies are raking in this money. i know that times are tough for me. host: we will leave it there. . process on the union battle but still the media are the ones that control the strings and the republicans caveed on how they got elected in november with the budget in february and all because of the media they're worried about what people think and for future reference in the last 10-years you can claim to ten or 20 things from the war in libya and all the wars in the middle east and everything the media controls it. host: we'll leave it there. andy in chicago you're on the line for democrats. go ahead. who do you think is better e kwifted to fix the budget. democrats or the republicans. caller: i think nobody can do it on their own. it's a process and you have to have a process from the house of representatives to the senate and again the president has to sign it and god forbid if your judges. supreme court judges get a hold of it seeing that they're extreme right wing these days but i would like to give comfort from the woman from missouri and i don't know if i can endorse any tom hartmann type of characters of line. but that from missouri. her small business. they only text them after they make $250,000 profit if you're making that to $350,000 a year and you have to pay all the bills you wayned up with what? $37,000 or $70 something thousand. no. you're not going to be touched. it's your profit. >> andy, chicago. off lead in the chicago post. on the way to a surplus a $12 trillion dollar detour. in 2001 the nation looked to be debt three and in 2011 it's anything but. it's by laurie montgomery and the "washington post". next up in houston texas. erik on the line for republicans. you're on the "washington journal". >> good morning. and thanks for c-span. >> hose to reform the budget situation. republicans or democrat? >> republicans. and by very thin margin i should say. i think congressman's budget is moving in the right direction. i must be frank saying some of the comments said this morning about the crisis are in fur rating. very emotional. talking about the talking points by the last, look at facts. the first thing is, when it comes to our unfunded liabilities. mandated liabilities. thinking about entitlements. we have a liability of $100 trillion. dollars. the economy is only $17 trillion. you can't pay for what's coming down the pipe in entitlements and you have those screaming at the top of the lungs don't touch my social security and medicare and medicaid. folks from it's inception. it was a false premise. it doesn't work. >> so erik with all of that on the line who is in the best position to mix and fix this? >> i think congressman ryan's budget is a step in the right direction. i don't think it goes far enough and i think the crisis is deeper than that. but the congressional house is at least trying to take the steps. look. you have to be realistic. the democrats and especially african-american democrats and i'm a dressing my community of color. that can speak to president bush all the time and blame him and blame him. will they come to the reality since the inauguration of mr. obama with the reid and pelosi in tow they're exacerbateing the problem and president obama would have racked up more debt than all the other presidents in american history combined. host: we'll leave it there. national tennessee. independent. gregory? caller: good morning. i would say more so than being democrat or republican or independent i'm a citizen of the united states of america and looking at it from a citizen's point of view. it just seems to me, republicans have started world wars and have the belief that's the way to fund constituents. they're getting in other people's business. republicans getting in other people's business and that's what started all of this. we're going overseas and trying to do that and we're still trying to do that. they want the churches. republicans feel like the churches should be able to fix things which is why i guess president bush took so long when katrina took place. look how long it took them to respond to katrina. some people including myself, say probably that area down there with katrina, that because it had a predominance of minorities. even though we're not really minorities anymore. listen to old money which is really what republicans are and they're afraid to lose that money. entitlements? we're on the edge in the first place before the wars. then, republicans started wars and did not fund them. so now president obama has got to pick up the pieces of everything that took place in the past and the majority of all the problems were created by republicans going overseas and getting in everybodies business. >> we're going to take another break from our discussion regarding the federal budget and who's best to fix it to talk about the big party that was held here in washington d.c. last night. the white house correspondent's dinner. association dinner. it's a fundraiser but also a chance for the political set to hob-knob with the hollywood set and on the phone to tell us a little more about some of the hob-knobing that went on last night is christina will beingy of the hill. were you there last night? caller: i was. preparety. at the dinner and a few after parties. host: you're just getting in this morning. caller: it was not the earliest night of my life. host: what was the big highlight. caller: the big highlight could be summed up as the chastening of donald trump. the first time since mr. trump has begun making noises about running for president and certainly taking on the president, himself, in various media that trump seems to control. and forms this about the birth issue that came to ahead as the president revealed his birth certificate and trump took credit. last time, last night he was absolutely skewered between host seth myers that a funny comedian and then the president's speech itself. trump was out of his comfort zone. didn't seem to think the jokes were funny but they were. host: there's an on ed piece this morning by kate sernke. the endless debate and paranoid stul style of american politics. given what you heard from the president and "saturday night live"'s seth myers you think the jabs poked at donald trump are going to end this debate regarding president's birth status or is this merely adding fuel to the fire? >> i think washington journalists could - well they really took a lot of fire out of the phenomenon that is donald trump and reminded us when he's on the turf of some of the people he seems to be attacking, he doesn't have very much fuel and the president is you know very bright and dynamic in sort of taking donald trump apart. and as he arrived at the dinner he walked the red carpet and asked him if he expected the president and he sort of said, oh, no and had no idea what was coming. host: we're showing for those watching live or on our website. we're showing video from last night's a rival top red carpet and there was a mixed group of celebrities. some folks that we see in hollywood. we just had a shot of wolf blit ser who i guess is a celebrity in some circles. tell us about some of the folks you saw. who knocked you out the most? caller: we saw everyone from amy poler. and sean pennn. paul rudd. gail king. senator scott prawn who is a bit of a star in washington circles. john parker. we saw a couple of professional athletes. we saw steve bush semii the actor. host: sorry. christina, for those that may be watching the white house correspondent dinner the first time. explain high there are so many a.p.p list hollywood and new york type celebrities at a dinner put on by the white house press corporation? caller: because the tables at dinner are not taken entirely by people you see, outlets you tradition see in the white house briefing room. "people" magazine purchases a few and vanity fair and really the goal, as it has evolved among media is a little bit competitive to see who can bring the most interesting or the shiniest movie stars to washington and a lot of stars have causes that they want to go for. global warming. maternal health. so they often use the opportunity to speak to the press and speak to lawmakers about the causes that they feel are important. host: who was at the hill's table last night? caller: we had the kentucky basketball star. john lamm. the room was filled. very much black tie. tuxes and gowns and the entire series of cocktail parties all held within the complex of the washington area. >> what was the hardest actor party ticket to get a hold of last night. who was the toughest room to get into and who seemed to have the most fun from the actor parties you attended? caller: tradition it's the vanity fair and bloomberg after party held at the french ambassador's residence. beautiful house. the person i saw having the most fun i think was sarah palin. she attended both garden brunch during the day. didn't attend the dinner itself was interesting. her daughter bristol did. but she was the first to arrive at this very exclusive vanity fair party. couple of folk from congress will angling for invitations and she went on to attend other actor parties and she was in top form. host: who did you have a chance to hob-knob with. caller: i want to the msnbc. palin arrived between 12:45 and 1:00. the crowd went wild and their host was bar tending and people were excited to see her. host: alright. christina, you can read her articles at the hill.com and if you want to find out more about last night's height house correspondence dinner you can go to our website. white house correspondence dinner hub. the web there is c-span.orgw hcd. next up is dorris in chicago, illinois. you're on. caller: thank you. i want to address the previous caller the african-american republican that's like the chickens that have a love affair with colonel sanders. you know, republicans have tradition run up the deficit. reagan spent out of control. clinton came in. balanceed the budget and left the surplus. bush came in spent out of control. left a huge deficit and a deep recession and now they're repeating like okay. the democrats now have to cut social spending. they have to balance the budget. they have to bring down the deficit. where were they? caller: what about republicans that claim the rate of spending under the obama administration in the last two years of democrat control in congress has accelerating the amount of spending? dorris? not here. well we want to thank all the folks that participated in this particular portion of the program. coming up in 45 minutes a discussion - wait a minute one more call and it is from, it is gone. coming up in 45 minutes a discussion on 2012 politics but up next a look ahead as congress returns this week, but first and update from c-span radio. >> beginning at noon eastern. c-span radio re-airs the five network t.v. top shows. economy, presidential politics. conflicts in the middle 'and this weeks tornadoes damage in the south. beginning meet the press. david gregory introduces michael bloomberg and bob macdonald. senator marco rubio and seth myers on last night's white house correspondence dinner. at one p.m. abc this week. talking with house budget committee paul ryan. fox news sunday begins at 2 p.m. chris wallace welcomes min so the republican and senate budget chair committee and republican senate lindsay graham a member of the arms service and then c-span's state of the union. candy kroeln talks to democrat holland of maryland and stephen whatly and former democratic con xres congresswoman. and alabama governor robert bentley. the five network t.v. talk show hoes are brought to you by the network. re-airs begin at noon eastern with meet the press. 1:00. abc's this week. fox news sunday at 3:00 state of the union and face the nation from cbs. listen to them all on c-span radio in the washington d.c. area. on xm satellite channel 132 downloadable or go on-line to c-span radio dot org. >> what i try to do is tell a story with visuals instead of words. >> with four pulitzer prizes. carole has won the award more than any other journalist. >> variety we get to experience. so many parts of human condition. >> she'll talk more on tonight's c-span q & a. download ap od cas podcapodcast. new cia director replaces robert gates and general david a tray as. track their careers on-line. search, watch, clip and share. it's washington. your way. "washington journal" continues. host: chief congressional correspondent for the washington examiner joins us. welcome to the program. what is legislation is most immediate on the congressional agenda once they return tomorrow? >> first thing they're going to do right off the bat is name a couple of post office which is what they do on mondays. nothing too heavy. members are getting started again. in tuesday in the house a they'll attack the national healthcare law again. republicans have vowed to repeal the bill and voted for that in the house but the senate was unwilling to take it up. republicans have a new plan to take it part bit by bit and try to repeal those and take the senate to take it up as amendments here and there and maybe pick it part. tuesday they have two bills. one would defund school-based health centers. big part of the healthcare reform bills and the second is one bill that was sort of stopping the state for the exchange as huge component of the national healthcare law. in order to have affordable healthcare. president obama wants to establish exchanges in the states where people could afford affordable health care could be covered. the money would amount to a gigantic slush fund. they they it would be in effective. they're going to probably pass those two bills on tuesdays. republican led house by a 44 seat majority will easily pass. they'll get right off to a big start trying to again, repeal parts of healthcare law they promised due when campaigning last november. >> what is the thinking mind breaking these healthcare law up into the smaller element? and trying to pass the repeal in the house that way? do they think it's would be easier to slide by the democrats in the senate and by the president? >> i think no one expected the president to sign on to or sign off on any bill that pulls out any part of the healthcare bill except the one they passed repealing irs reporting requirement. everyone was on board and thought it would be too burden some. that's just about all he would be willing to tweak. that the republicans would think of. i think the democrats and others might want to tweak the law a little bit. they're plan of action is to take it part and refund it. they also voted to repeal the entire bill and of course that's not going anywhere. the idea here is to take smaller elements and repeal those in the house. vote to repeal those in the house and then in the senate a republican could attach something to a larger pill and maybe some up with enough votes particularly among more modern senates to move it that way and number two it also keeps the issue alive and i think politically that's helpful for republicans who really helps. really helped the last election by opposition by some people to the healthcare law and they kind of want to keep that going and to show voters their base and they're still work together repeal that healthcare law. ho host white house has a dinner tomorrow night. you know who's going and what they'll talk about? guest: all the leaders and the instrumental people in the upcoming debates on what we're going to do about the debt ceiling. that's going to be the real big debate that consumes congress in the next few weeks. we're at 14.3 trillion dollar limit on the deth ceiling. that expires on may 16th. that's a few weeks from now and if we don't raise that we default on our expenses and that sends the economy into a tailspin. there's a little wiggle room because tim geithner said he can keep things going to july 8th but knowing the way congress functions and how to address, they need a lot more time than that. they've got to beat to work. the president and members of congress are trying to strike a deal early to help keep the economy going and not give the markets or scare the markets into thinking we're getting too close which of course many believe would be catastrophic. host: we'll involve our viewers and listeners in a few seconds regarding congress and it's return this week. i have one more question before going to the phones. who were the gang of six and what are they trying to accomplish? guest: some are leaders like dick during bin and others are lower on the totem pole and others are people considered super conservative. they're from opposite political spectrums trying to craft away to low tear deficit. we have a lower deficit contributed to a massive debt. they want to reign in spending. the deficit was not able to agree upon some plan to move forward, so they decided to take it to see if they could come up with their own plan and try to usher it through the senate and they're talking about a variety of different things. not come up with a specific plan yet but different ways to control spending. among them entitlement reform which is a huge issue for everybody politically speaking. ways to reform medicare and social security and ways potentially to - the new but word is a deficit trigger where you have a limit on how high the national deficit could be before triggers potentially tax increase or spending cuts. there's all kinds of things on the table and the gang of six are key players in the solution. host: susan is our guest and we're talking about congress and it's return this week. want to get involved in the conversation. the number for democrats is (202) 737-0002, (202) 737-0001 for democrats or (202) 628-0205. e-mails can be sent. don't bother on twitter because we're having electrical problems but you can reach us at cspan.org. dorothy our first caller? caller: yes, i was calling because i have a comment and a question. well, my comment first, would be that when obama spent the money he had to spend when we went into the recession that was a must and he did do it for the middle class and said history will report that. but also i would like to know why don't the media ever really put up fact as to who did make budget deficits if they're going to do it against party or add administrations. they should put up that so the american people will actually know who is responsible for these huge deficits we had. and that's my question. host: who do you say is responsible for the huge deficit? caller: well i have to say the republicans. i know they want to be conservative and that's a good thing and i am sort of conservative too. i like the facts. i really like facts. host: give us the facts? guest: there's a lot of - there's two sides. democrats like to point out the deficit and deth were enormous and he inherited a really difficult situation. republicans knowledge thing where is tough. the republican line is that president obama has not improved the situation and in their view has made it worse in part by spending a lot of money. the two sides at opposite opinion on this and one of the thing this point out the republicans that contributed to our deficit is the stimulus plan that the viewers are talking about. where democrats believe it helps to save and create jobs. republicans feel it didn't accomplish that at all. again the two sides completely disagree on that as well. host: this is from frank who writes on gallop.com talking about a pole they put out last week. americans wasteful spending, the large majority of americans say spending too much money on unneeded federal programs is to blame while 22 say the deficit is a consequence not raising enough in taxes to pay for needed programs. the question they post. which do you think is more to blame for the federal budget deficit. wasteful spending too much money or not enough taxes. nationally. 73 percent said spending too much on programs. 22% said not raising taxes enough. and then there's sharp division as among republicans polled by the u.s.a today gallop presented in usa today gallop. republicans. 91% said spending too much on programs while not raising enough money in taxes only 7 percent on the other side. democrats 56 said spending too much money on programs and 38 percent not raising enough money in taxes. cedar town georgia on the line for democrats. erik you're on the washing to be journal. caller: yes. address this to the guest. the democrats that the program put in helped unemployment checks. these programs with the assistance. medicare. republicans, democrats get it. social security. that's not one program which republicans have put in to help the majority of the people. and also, could you explain what is - if the government taking our taxpayers money that the small people have paid in and they're actually given our money to these large corporations, these subsidies of millionaires and billion theirs. explain a subsidy. guest: very good question. something we'll a lot about this week. subsidies oil companies is going to be a big topic in congress. president obama addressed it in his weekly saturday a dress to the nation. talked about ended oil subsidies and that would be - what it does is cuts taxes for or it excuses taxes for some of the big oil companies and saves them about 4 billion a year and that's a lot of money. president obama is talking about ending that. right now in the senate, the senate majority leader harry reid is talking about getting a bill on the floor to end those for the big companies and put the money back into the u.s. treasury. the chairman of the finance committee will be having a hearing on that and again, i think we'll see a bill soon. the timing might be good for legislation like that because gasoline prices are so high. the momentum might be there. the country is getting exas sper rating wondering why we're giving tax breaks to the big companies. host: bill on the line from jackson, mississippi. caller: thank you. i don't want to be disrespectful to the journalist there today but somebody needs to speak up and start telling the truth about what's going on and it seems we cannot depend on journalists to do that anymore. they tend to come on and they will tell the truth about the democrats but then they'll tell us what the republicans say in response instead of the fact of it. host: there's one fact about that you're not - you say you're not hearing. caller: the democrats built up a huge surplus and then president bush and the republicans came in and squandered all of it giving most of it to the rich and wealthy and spending it on wars an not putting wars on the budget and then when president obama came in, he was saddled with an economy that was damaged severely and almost in a depression and he had to spend load office money just to keep us from going into idea precious. when journalists come on they try to play, this side said this and the other side said that and that's one of the most uninformed countries in the world and it's killing this country. host: we'll leave it there, bill. guest: two apposing sides. one reason why reporters try to point out both sides is their divided too. we have a pretty divided electorate right now and some of that is evidence by the elections we've had. these swing elections and i think it's resulted in a really divided congress and it's just stemming from a country that's philosophically divide. do we spend more or stop spending? that's what we're really at a critical point where congress is being forced to decide how - listening to voters and watching the pole numbers. what do we do? are we to cut spending? people think spending is a little high and that did happen some of it under the obama administration. it's true in some ways everyone is talking about the democrats and spending and not really focusing on the massive amount of spending during the bush years. host: can you recollect on our line for republicans. caller: i want to thank c-span for your fantastic service to the united states and the rest of the world. my question is - regarding the debt ceiling, what is your take on the mcclintock alternative to raising the ceiling on the debt? thanks care. host: susan? guest: there's a bunch of alternatives to raising the debt ceiling. whole bunch of possibilities. one that is gaining momentum right now amonged republicans any way is to do it in little increments. you might remember last month when congress was trying to deal with the fiscal spending bill. they couldn't come to agreement. didn't want to shut the government down so they would fund it for a few weeks to keep it going and a long the way republicans felt they were able to win some of the big cut this wanted spending. the big thing for republicans is trying to do the same thing with the debt ceiling. every couple of months raise it and try to achieve some of the cuts and things they want. people think that might lead to real instability and shake the financial markets if we don't settle on one large increase. geithner is talking about a 2 trillion dollar increase in the ceiling they would need to keep the government going for a while. i think that right now. with the big negotiation would be is exactly how they're going to agree to raise it. the republicans aren't going to just allow the seal together go up. they're going to try to secure something big in terms of cuts. spending captor new deficit trigger everybody is talking about to guarantee something would happen to reach the limit that would be established by congress. the problem right now is that republicans and democrats don't agree what that trigger would be. taxes and spending cuts? and republicans don't want to do taxes just spending. host: chart from the u.s. treasury shows the progression of the debt. the limit is in orange and the actual debt is in green. you can also almost see how the limit sort of covers the actual debt up until about 1981. there's space and then it starts to go from a horseson tall progression to almost vertical there about 2009. erie pennsylvania. rick, you're on the "washington journal". caller: good morning. my question is why are both parties so afraid to go after the big budget big. the defense department. we have all the bases in europe and south 'asia. we spend god knows how much money on these over blown weapon systems we don't need anymore. we live in a world where we still want a rolls royce when the rest of the world is driving a chevy. we need to scale back on a lot of this spending in defense. host: susan. could we expect to see any sort of massive cuts or significant cuts in defense? guest: i think we will in defense. furans. both republicans and democrats are talking about that need the that's pretty new because republicans are always trying to stop defense cuts and now everyone is realizing there's some way to cut money. secretary gates has said we need to cut spending and out lying cuts that can be made. president obama looks like will a point someone to, well, he'll take gates place and reign in spending for defense. i think we're at this point going to see some reduction in spending. however, there are two wars and the conflict in libya right now so you're probably not going to see really massive cuts. it's just not real listic to see that. i think you will see some. host: leon paneta who you mentioned will replace the current defense secretary, robert gates and general david petraeus the next director of cia. tell us about the musical chairs going on in the national defense and how - will it be contentious getting them confirmed guy senate or is this a done deal? host: military guy in the ai. signals what direction obama thinks they should be moving in. i don't think it'll be difficult for him to confirm. he's universally liked on capitol hill speaking. paneta i expect will be confirmed. i really want questions about what his plans are. what's he going to do to protect the country as defense secretary? but i have a feeling both of these gentlemen will be confirmed. host: do you think the senators will be looking for in terms of cuts and defense spending, what can be cut but not in my state or district? guest: always big regional thing. everyone wants to protect military spend and keep bases open. that's going to be a huge part. always is. always difference in the democrats and republicans differ on how the cuts can be carried out. democrats feel it should be a plot more aggressive than republicans. host: next call from long island, new york. james for representatdemocrat l. caller: thanks for taking my call. the inaccuracy of the information by news media. i've been a news junky for years and i believe the news media both print and electronic are controlled by the right wing. without a doubt so therefore they're going to control the message primarily. thank you very much. host: glen on the line for republicans. glen? caller: first, i'd like to address what the caller mentioned about the message. the message that the news media picked up can be anything it wants to be. the facts are the facts so it doesn't matter what the message is, the facts stay the same. in my opinion and from the facts i've seen. republicans have done a better job with the budget. if the democrats can do a better job i have to ask them the budget we just came out with ch. it'll come out. one of the previous callers. obama has inherited. it. he asked for it. he said and i mean he wanted us to vote for him. the american public to vote for him. he's had a plan to fix the country. he's not really done that said he wanted to bring the troops out from war. they're still there. host: glenda in tennessee. jones borrow. guest: republicans are taunting the democrats saying when you were in you tear last four years the last two years you didn't have a budget, which is a plan or blueprint for spending the in the following year leading to some of the drama over the government shut down and the 2011 budget they blamed on the democrats for not coming up with the own spending blueprints and republicans have come up with a plan. it's a really legitimate plan on details how to cut more than 4 trillion in spending over the next decade. it's somewhat controversial. because it addressed medicare for the first time and that's a tough issue for some people. raising the eligibility age gradually to have to be 69 to get the benefits and probably in theest makes of some people perhaps reduce the benefits for some people depending what your income level is. so it's pretty controversial but the republicans have dove into this debate now on medicare and got the ball rolling on it and the democrats say, well they say were falling short on that. host: r regarding the budget. stephen dennis wrote senator majority leader mcdonnell said won't vote along side a vote on the house budget written by paul lion. the remember tu can i republican announcement comes a day after harry reid announced plans to vote on the budget written by budget committee chair ryan for the expressed purpose of killing it. explain how this is going to happen? guest: now you got to think about it politically. we know that it's really unlikely that either plan will pass the senate. senate right now has a slight democratic majority. few seats ahead. you need 60 votes to pass things in the senate. unusual. not a simple majority. it's tough to get things passed. the ryan budget is republican budget. there won't be enough despite moderate democrats. and republicans feel that this will put them on the spot politically because some of the members will have to vote whether they support cuts to medicare or the raising of the eligibility raise that's a tough thing for some people. why pick up a bill that's not going to pass. why put up that painful political exercise. on the other side the obama budget will also not come up with enough votes because there's just, there again aren't the 60 votes to pass it. the senate does this. they'll take up both side-by-side for two different plans on a certain piece of legislation and neither will go through and what it does is lets the senators know where things are and add them to move forward with the real negotiations. the 2011 budget. they voted on a few and they got down to the real work of negotiating a compromise. host: representative ryan this week with a quote in this blog here. how do you feel being made the boogey man on the budget business and he said i don't think about it. i sleep well at night. we know we're going to have an economic collapse on the path we're on and so to me, it's con or unconsable as an elected represent of the people to know that's coming and not to try. the sounds like representative ryan has dug in and this is his line in the sand and challenging people to cross it. guest: really is. the republican line is we have to do something now. the program we have in place for medicare and all the entitlements is not sustainable in decades from now. there isn't going to be at that point then you're going to have to see cuts and they're not going to be well planned out. they might be drastic and difficult for people to take. less reform, let's reform the system now. democrats i've heard obama say the republican plan is so drastic and so discouraging it just makes it look like country is falling apart, so basically the republicans are taking a viewpoint that the country is falling apart finishly where as the democrats say let's fix things more scalpel verses a hatchet. host: tulsa oklahoma. independents line. caller: good morning. one - two things. one is that if we really want to cut the budget let's start with the defense for this reason. we're still in germany almost 60 years after the end of the second war. we have 50,000 military personnel in germany. we have 30,000 in south korea. 35 thousand in japan. we have bases in england, france, germany, spain, italy. portugal. who are we afraid of that we need that many base? host: susan? guest: think we'll see defense cuts and eventually a less of a big footprint overtime i'm sure. at this point with things going on in libya and i think the instability in north korea, it's unlikely you'll see a big reduction right now. if anything i think some people think that things becoming more unstable in our presence is really needed. there's a real divide on that and there's currently a lot of people that think defense spending is out of and. talk about the cost of some of these - some of the equipment, airplanes and the ships and things that cost millions and billions of dollars and why are we still spending money. some of it's duplicative and some of it is wasteful. one area that's there's a lot of agreement is there's wasteful spending and thing that can be done away with it. i think you're going to see an attempt to do that over the years. host: there's always going to be regional issues with cutting defense spending. with regard to closing some of the bases overseas. do the senators an congressman hear from represents of various countries saying we rather you didn't close this in our country or we'd like to see you guys leave tomorrow? guest: depends. certain parts of country i think there's a desire for americans to leave. okinawa. the american presence was controversial there. problems there for the military. but for the most part they're considered a welcomed presence because they provide a, you know l layer of protection in an unstable area. caller: yes. i'd like to ask whether or not the 333 million that is spent per day in between iraq and afghan st afghanstan, i voted for our president because we were going to pull out and not send more troops in. guest: we're leaving afghanistan slowly. it's gradual but i think there will always be. i think the original plan was not to have zero presence there but light presence there eventually. of course we're not there yet, but president obama process is underway now where we're going to have fewer people in afghanistan. i don't think there was a plan to take everybody out at once. host: brenda, republican line? caller: good morning. i want you to please tell the ones that call in about the surplus back with bill clinton. it was a republican congress that saved us that money. that gave us that surplus. but it was also 9/11 came right after that surplus. get your facts straight. whenever you say anything. we do better when we have a republican congress with a democrat president. host: brenda in georgia. next up. rita on the line for independents. caller: good morning. host: good morning. go ahead. caller: i wanted to agree with some of the people talking about the a cuts as far as military bases information remember lands. however. i'm an independent. i do not belong to a political party. i do follow politics but i wondered why the push was back for the healthcare or they had to pass it immediately. nobody read the bill and if we had deficit then, why were we making new programs without money to pay for the things we already have? i understand people need healthcare. i think perhaps we could have tried for those that didn't have anything made some kind of program for them and then maybe you know, do it incrementally to everyone to be covered eventually. host: susan? guest: democrats passed a healthcare law almost solely without any help. they did it for two reasons. for a lot of reasons but two main reasons was that, there is a crisis in the country where there's so many millions of people with no access to medicare and they're raising the cost for everybody because they can't get primary care and don't have insurance. the second reason they felt the current system is unsustainable contributing to the deficit. if they came up with a big plan for everybody. and scrutiny of cost they would help bring down the co cost overtime. and in fact they said their program will cut billions of dollars for from the deficit overtime for. the democrats they felt it was a win/win. get healthcare for everybody and find a way to reduce the deficit. host: in the "washington post" this morning. talks of the twisters in alabama and throughout the south and in alabama town. federal aid and after thought. storm damage still sinking the. what if anything can congress do. will they be able to do when they come back to help alleviate some of the suffering there? guest: depends what the cost are. years ago when hurricane katrina struck and became a present right off the bat that was going to be massively expensive. congress to actually pass the supplemental spending bill that included money to pay for stuff in gulf coast and louisiana. this is a huge, huge disaster that it's possible that that may happen. it just depends if they feel they can handle it with the money they have. if they don't they'll come to congress and say we need more money and that will be inner serted in another spending bill more separately if it's turns out that much. congress at any time can pass a supplemental spending bill if they have to. host: do you think it's going to be harder to get a supplemental for tornadoes damage? ge guest sure. it would open up the door to putting in other thing this want passed and fighting over how much money needs on spent. any time there's a spending bill on the floor it's full of controversy. host: talking about this with susan. chief congressional correspondent are the washington exam per. ohio is next for the democrat line. go ahead. caller: my comment is about helping to save social security. and i believe that the cap on social security should be eliminated. i mean it's right now at about $160 thousand. so most americans pay social security on everything they earn but the athletes and ceos and everybody else that makes more than $160 thousand don't have to pay social security on the money they make above that. host: nolan we'll leave it there. guest: they're talking about that. social security has not been addressed by republicans or democrats in budgets. it's a real tough political issue especially with elections happening every two years. nobody wants to te touch that. the payroll issue though how much people are paying into the social security system is i think one area you think you might find change and i think they may at least propose raising that limit. that could be an area of agreement in terms of trying to bring more money in the system. host: jessica brady said democrats step up attacks over gas prices. tell us about that fight? guest: it's always back during the bush years democrats like to blame the high oil prices on the affiliation between bush and oil companies. bush being from texas and some of the oil company executives are always the viewpoints of them that republicans and oil companies are, you know, really in agreement on a lot of things where democrats want to take away the oil subsidies the oil companies and their never much in agreement. democrats want to move toward more less dependency on fossil fuels where republicans want to do more to boost domestic oil production. opposite ends here in terms of energy policy. you see this week republicans, got a couple of bills on the floor late in the week to try to boost offshore lease privates and drilling in the gulf. president obama put a moratorium after the bp oil spill. the republicans want to reverse that and get things going and speed up the leasing process to boost oil production where democrats want to move away fossil fuel and get to different types of energy and that's where the two sides are on it. this week, you'll see some movement on the oil subsidies with democrats trying to say are you going to back these tax subsidies while people are paying more than $4.00 at the pump. they're going to put republicans on the spot. host: last call from indiana. ellen, republican line? caller: yes. fact. on subsidies it's not the big oil companies. they were put in to help the small companies to start the drilling and find the oil. what it comes to reagan, the reason he spent so much money is he was increasing the military to stop communism and if you want to deal with healthcare go to health science institute of baltimore they have all the answers. ho host su host: susan? guest: interesting week this week. you'll see oil production and domestic oil production increases and moving their agenda along but i also think you'll see them dig into what they'll do two debt limit which is the really kind of importance agenda item that's going to dominate congress probably until july. it's going to be really interesting next few weeks on the hill. host: susan. thanks for being on our program. coming up a discussion on the 2012 presidential politics with two pollsters. one from the left and one from the right. but now a look at some of the week's news from eyes of political cartoonists. >> today from the last okay last festival of times books. cofound over reason magazine. his books include, private rights an public illusions the promise of liberty and the man without a hobby. we'll take your calls and e-mails live on c-span 2's book t.v. >> what i try to do is tell a story with visuals instead of words. i'm basically writing words with images. >> carol has won the award more than than any other journalist. >> we get to experience so many part of the human condition. >> she'll talk more about her craft tonight on c-span's q & a. download a podcast. one of our many signature programs vaavailable on-line. "washington journal" continues. host: for the next 45 minutes we'll talk 2012 can michael and matt. talk to us about the strength of president barack obama as we look towards 2012? >> he comes in with about 45 percent approval that's not great to be honest with you. by historical standards you've seen presidents with these numbers at this point elects and seen them lose if you look back to reagan he was about 40%. obama is right in the middle right now. shaky economy. slow recovery. a 50/50 chance at re-election. maybe better than that. >> numbers speak for themselves. lot of poling. i point you to the pole that showed 57 percent. i believe america is to be wrong track. i believe through a specific numbers, there's going to be really important for the 2012 election. right track. wrong track is obviously the job approval. those four numbers will tell us whether the president gets re-elected. host: to the front runners in the republican party and is there one person you think is going to burst out of the scene in very short order? >> very hard to say. it's the most wide open. and wide open republican primary in a generation. i would say there's probably a pack of three setting them self as part and i'll leave a fourth for a wild card. the three are mitt romney who is in some ways the front runner from having run last time. the former governor. tim from minnesota and i think governor mitch dams no, maniels indiana. it could be mike heck abbey. heck abbey. we're also excited about the opportunity to beat president obama. host: mike, does the white house favor running against any particular republican or is the strategy or are they going with a general strategy as apposed to something specific targeted towards what they think is the front runer? >> i think right now they worry about their own message. look at the field and see folks they would be more than happy to run against. michelle and a sarah palin and donald trump as all people they likely would be easily defeatable. with the rest of the crowd, you know i think to be honest i probably would put the height houses chances at under 50% if there were a stronger field of republicans. somebody strong may emerge. we're not seeing anybody with particular strong strength. host: presidential politics. that's what we're talking today. republican strategist. founder of the potomac strategist group. give us a call. (202) 737-0002 for democrats. republicans, (202) 737-0001. independents. (202) 628-0205. you can also send us messages via e-mail. cspan.org. reminder we're having problems with twitter this morning so if you want to send a message electronically send it to our e-mail address. michael, do you consider right now with the that this being may of 2011, that we're late in the campaign for candidate to get started late running for - if there's anyone that thinks about running in the democratic party or republicans for that matter. late or is this about right time for them to get? >> think the republican field is slow to get settled. i think last cycle we saw you didn't need to get in quite that early and certainly needed to raise money but at the end of the day. when a republican emerges they're not going to have problems r raising money. certainly you want to put your organization together and planning it out. host: matt is now the time to get in the fight? >> it's getting there. the first thing is the pole in august if you want to make a real run in iowa you have to be in the straw pole and can't get in that just a week before. you have to be organized. all 99 counties those folks expect you to be out there. we're getting to the point if you're not starting to do the things in terms of hiring consultants and donors to your team you're making your challenge more difficult in likely a field of 8-10 candy dates. is there a possibility you could have a late entry in the primary. september, october. somebody like a chris, cristy or paul ryan? sure it's possible but you have issues regarding ballot access because your missing deadlines. you know, i think if you're going to run a good organized campaign and want to try to compete in the early states and primaries across the country overtime get in here quick i think. host: first call from sheryl on the line for independents? caller: good morning. i have a question for the republican strategist. i was wondering with all we're seeing on t.v. lately why he didn't mention donald trump on the republican ticket. he made it clear that's how he would run and he can beat president obama. that's my question. thank you. host: matt? guest: he's not only a not serious he'll never be the republican nominee or the president of the united states. you know, polls right now are about name i.d.. donald trump is not a serious individual in terms of public policy in leading this country. i think he's filling the void right now. lot of candidates are not fully in. still exploring and keeping their heads down organizing raising money. but at the end of the day i hope he does not run and he may choose to for his own ego but he not a serious candidate. i know of no serious republican that would like him to be our nominee. host: akron, ohio. caller: i'd like to make a comment about donald trump running. a lot of people are saying that - you know - he's goofy and crazy and no one will ever vote for him. but i think one of the things we're really missing here is the true spirit of what he's doing. i think that here is a guy that doesn't need to be president and doesn't want to be president. he wants to help the country. he wants to give up four years of a very successful enjoyable life to be president because he doesn't like what he sees. i think the problem that we have here is that this government has failed more and more with the more of the advent of professional politicians. we have people that have really never had jobs, they have only been congressman and senators and what we need more of - i believe - is people like donald trump. although it may not be him, but people that are willing to step u and sacrifice four years to beacon congress man and senators and get rid of the professional politician. host: larry in ohio. michael, does the presence, let's say of donald trump, is that opening the doors you think to if not his candidacy, other people that want to model themselves after what trump has been saying politically? philosophically? >> i say there's an onn politics and perhaps in presidential politics for somebody with a strong business record. i don't think donald trump is that person. he bankrupted his own business so i don't think it's him. i think what he's trying to do is jump on the moment. i don't think he's really a berther. i think he's looking for away to get an extra headline in politics to see if he can take off. not sure what his ideology is. i hoped matt would say he was one of the front runners. it would be helpful. host: back to the phone calls. next call comes from california. mark on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: it's eureka, california. good morning, america. wanted to always say that. what i'd like to see about the field of field of candidates for the republican party. republican party thinks that the rich should pay less taxes. and i think that personally the people know that it's got to be shared sacrifice, not on the back of the lower income and middle income which is about gone, and i just wanted to say also that you forgot one budget. the people's budget. host: mark in eureka, california. we'll leave it there. matt? talk to us about march perception. >> tax the rich is a poll lar economic message. one that some people called for at different times in history. ultimately what you want is for the economy to grow. and so we're not seeing the level of economic growth today we should be seeing. we pointed to two specific things. g.d.p down to 3.1 percent. we're not seeing the kind of growth coming out of a recession we've seen in history. i would point all the viewers to an opportunity-op-ed. that looks at all the historical information and the average growth for american coming out of a recent. this economy is absolutely under performed in that sense. we're 8.4 percent. many states are in here in 10%. i don't understand if you raise taxes on the rich which includes a large number of individuals that file business as individuals. i don't see how raising taxes on employers a particular small business employers where 70 percent of jobs are created will help our economy grow. host: we're talking about the 2012 president sweepstakes. next up the new york on the line for independents. jared? caller: hello. i'm in new york. i'm an independent. member of the independent party in new york. i just want to say, i don't feel like i have any candidate in this - coming up. i mean obama is really a terrible disappointment, and on the other hand. republicans are total fraud. i think they're just bought and paid for by corporate. democrats are just rented. nobody is coming up with the obvious solutions to some of the issues. i mean - give me one? i work from outside a hospital for 25 years in patient as counts and five years for other hospitals and i'm on veteran's healthcare. it's pretty good. and it's cap tated services. it's not insurance. you don't get health insurance. at least in 2007 it was 68 percent per person cost of medicare and it was 60 percent of the per person cost of medicaid in new york state. more speciaperspective actuallyw york. but you get preppy comprehensive. if only with medicaid. start and tell the states you want medicaid. fine. government will even pick up the larger share of it but you have to offer services. host: michael, is there anybody you see on the horizon that speaks to his concerns? >> veteran's care. with regard. the republican budget plan. the ryan plan takes us in the opposite plan. move as way from head care and s toward as system that gives a voucher on a private insurance. it's not going to do anything to hold down costs. the private sector does not have a history of holding down the cost of healthcare. healthcare costs are rising and we're not doing anything to keep them in check. veterans care is how you might be able to do that. the move away from medicare and toward as system of private vouchers takes us in the private vouchers way. we'll see the average senior citizen picking up the costs. host: in the baltimore sun. the headline. palin is seen everywhere but iowa. she has almost no (in the swushl area. is this assign she'll not be a declared candidate for the presidency in 2012. >> has a very big decision to make. has a somewhat ancillary team that doesn't share they're thinking with a wide range of folks. i think she can get in as late as september or october and still be in the strong position. she has a tremendous support of evangelicals and home schoolers. she has to decide is the life she has an a king makeer in the republican party someone that's been able to success financially the way she had not in previous life is that life worth giving up for presidency. that you talk to 8-10 candidates and do you have a chance to realistically beat president barack obama. on the scale of republicans running. although i do like governor palin. i think she's more towards the bottom but at the top when it comes to the primary. ho host calls the potomac strategy group and said, matt should i get in the race? what would you tell her? >> there's a move on the right if you go back to the three candidates that set themselves apart. i ten enforcem don't think any themselves apart. there's an opportunity for her. we need to put forward the strongest candidate to win the general election. they need to be fiscal and social security conservative. and so i believe all of our candidates are. it's a very personal decision. >> absolute yes for me. one way or other we would like her to be part of the campaign. republican candidates seeking her endorsement. host: we want to show our viewers a poll done in april by the university of new hampshire. 2012 hypothetical match-ups. they show former governor mitt romney. 50-43 percent for president barack obama. 46, 42 with president barack obama out scoring heck abuckabh. back to the phones. carole on ltto carolltton, texas. caller: herman cane. you guys haven't talked toabout him and in term of taxing the rich for the democrats i was going to urge anybody listening to seasoned they're money to the department of treasury. they'll take your money and an apply it to the public debt. there you go. host: matt, talk to us about herman cane? >> he is a dynamic individual and should create excitement at some level. whenever he speaks people are very impressed. he's had a very serious business career. was ceo of godfather's pizza and leader of the national restaurants association. he's someone in the conservative community recognized auzion bold leader and dominant individual. he could find success in a place like iowa but he'll need like a slingshot to get to the second or first tear. y tier. you need to raise money to be active in states. money raising would be a question for him. host: lot of discussion in the previous weeks and months regarding the president and his berth certificate and how much information is released to the public and how much information the public is entitled to know and whether or not he's a le gate mate united states citizen. he talked about this at last night's white house correspondence dinner. let's look at what he said and then we'll get response from our two panelists. >> as some of you heard. the state of hawaii released my official, long form, birth certificate. hopefully, this puts all doubt to rest. but just int case there are an lingering questions, tonight, i'm prepared to go a step further. tonight, for the first time, i'm releasing my official rt bibirt video. now - i warn you - no one has seen this footage in 50 years. not even me. but let's take a look. ♪ [applause] oh, well. back to square one. i want to make clear to the fox news table, that was a joke. that was not my real birth video. that was a children's cartoon. they have the original long form version. host: mike. democratic strategist. obviouslying on theue obviously, how far duh! that go to put this to rest as far as president is concerned. >> this is great todayer for comedians but the serious thing is, honestly, if every republican is not willing to sit up and say this is not legitimate topic it's shameless. you should not be considered serious unless your saying this is not to be discussed it's absurd. host: he knows that the president is american citizen. romney. what about the other two front runner west talked about earlier and how much of a discussion topic do you think this will be as republicans move forward towards 2012. >> i agree with mike. this is a side show. it's a joke. if you look at it with any seriousness and honesty you know the president was born in the united states. i think what trump has done has been tremendously damaging to the brand of the republican party and our view of the independence. i agree with you. if you're serious candidate you need to say with absolute no question that you believe he is a u.s. citizen and is the right full president of the united states. i wrote an article three days ago explaining how i think it's very damage together the party. not just with independents but any minute we're spending about this we're not talking about jobs and spending and the economy. so, i do think the issue will reseed a bit. i don't under why the president waited essentially three years to release this. there's no doubt that trump has reached the mainstream media with his celebrity status. but any ways i am just praying that we're noting that we had to get to serious issues. host: tim from texas you're on the "washington journal". caller: good morning. two quick questions. do you believe, now this is for both of your guests there that any of the potential republican candidates will embrace the paul ryan plan that the dismantling of medicare and taxes for the rich. what does the embrace of donald trump, largely on the birth issue and then secondly on the issue of calling for the president's grades and he said, many occasions that the president i guess didn't deserve to get in harvard and did not get good grades despite all the evidence to the contrary. i wonder if the media has taken an i guess - i soft - had not interviewed him vigorously about his assertions that he sent people to hawaii knowing. when did he send them and where's he getting the evidence that the president didn't get the grades? host: tim. matt address the first half. i'd rather spend time. talking about serious proposal and less about something that blow hard donald trump says. the budget. the path of prosperity is a serious proposal. you've not seen them propose a serious proposal. second cut at the budget proposal for president barack obama is lower spending over 12 years the ryan plan does six or seven over the first 10-years. you know, i think we have to be specific with our language. first of all medicare is not a voucher but a support payment. there's a distinction. reality here is as currently as it stands. medicare will not exist as it does unless we do something. the choices are not between what we have today and what the big bad republicans are proposing but between the program that will bankrupt our country that will have to change or can we act now in a smart way without impacting people5.2people afr-re not trying to displan disma man care. the average person puts $150,000 into that program in their lifetime and take out $hoo thousand in their own lifetime. that not a sustainable path. host: gregory on the washington urin journal. caller: republican individuals responsible for the mortgages given to people and the banks that failed when you look at the ed rodg heads of. when you look at enron situation. they were republicans. and now, all of the off-shore loopholes and lack of the legal consequences. if ceo's and the moneys that they are being paid. the housing bubble and the fact that their busted and the major players and people responsible were republicans. . [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2010] host: our next call comes from charlotte, north carolina. caller: is there any chance the governor will run for president? guest: i think the question is one of denomination. in terms of running, he has been forthright saying he doesn't believe he's gite -- quite yet prepared to run for president. it is nice to see someone say that. i think if barack obama had been honest he would have admitted he was not either prepared to be president. we were talking about outsiders with business leadership, et cetera, and not career politicians, with one of the callers earlier. people are interested in harg the truth, even if it is unpleasant. a number of our states are facing serious budget deficits. governor chris christy has led the way. the governor has shown a lot of bold leadership in new jersey. do i think he could within -- win a primary? yes, i do. i think it would take a draft movement because he's been specific about not wanting to run for president in this cycle. it remains to be seen. host: any chance that a democratic is going to challenge the president for 2012? guest: it seems highly unlikely. there are no signs of it yet. there is no clamoring among the democratic -- among democrats right now. there are lower level support for a primary against obama than there was against clinton at this time in his re-election cycle. so i think not. as you mentioned, by the way, to the earlier point, you mentioned preparedness to be president, i don't think so, unless birthright is preparedness for president, if you want to talk about george w. bush. >> i think gas prices are $3.0. it is going to go well above $4 this summer. democrats proposing to end subsidies to the good -- big oil companies is an entirely liberal proposal of the past. we need to increase our domestic oil production. if you increase taxes, the more you tax something, the less of it you get. increasing taxes will include less production which leads to more foreign imports. you talk about off-shore oil companies in the gulf. increasing taxes is not going to increase production. it will not help anyone pay a lower price at the pump. >> miami, florida, carl on the line for democrats. you are on "washington journal." go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks to c-span. michael and matt, let's get real. the fact is, let's go back to the goldwater and bring it up to date to the present republican party. do you think with the devastations of all of these -- the tornados and various devastations in this country and how it affects the economy and then to see how it was presented to the republican party, and then age-wise, you take the stats, you say, ok, you guys from the rockfeller goldwater era, 50 years old up to the present, 70 years old, how are you going to convince you are a strategist? how are you going to convince them to go with negativity because i think the young people in the republican party see the time of day and republican party staffers. is it going to be the press, you need the press to assist you in what we call prop gantt gandia, because it is a done deal that -- sold, done deal that obama is going to win. quite naturally you have the support. you have to go to your republican party and present games to the public. host: carl, we will leave it there. matt? guest: what can you say to that? i don't know where to begin. he did say president obama would win re-election. i don't know anyone believes it is a certainty that he will win re-election. as i said, i believe there are four numbers that will be absolutely indicative of what his potential successors would be. and you would agree with me on these. right track, wrong track, approval number, the average price of a gallon of gas. these numbers -- and the national employment rate. so those numbers will tell us a lot. you will have a vibrant republican primary that will last quite a while, i think, that will go well beyond the early states. while it will start in the summer, it will start to set after labor day as it normally does. >> in our "news makers" program we have the republican party in new hampshire and iowa talking about what's going to be happening in their states coming up in the days and weeks ahead, and also on iowa and new hampshire's attempt to maintain their first in the nation caucus and this includes other states that want to move their primaries and caucusses earlier in the year as well. we will get response. how soon could it be? could we see an iowa walkous -- caucus sooner? >> we don't want to be wrapping christmas gifts and taking knocks at the door. >> i hold the chairman at his word that he is working with the consequences. the father of three kids are constantly reminding us of their acks. that's something we need to remind them of as well. >> new hampshire, florida, south carolina? >> it matters in the presidential candidates who have been thinking about where they are strong and where their path is to the nomination. i would agree with chairman strong from iowa, the the matter is not up for debate. trying to get a bigger piece of the action. those four states will be the first four states. our states will decide whether they are strong. host: does it matter to the democrats? do you read anything into this little in-fighting that's happening? guest: it actually matters a whole lot. those states are different in the way they look. you go 10 or 12 rounds in the primary, people get to know each other and sit through the caucusses, they have to be willing to sit there for hours and hours. it is a state based on organizing. new hampshire is a very independent-minded state where not unaffiliated members can vote on either side. sometimes you get the idea that new hampshire voters can say, it is your choice here. in south carolina, on the democratic side, you have a high african-american population there, so you have a completely different electorate on the republican side. so the order in which these states play matter a lot in terms of who is likely to win those early victories, which are not always determanitve but matter a lot. host: a reminder to our viewers and listeners that you can see the entire interview for "newsmakers" following this program on c-span at 10:00 a.m. and also at 6:00 p.m. caller, you are on the line. caller: quite frankly, i am one of those people that believes we desperately need a third party. i don't believe that either one is representing the solid middle class. engineers like myself, accountants, small business owners. to the democrats i say, acknowledge the failures of the stimulus package. i wrote senators, congressmen, the white house. you want to spend $78 -- $787 billion, build infrastructure. i heard on this program a democratic senator, congresswoman, saying every billion dollars is 33,000 jobs. if you do the math, that would have been 21 million jobs we would have created. instead all we got was aid to cities and towns which has pushed off the problem that we're having locally for a couple years. guest: look we were on a downward trend for economy when president obama first got there. sometimes it can be hard to measure. sometimes it can be hard to measure when you are losing 100,000 jobs a month. it is hard to claim victory on that. the reality is that is around the beginning of the improvement of an economy. >> our last call for our panel comes from lake charles, louisiana. kerry on our line for republicans. caller: i have a question. everybody has been bashing trump and saying, you know, you think he's a joke. i tell you what, he has some good ideas. nobody, the republican party nor the democratic party has talked about china. china is teering -- tearing us up. we lost 13,000 on the oil rigs. we haven't started redrilling that. obama hasn't done anything. he said well, you know, get green. host: matt, mr. trump has been talking a lot about china. guest: that's obviously the emerging bilateral relationship that's going to have the most impact on the future. the chinese economy overtakes the u.s. economy in the world. slam slapping an import on chinese products is a threat. i don't think it is likely to happen. there is no doubt the devaluation of their currency impacts trade and our economy. i don't think the chinese respond well to threats. certainly not from someone like donald trump. you mention he's filed bankruptcy three times. i suppose in our current economic state facing record-breaking deficits his personal experience with bankruptcy may be useful. apart from that, i don't think donald trump has good ideas. he's talked about seizing libyan oil. these are not ideas people should take seriously. host: in 2012 will we see a different congress? will it be the congress we saw before? guest: i think republicans are in a good place to benefit from redistricting in terms of the states where there is growth. we haven't seen final maps in the states where there is growth. you can't make a prediction on the house. democrats must win 25 seats. i suspect it would be a five or 10-seat gain. i think it is unlikely they will take the house back in the senate. republicans that have to pick up four seats. because of the math, i think republicans are likely to take the senate. host: michael same question to you. different congress, same congress? guest: on the senate side the map looks better for republicans. democrats want to recruit strong candidates and they have and they have run strong campaigns to hold onto the senate. the house, i think the natural movement would be a slight increase in the house, but i think redistricting mid gates that. many republicans control most of the maps where there are likely to be changes. i think democrats will pick up seats in the house, just looking at current trends, but not as many as you would think were we not in a redistricting year. host: michael bocian and matt wicoviack, thank you for being on "washington journal." up next, a discussion on mexico's drug war. >> coming up at noon eastern time c-span reairs topics that include the u.s. economy, presidential politics, conflicts in the middle east, and this week's tornado damage in the south. we begin at noon with "meet the press." host david gregory interviews new york mayor michael bloomberg. virginia governor bob mcdonald. marco rubio. and selingt myers on his white house correspondents dinner. on "this week" a discussion with paul ryan. news sunday begins at 2:00 p.m. chiss wallace welcomes michelle bachman, kent conrad, and republican senator lindsey graham, a member of the armed services committee. at 3:30, cnn's state of the union. candy crawley talks with john verasso of wyoming. also democratic congresswoman jane harmon then it is "face the nation." host bob seifert talks with john mccain. also alabama governor robert bentley. the five network tv talk shows brought to you as a public service by c-span. it begins at noon eastern time with "meet the press." 1:00 "this week." 2:00 "fox news sunday." at 4:00, "face the nation" from cbs. listen to them all on 90.1 f.m. in the washington, d.c. area. downloadedable as an iphone app or go online to c-span.org. >> i try to tell a story with visuals rather than words. >> carol guzy has won the award more than any other journalist. >> i think the great thing about being a photographer is that we get to experience the human condition on so many different levels. >> she'll talk more about her craft tonight on c-span's "q & a." it is one of our many signature programs at c-span.org/podcast. >> president obama has announced a number of changes to his national security team with leon panetta replacing robert gates and david petraeus to head the c.i.a. track their careers online at the c-span video library. search, watch, click, and share. it's washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. >> eric olson is with the wood row wilson international center for scholars. welcome to the program. >> thank you. host: we will be talking about mexico's drug war and the u.s.' role in that war for the next 30 minutes. you recently returned from mexico. who did you see and who did you talk to? guest: we were there to talk to the mexican police. they are a key strategy for the government for fighting organized crime, and we were there to do interviews, talk to officials, and talk to scholars and researchers to see what is happening to make the mexico police more modern, more successful, and hopefully more effective and successful. host: what are these scholars telling you about the war on drugs from their perspective? guest: well, you know, i think everybody recognizes that this is a long-term problem with no quick fixes. there is a growing sense of frustration that adds to the body count going up. there is not a lot of clear progress. now, there are areas, i have to say, where they have made some advances. again, the government is up against a well-organized, violent, powerful, series of organized crime groups. it is a challenge that any government would face. >> the state department issued last week a new warning for people living and traveling to mexico. when those warnings go out, are they heeded by the americans that they are aimed at? guest: well warnings are to allow people making decisions about travel where they should travel where they might not want to travel, where things are particularly hard and difficult and violent. this warning was an update to a warning they did a year ago. they expanded the areas where people consider they not go. there have been a number of bad incidents in new areas of mexico and hence the desire to update that warning. now, you ask if americans heed it, i would say in general people heed it, look at it. you know, there are always peel who choose to make their own decisions or ignore it or don't know about the warning. we have seen in the last year an increasing number of americans being killed in mexico. it is a warning that i think the state department takes seriously. host: look at a map showing the guidelines that the state department has issued in red. they defer travel to that particular state. in the stripes they defer travel to particular parts of these states. in the yellow, it says exercise caution. is the state department telling us absolutely don't go to these areas in red. if we do, are we taking our lives in our own hands? guest: there are some specific areas they recommend people don't even go. a couple states in particular. tamalitas and michocan have been extremely violent and the state authorities have difficulties keeping control. other areas are precautionary. they say don't travel on certain highways, especially overnight. there are reports of people being detained, car jackings, that kind of violence. they want to alert people they may want to think how they are traveling over those highways. >> eric olson is with the mexico institute at the wood row wilson international center for collars. we're talking about mexico's drug war and the u.s.' role in that war. if you want to ask us a question, give us a call. host: our first call comes from st. louis, missouri. pam on the line for democrats. caller: i just want to tell everyone that i am so proud that organizing for america has started their campaign. i'm so proud of the democrats calling up and blasting c-span people because organize for america -- host: pam we're talking about the drug war in mexico. and we're going to be moving on. you have authored a study. it says studies advance a low result. it says u.s. cooperation after two years of the obama administration. from your perspective, how has the u.s.' role in mexico's drug war changed since our administration's have changed? guest: well, in some significant ways, they have tornado the -- they have stayed the same. president calderon has acknowledged that both countries play a role in stopping the violence. they are trying to work collaboratively in dealing with this problem. the emphasis on the assistance that this was announced, often called the media initiative, for the city in mexico where it was announced, but the u.s. at that time was heavily focused on equipment, helicopters, airplanes technology, computer programs, that sort of thing. the obama administration shared the framework, but they have shifted the focus a little more toward investment in rural areas, strengthening the police, rethinking the border, and also investing more in what they call building resilient communities. that is, dealing with the social and economic underpinnings of this conflict. investing in youth employment and education, for example. host: next call comes from eddie on our line for independentents from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to make a quick comment. i tried calling my local representatives. i want to make the case for legal zation of marijuana. i feel if we cut off the demand for this drug that maybe the supply would decrease that's coming over the border. host: thank you for your call. your thoughts on what eddie had to say from legalizing marijuana and how it might affect the border war. caller: i -- guest: i would make two points. decreasing the demand for drugs has to be a starting point. both president bush and president obama acknowledged that demand for reduction in the united states is a starting point. after all, the cartels in mexico are killing each other over the rights or the ability to supply the u.s. market. if that market goes down, they are not as strong. legalization is an important debate to have in this country. i think sometimes, though, the favors in favor of legalization think it will somehow magically do away with organized crime in mexico. organized crime in mexico depends -- about 50% of its income comes from trafficking in drugs. another 50% more or less comes from other illegal activities. if you just legalize marijuana, you are legalizing actually a relatively small slice of their overall income. it will have an impact, presumably, but not the kind of quick fix that people in the united states sometimes think it will. host: our next caller on the line for republicans. caller: i heard about the call from legalization of marijuana. i happen to agree with that. we have 20 mill people that use marijuana in their home. they are not all tattooed teenagers with no tomorrow. they are law enforcement people. there are attorneys that use marijuana. we can't say who they are. but until you take the profit out of marijuana, people will still kill each other. people have witnessed this drug war for 40 years. millions of dollars spent with no results. it is time to let people like me grow for myself. host: i believe eric olson has addressed that. let's move on to indianapolis with steve on our line for democrats. caller: yes who are these people? there is no war on drugs. for 40 years we have been trying to -- i don't understand why is it a war on drugs? being shipped from america to mexico. host: what about his perception there is no war on drugs? guest: both countries, the united states in particular, have moved away from the rhetoric of "war on drugs." it is not a ground war. it is not something we would liken to what's going on to what is going on in afghanistan and iraq. they have tried to think about it in new and different ways. a public health problem, in some cases. a strategy of reducing the harm of drugs. you are never going to completely eradicate drugs or do away with drugs. we tried that with chom. there -- we tried that with alcohol. the notion of war on drugs doesn't fit well overall. that doesn't mean there is not a law enforcement component of going after organized crime and prosecuting people, imprisoning people, so on and so forth. but to think of it simply as a war gives it a wrong impression. host: our next caller comes from kansas. bill on our line for republicans. bill, are you there? ok. let's go to buche in mow -- butch in mobile, alabama. hello? we are here with eric from the wood row wilson international group of scholars. >> i have been in the -- i have been in charge of the research related to how the u.s. and mexico are working together to combat organized crime and drug trafficking in mexico. yeah, that's about the end product of those years of research. host: you mentioned the initiative to give $1.6 million to help fight mexican drug trafficking. it was in the fy-10 budget. the u.s. was the largest foreign investor in mexico in 2009 accounting for $6.4 billion. would it be more helpful to the mexican government to have a wider range of financial support and not just for the united states but a significant portion, 45% from the united states? guest: well 45% is about their direct investment in the companies and the economy. it is not specifically targeted to the media initiative. my sense is that the u.s. will continue to invest its official aid in supporting specific efforts to combat crime. host: our next call comes from jerry on our line for independentents in fort myers, florida. go ahead, jerry. caller: hi. what i'm asking is, don't you think a lot of this problem with the drugs is also the way of selling arms to these guys in mexico? because we have a problem with our corporations getting very greedy. upping -- you know, if we can't sell the arms and they can't cross the border like we see it is happening on a daily basis, then i think this drug problem will just go on forever. thank you. guest: the caller mentioned this issue. the issue of arms falling into the hands of organized crime in mexico is a serious one. we have done a lot of research on this issue. i think it is a very complicated issue because it gets entangled in second amendment rights in this country. there is no question that a large percentage of the weapons captured in mexico at crime scenes and then traced are traced back into the united states. we don't know exactly the percentage. a.t.f. talks about the majority. we feel it is the vast majority, well over 75%. the bottom line is, this is a big problem. guns, particularly semi-automatic weapons, bushmaster type weapons are being purchased in the united states and getting back in the hands of organized crime. they use them to kill each other, but unfortunately a lot of innocent people are killed as well. this is a key point in the relationship. mexico is now exploring the possibility of suing u.s. gun makers for their role in this conflict and the violence in mexico. they haven't decided to. they have contracted two companies, a lawfirm and an investigative firm in the united states to begin the process to look at whether legally they could try to hold those gun makers accountable. host: where would this be adjudicated? guest: in the united states. caller: i think the government is really blackmailing the u.s. he talks about us rebuilding their cities, but the problem in mexico is the same as with iraq and the others. we are overseers. we sply -- supply, and i think we should go into mexico. that would help. the other thing is that america is not ready for legalizing marijuana because we're not intelligent enough. if you go to highlands, they are on a higher level of what should be done. host: we'll leave it there. eric olson. guest: i hear people talk about going into mexico. i'm a little concerned about that. i don't know what that means exactly. if what is meant by "going into mexico "means invading mexico, i think that would be a disastrous decision. we haven't been very successful in other parts of the world in invasions, so that's probably not the world -- way to go. if what's meant by "going into mexico" is to have u.s. officials and u.s. law enforcement work alongside their mexican counterparts to strengthen and help their ability to fight organized crime. that is happening. we could have a discussion about how much more that could happen. by some estimates there are as many as 600 u.s. law enforcement and other officials in mexico working with their mexican counterparts to combat organized crime. that's probably a much healthier realistic way for the u.s. to be engaged. not just go in, force our way in, invade. that is obviously not something that's going to be very helpful. >> brad is on the line from rosarito beach, mexico. brad, are you there? caller: good morning. host: where is rosarito beach? caller: 26 miles south of san diego. host: is it near tijuana? caller: it is near tijuana. caller: it is near tijuana. america is broke because of the failed war on drugs. the failed war on drugs destroyed america. it is starting to destroy this beautiful country, too. host: what do you see the war on drugs has failed? caller: mexico has gone from a boon town to a ghost town. these people down here are suffering. all because of that stupid little plant. host: do you live down there? caller:tlees. i live off licensing fees through a patent i own. i'm resired. -- rougm retired. host: we'll leave it there. guest: you have to define what you mean by "war on drugs." that's a complicated thing. i think the estimates are between $40 billion and $50 billion in combating drug trafficking from latin america. looking at it in the big picture, one would say it hasn't been particularly successful. we spent a lot of money, and t tept the united states contins to consume drugs more than any other country in the world. i think there has to be some real serious rethinking about the sfratty -- strategy, how one tries to combat drugs through public health. are there innovative ways of doing it? host: chad, you are on "washington journalu caller: it seems america has not learned anything from prohibition of alct we are trying to prohibit all drugs. you cannot prohibit anything. any timetleou prohibit somethin, you create a black market for it, andtleou release all contro of it. it is foolish what we're doing. host: it see"wa, eric olson, tht from a lot of the calls is that a lot of this is over druy, an weapons moving bailli and forth across the border. you think we should rethink this and not think of it necessarily as a war. yet, there is still that perception out there. how do we change that perception? guest: i think that is a challenge. i agree that drug production, particularly in the andes region, marijuana, are a big part of this problem. it is notad, ust about druy, . it is about a lot of other things. it is in trafficking in people, humans, migrants, extortion. all manner of organized crime, illegal activity. the question becomes, how do you combat organized crime, notad, t how do you stop drug traffickers from moving marijuana from pol t a to point b? host: senators john mccain and john kile from arizona and arinatna have intro pced the border security act of 2011. according to this release by senator ming main's office, an enhanced fully paid for 10-point comprehensive border security plan to stop the smuggling and violent activity along the borders of mexico, arinatna, texas, cal -- california, and new mexico. how might this change things along the border between the u.s. and mexico? guest: i think a lot of the focus has been on the border. it is much more difficult for the united states to figure out how it is going to stop the problem inside mexico or in central america. so the focus becomes the bordeao there are sort of kind of two sides to this debate. the senators have presented one elon, ent of ider focused on th security elements of it, more personnel, more tecm mology on the border. i think the obama administration has gone along with that to a large extent, but they have also talked about what they call a 21st century border wheretleou think less about the border as a line in the sand that has to be crossed and decentralized the border in so far as you put inpbeection stations for truill t for instance, inland in an isolated way and then certify thon, and secure them a secure passage route. iftleou look only at the border it is hay, to figure out how u will stop everything at that bordeapo it is much more complex than that. host: forest hilelo west virginia. caller: we are talking about the drug violence and the violezed in mexico and how they are getting arms. the "politico" friday or ö baturwny morning reported that the a.t.f. has sent 18,000 arms, ngun t whatevertleou want to call them trying to do its thing. ped 1ö, they have d- ba0 of these weapons into mexico. now meanwhile, president obama and the rest of them uctithere are talking about how awful this violence is. welelo we'read, ust fueling iarm host: eric olson. guest: i should say i was in mexico friwny so i didn't see the specific article he is referring to. or lan3 ba see"wa high to me. what was talked about before is 1,800 weapons. the gentlon, an is recovering t an undercover sting operation that the bureau of alcohomorand firearms considered fast and furious. the thinking was to allow them to sell some illegally and trace how illegal sales were making their way to mexico. initially they had no intention of allowing them to get to mexico. somehow, and i don't profess to know exactly, it ended up eluding toarmsle h3 ba, or this ngentlon, an referred to 18,000 i find it hard to believe it was that many, nibertheles t they allowed some guns to quote, unquote, walk as a way to trace the prf kess of trafficking weapons. again, the bottom line i t u.s. weapons are falling into the hands of mexican organized crime. i think it would be a mistake to see if they are coming from the a.. t. t that would be the case. those weapons in the hands of organized crime have led to historically high levels of violence in mexico. caller: i had a call for mapo olson. i saw his documentary. i can't recall the show. entary had aad, ournalist who was being escorted from mexican federales into an area where the cartels actually had -- it looked like a huge corporation that was actually growing marijuana. the documentary related to how the farmers in mexicop they were kind of forced to actually grow marij fena because that was the on y cash crop that was bringig in the mark-up. i think they were selling to the cartels at about a $30 a pound where it was anywhere from $n to $ticl500. i was wondering how they would handle the farmers' sit fetion. the people in mexico, it seems they are forced, because that's the croctithey are selling, and two, when the federales were leading journalists into this area, thwou stopped and said, w go no further. so i'm not saying the federales are corrupt, they seem more squared than anything. nguest: the caller pol nts out couple important parts of this whole dilemma or crisi t iftleou will. one i t obviously, there are poor, marginalized people who are b thng caught up in this sometimes unwittingly. sometimes they are forced into iarm sometimes they are rural farmers who produce marij fena. host: caller, you are on the air. caller: my question is, nonrelated to the first one, is what is the united states/mexico doing to protect u.s. citizens that might be traveling or residing in mexico at this time. host: richard in ralleigh. guest: whether they are terrorists, that is a designation the secretary of state would have to make. she has not indicated any interest or desire to do that thus far. but there is an initiative in congress and the house and congress mike mccall to designate the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. that's an unresolved issue. there are probably pros and cons to whether you would consider them terrorists or not. they are obviously very different from al-qaeda or other terrorist organizations we know of. the u.s. does have means at its disposal to go at them in another way. so that's an unresolved issue. >> next call from washington. go ahead. caller: i am so excited you are letting the public in the united states know what's going on. you must know that my family and i were kidnapped two days ago by a taxicab driver in one of the most safest tourist spots known to america, cancun, mexico. we were visiting cancun, we took a boat ride to cozumel. they wouldn't take us back to the hotel room. it is getting really bad in mexico. host: how did you get out of this? caller: we pretended we had contacted the public relations manager at the la plya -- playa hotel. i'm a federal agent in america and not even i was safe with my family. guest: i'm sorry. this must have been very, very difficult for you. it sounds like nobody was hurt. many times that's unfortunately the tragic outcome. according to the state department, there is no suggestion that organized crime is intentionally singling out americans because of their nagsnalt. but it is very clear in some tourist areas, accupulco is another area where there has been crime and violence and americans do become victims of that crime. whether unintentionally or in this case, trying to kidnap and get some -- the previous caller had asked about what the u.s. does to keep people safe in mexico. you know, the warning that we were talking about, the travel warning at the beginning is an element so that americans can make their own informed decision about where they travel, and they are quite clear about the dangers and risks of traveling in some of those areas. it is impossible for the u.s. to provide individual security to every american traveling to mexico. it is the number one destination for americans with foreign travel. it is a huge number. by and large people are safe and secure when they go to mexico. it's a real issue, and people should be wise to it. host: san diego, california. caller: i this is it is obvious the cartel and the government are one and the same. also, we ought to start the death penalty for anyone smuggling drugs into the country. host: eric olson. guest: there are clear cages of where organized crime has penetrated. local governments, state governments, and on occasion state governments. i think one has to be careful not to paint with too broad of a brush here and say the entire government is corrupt or is in cahoots with the cartel. the highest level of the mexican government i believe are personally committed to combating organized crime. there are a lot of good people in mexico. i think it would be an -- a mistake to overstate these problems. people desire to put an end to this. at the same time one has to acknowledge that corruption and penetration of state, local, and federal authorities is something organized crime does. host: let's go to spokane, washington on our line for independentents. go ahead. joe? caller: mr. olson, i think you are relying on the ignorant population that lives in america and not keeping track of this so-called war. i don't think it is a war. 30 years ago i think we lost this war. going back to your gun issue, because i don't have that much time before i get cut off, senator grassley is conducting an investigation about the a.t.f. sending arms to mexico to the cartels. this is stonewalling. i think you pick and choose the information you release to the public. further more you have the d.e.a., a.t.f., and any drug enforcement agency corrupt, just like you have former agents. the drugs are getting in because you have corruption. host: john on our lines in port charlotte. caller: i completely agree with the previous caller. i question the credibility of the guest that you have on today, especially with regard to firearms. most of the weapons used by the drug cartel are automatic weapons which are extremely difficult to obtain in the united states. so i think most of the weapons that are used are stolen from mexican authorities, mexican police, and so on, and police that have become members of the gangs. those weapons are smuggled out, but not most. host: eric olson, your response. guest: let me be clear. the weapons that have been captured and traced through the e-trace system which is an official system that the a.t.f. has to look where the sales occurred, the vast majority of those are triss -- traced back to the united states and mostly to gun shows, pawn shops, and other gun stores that sell them. i know that is not a popular perspective. i understand that. but one has to guide ones self by the actual evidence, and that is based on information from the a.t.f. now, senator grassley has gup to ask some serious -- begun to ask some serious questions of a.t.f. for their botching of the fast and furious operation. the justice department and attorney general holder has initiated its own independent investigation. we don't know the outcomes yet of those investigations. i think they are very important ones. obviously if a.t.f. violated the law or did anything that was unethical, they should probably be held accountable. host: the democrats line. caller: i would like to ask you one question. you know what the facts are. congress allocates money for the drug war, $46 billion. what i'd like to know is how much of that goes to defense contractors in our country for profit? that's where it really goes. host: mr. olson? guest: i don't know the exact breakdown. the gentleman is partly correct. a certain percentage of it goes to contractors. that are primarily focused on

Related Keywords

Rosarito , Sinaloa , Mexico , Louisiana , United States , Alabama , Chad , Port Charlotte , Florida , Akron , Ohio , Minnesota , China , California , Portugal , San Diego , New Mexico , Washington , District Of Columbia , Elon , West Virginia , Charlotte , North Carolina , Arizona , Netherlands , South Carolina , Wyoming , An King , Anhui , Iowa , Hollywood , Libya , South Korea , Spain , Chicago , Illinois , Fort Myers , New York , Japan , New Hampshire , Germany , Missouri , Texas , Afghanistan , Atlanta , Georgia , Kentucky , Indiana , Virginia , Michigan , Lake Charles , Mississippi , Oklahoma , Tennessee , Iraq , New Jersey , Tijuana , Baja California , Maryland , North Korea , Pennsylvania , Kansas , Capitol Hill , France , Italy , Hawaii , Americans , America , Mexican , Afghan , French , American , Holland , Chinese , Libyan , Jason Leigh , Marco Rubio , Chris Christy , Seth Myers , Kent Conrad , John Kile , Bob Mcdonald , Michael Bloomberg , Laurie Montgomery , Gail King , Michelle Bachman , Steve Bush , David Petraeus , Stephen Dennis , David Gregory , Paul Rudd , Im Chris Wallace , Eric Olson , Bob Macdonald , Jessica Brady , Tom Hartmann , Paul Ryan , John Mccain , Woodrow Wilson , Bob Seifert , Mapo Olson , Baltimore Sun , Tim Geithner , John Lamm , John Parker , Harry Reid , Jane Harmon , Barack Obama , Lindsey Graham , George W Bush , Robert Bentley , Eric Olsen , Sarah Palin ,